Is it morally wrong to endanger one's health and that of others?

[Bradski]

Do you believe it is morally wrong for persons who smoke, take illegal drugs or practise unnatural sex to live in close daily contact with children?

If they smoked in front of the children then there’d be a good argument to consider that wrong. If the drugs they took (illegal or not) impaired their ability to look after children in their care, then that would be wrong. If they had any type of sex in front of children, then I’d consider that wrong.

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

Are there ever any good reasons for endangering:

1. One’s own health?
2. The health of others?
3. Everyone’s health?

Yes, there are good reasons. The Apostles endangered their lives by preaching the Gospel and those who followed them likewise put their lives in danger. Sometimes when doing the right thing we end up putting our loved ones in danger even though this may not be intended, it happens. This does not mean we shouldn’t have done the right thing. Christ willfully laid down His life to do the will of the Father.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, there are good reasons. The Apostles endangered their lives by preaching the Gospel and those who followed them likewise put their lives in danger. Sometimes when doing the right thing we end up putting our loved ones in danger even though this may not be intended, it happens. This does not mean we shouldn’t have done the right thing. Christ willfully laid down His life to do the will of the Father.

Welcome to the forum, Johnny, with your excellent response!

 

[tonyrey]

If they smoked in front of the children then there’d be a good argument to consider that wrong. If the drugs they took (illegal or not) impaired their ability to look after children in their care, then that would be wrong. If they had any type of sex in front of children, then I’d consider that wrong.

And if they practise anal sex privately and habitually?

 

[Bradski]

And if they practise anal sex privately and habitually?

I’ve no interest in what people do in private. If I had someone around to look after my kids then I wouldn’t feel it necessary to ask them what type of sex they preferred.

Perhaps the last time that you hired a baby sitter you asked her if she enjoyed anal sex on a regular basis. I mean, if you think it’s a concern then surely you’d have to.

Just out of curiosity, do you find you get slapped a lot by women? Or punched out by their partners?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve no interest in what people do in private. If I had someone around to look after my kids then I wouldn’t feel it necessary to ask them what type of sex they preferred…

Even though some forms of sex are far more conducive to contracting contagious diseases…

 

[Bradski]

Even though some forms of sex are far more conducive to contracting contagious diseases…

If anyone wants to baby sit my kids, I would quite reasonably expect them not to have anything that they could pass on to my kids.

Again, would you quizz a potential baby sitter if she enjoyed regular anal sex? if not, then we’re pretty much in agreement on this.

 

[tonyrey]

*Even though some forms of sex are far more conducive to contracting contagious diseases…
*

A responsible parent would find out whether the prospective baby-sitter is likely to expose the children to the risk of any form of disease.

The responsibility is obviously far greater when children are being adopted.

 

[Bradski]

A responsible parent would find out whether the prospective baby-sitter is likely to expose the children to the risk of any form of disease.

As I said, it appears we agree on this.

The responsibility is obviously far greater when children are being adopted.

I’m sorry, you’re not being clear (although we can all see where you’re trying to go with this). Who’s responsibility is far greater when a child is being adapoted?

If it’s the person who is putting the child up for adoption then he or she would need to be sure that the prospective parents were living in a stable, loving environment and would have the child’s best interests at heart.

If it’s the prospective parents, then they’d have a responsibility to care and protect the child and not to do anything that could cause harm to him or her.

In both cases one might consider the criteria to be mostly fullfilled if the two parents were, I don’t know, happily married?

What else do you think we might need to know about them? Do you think the type of sex they might have would be worth knowing? If you were in charge of putting the child out for adoption, would you ask the prospective couple if they have anal sex?

 

[tonyrey]

A responsible parent would find out whether the prospective baby-sitter is likely to expose the children to the risk of any form of disease.

The responsibility is obviously far greater when children are being adopted.

I’m sorry, you’re not being clear (although we can all see where you’re trying to go with this). Whose responsibility is far greater when a child is being adopted?

If it’s the person who is putting the child up for adoption then he or she would need to be sure that the prospective parents were living in a stable, loving environment and would have the child’s best interests at heart.

If it’s the prospective parents, then they’d have a responsibility to care and protect the child and not to do anything that could cause harm to him or her.

In both cases one might consider the criteria to be mostly fullfilled if the two parents were, I don’t know, happily married?

What else do you think we might need to know about them? Do you think the type of sex they might have would be worth knowing? If you were in charge of putting the child out for adoption, would you ask the prospective couple if they have anal sex?

It is the responsibility of everyone who is aware that the children are being adopted. The risk of exposing them to the risk of any form of disease - including the practice of anal sex - is a sufficient reason for warning everyone who is concerned with their adoption.

 

[Bradski]

The risk of exposing them to the risk of any form of disease - including the practice of anal sex - is a sufficient reason for warning everyone who is concerned with their adoption.

So yet again, would you ask any couple who would like to adopt a child if they indulged in anal sex?

 

[tonyrey]

The risk of exposing them to the risk of any form of disease - including the practice of anal sex - is a sufficient reason for warning everyone who is concerned with their adoption.

If I had any influence on the selection of the couple I would certainly investigate their beliefs, values and life style. Not to do so would be morally irresponsible.

NB The issue is not whether I would ask the couple intimate questions - which they might not answer truthfully - but whether it is morally wrong to cause or allow anyone’s health to be endangered.

 

[Fairwinds]

Are they ever morally justified in doing so? If so when?

you’re asking if soldiers are ever morally justified in risking life?

seriously???

 

[Fairwinds]

Are there ever any good reasons for endangering:

1. One’s own health?
2. The health of others?
3. Everyone’s health?

getting out of bed entails risk. are you asking if risk can be reasonable or are you actually saying that no risk may ever be taken?

whether a risk is reasonable or not is a fact-based question, obviously, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From the perspective of Catholic teaching, there are times when endangering your own health and the health of others is morally licit. Christianity subordinates everything to the ultimate good, which is life eternal. Consequently, there are times when endangerment of health is more conducive to the attainment of eternal life.

Consequently, Holy Scripture teaches in Matt 5:30 “And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell.”

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Are there ever any good reasons for endangering:

1. One’s own health?
2. The health of others?
3. Everyone’s health?

Sure, gluttony is never good for ones health and there are a lot of overweight people whose health issues are solely due to overeating or continuously eating the wrong foods.

There have been well publicised cases of people knowingly infecting others with AIDS.

We now know that prolonged secondary inhalation of cigarette smoke can affect the health of a bystander who is a non-smoker. We have had a few cases go before the courts here in Australia wrt non-smoking bartenders contracting mouth, throat, lung and/or neck cancer.

We have companies who pollute water sources or food sources for entire villages, towns and cities.

A reason to endanger your own health would be to protect your loved ones or sometimes even strangers. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for another. We’ve all read stories of the man who drowned while saving a child or the soldier who threw himself on a grenade so that only he was taken and not his mates.

In WWII they endangered the health of the entire population of Hiroshima when they dropped the atomic bomb because they wanted to make a statement to Japan and Germany and anyone else who would want to be an enemy to the Allied forces. These are difficult decisions to make and with hindsight many condemn them but maybe they do not understand the nature of war.

 

[Fairwinds]

…In WWII they endangered the health of the entire population of Hiroshima when they dropped the atomic bomb because they wanted to make a statement to Japan and Germany and anyone else who would want to be an enemy to the Allied forces. These are difficult decisions to make and with hindsight many condemn them but maybe they do not understand the nature of war.]

for the record, this is an oversimplification and a misstatement.

Historical ProTip: Germany had already surrendered.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

for the record, this is an oversimplification and a misstatement.

Historical ProTip: Germany had already surrendered.

Did it not endanger the health of the entire population? That is the OP’s question and I answered it. It didn’t matter if Germany had already surrendered, they were sending Germany and its friends a clear message should they think about starting a war again in the future. Germany obviously didn’t learn from WWI it was the aggressor then and it was also the aggressor in WWII.

 

[devoutchristian]

Sure, gluttony is never good for ones health and there are a lot of overweight people whose health issues are solely due to overeating or continuously eating the wrong foods.

There have been well publicised cases of people knowingly infecting others with AIDS.

We now know that prolonged secondary inhalation of cigarette smoke can affect the health of a bystander who is a non-smoker. We have had a few cases go before the courts here in Australia wrt non-smoking bartenders contracting mouth, throat, lung and/or neck cancer.

We have companies who pollute water sources or food sources for entire villages, towns and cities.

A reason to endanger your own health would be to protect your loved ones or sometimes even strangers. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for another. We’ve all read stories of the man who drowned while saving a child or the soldier who threw himself on a grenade so that only he was taken and not his mates.

In WWII they endangered the health of the entire population of Hiroshima when they dropped the atomic bomb because they wanted to make a statement to Japan and Germany and anyone else who would want to be an enemy to the Allied forces. These are difficult decisions to make and with hindsight many condemn them but maybe they do not understand the nature of war.

So to be clear, you support the mass murder of civilians?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

So to be clear, you support the mass murder of civilians?

No, you said that. I said the powers that made the decision to drop the Atomic bombs had already decided that the it was worth it to provide security for their citizens and country and their Allies. The Japanese military had a policy of never surrendering. The military and the citizens viewed their Emperor has a virtual God. They would have gladly died for him. Even after the first Atomic bomb was dropped they didn’t surrender.

Obviously some would disagree with their actions but that was one of their considerations, that the safety and security of their citizens and Allied country’s citizens outweighed the safety and security of Japanese citizens.

I know it’s ugly but that is war. It’s a dirty dirty business and I speak from personal experience.

It’s okay with hindsight looking through rose tinted glasses to say it was the wrong decision but it was one which had to be made and they thought it to be the right one for the situation.