Is it OK to kill an innocent person to bring about a higher good?

[Peter_Dawson]

This is why Christ blew up at Peter shortly after the “Your are Peter and upon this rock” verses.

21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Matthew 16:21-23.

 

[o_mlly]

Had Christ only done that, there would be no grace.

Do you have a theological argument to support that claim?

If God intended the existence of grace to be dependent on and subsequent to the physical death of Jesus Christ, then Christ would not have been born; “Hail Mary, full of grace …”.

Absent grace, Mary could not have done God’s will. Fortunately, she was conceived immaculately full of sanctifying grace.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[thistle]

If I am not on the boat:
-volunteers should be called for to sacrifice themselves.
-if no-one volunteers, just kill a random person(except the captain) to save the 10.

If I am on the boat:
-I ask for a painless death - to be shot in the head.

I see that a lot of people are avoiding the dilemma by going “outside the box” as the OP put it, e.g. suggesting that they could swim to shore.

to me, **the most important thing is to save the most amout of people **(10).

Not if it means doing an evil to achieve that!!

So you were found out and changed your religion. First it was Shinto which we all knew you had no clue about so now you changed it to Juche (North Korean State philosophy). Why can’t you be honest with us and tell us you simply don’t believe in anything!!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Killing the person would really be a waste. Better to chop off one limb at a time and use it as a food source. As long as the person stays alive then the meat will be nice and fresh.

On second thought, I’m suddenly tempted to change my position. cocks pistol

Anyone care to persuade me? -_-;;

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t believe it is ever ok to kill an innocent person. To do so would be murder in every instance. At least that’s what I believe. Of course, I could be wrong too.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t believe it is ever ok to kill an innocent person. To do so would be murder in every instance. At least that’s what I believe. Of course, I could be wrong too.

Keyword there though would be “innocent”. What if one them turns out to be a serial rapist who stowed away on the ship during his run from the law?

 

[Erich]

From Conservapedia:

**Fallacies of the Lifeboat Problem **
There are several fallacies to lifeboat ethics, or the lifeboat problem. These include the following hidden flaws:

• the future is never known with the degree of certainty required by the problem. There is, for example, a real chance that the lifeboat will hold more, or that help will arrive, or that people will volunteer to leave the boat, or that other solutions will be found by ingenuity or prayer.

• no one is likely to be in the situation described, any more than it is likely that a UFO will land in 5 minutes and demand a parent to choose which child will be taken away by it.[1] It’s silly to speculate on a scenario that will never happen.

• a shortage of lifeboat space is due to the negligence of someone: the captain, the shipowner, or someone else. There is no shortage of lifeboat materials and supplies in the world that require this scenario to occur.

• it is unlikely that too few people would volunteer to leave the boat. When the Titanic sunk, men volunteered to give lifeboat space to women and children, for example, and there was no ethical dilemma.

**Biblical Solution
** There is a passage in the Gospels that suggests that a lack of faith is the cause of the dilemma, and greater faith is the solution:[2]
Then Jesus got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!”

 

[Contarini]

Well wait. Is it OK to commit suicide to bring about a higher good? I thought that suicide was wrong? Are you not committing suicide if you agree to jump in the water? If you are collectively agreeing that on drawing lots, one person will jump in the water, then are you not going along with agreeing to the suicide of that one person? Or are there exceptions?

It’s not suicide, for the same reason that even pushing someone out of the boat is not on the same level as shooting them (but obviously the latter is a problem because the person has not given his/her consent). You don’t want to die. You will use any shark survival skills you know to stay out of the way of the sharks. You will pray for a miracle or at least an interposition of Divine Providence (like the shoal of tuna someone else mentioned). Sharks, from what I’ve read, behave very oddly and unpredictably, and it’s always possible that they will decide to leave you alone, however unlikely this may be.

There is nothing wrong with exposing yourself to likely or even (barring a miracle) certain death in order to save others. It’s even OK to jump in front of a bullet to save someone else, right? The point is that you are not trying to die but rather to save someone else, with your death being the unfortunate but likely side effect.

Edwin

 

[wasmit]

Not if it means doing an evil to achieve that!!

Why so? Surely the most desirable outcome is to save 10 people?

So you were found out and changed your religion. First it was Shinto which we all knew you had no clue about so now you changed it to Juche (North Korean State philosophy). Why can’t you be honest with us and tell us you simply don’t believe in anything!!

may the eternal wisdom of the Great Leader be bestowed upon you.

 

[LumenGent]

I disagree. Jesus explicitly stated that the greatest love is to lay down one’s life for another, and He willingly did it. If someone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will be shark fodder, yet, he is doing this as an act of love for the others on the boat, he is not intending his survival, but death for the benefit of the others. Jesus didn’t intend to survive the cross - He intended to die. Would you characterize His crucifixion as suicide?

I understand what you are saying by “intent to survive,” but that becomes clouded if the intent is that “others survive”.

That isn’t how Moral issues are determined. In this hypothetical scenario, the principle of the ‘Double Effect’ applies and my response is in defence of this Principle. One has a Moral obligation to do everything they naturally can in order to survive, if you do everything you naturally can and you die in that process, you still “Have layed down your life for others”.

 

[Newbie2]

God is governed by His Own rules. We were only made “in His image” and “in His likeness.” We aren’t God photocopies. So, our rules differ.

When God created us to engage in a love relationship with Him here and in Heaven, the logic which is “in and of God” required that we be free to walk away from Him. However, innate in that design is, (temptation + free will) x 0 grace = failure every time. That’s the lesson of the story of Adam and Eve. However, God’s Own perfect justice functionally says, “NO! NO ONE GETS PENNIES FROM HEAVEN! SOMEONE HAS GOT TO PAY FOR THAT SAVING GRACE!” God the Son functionally said, “I WILL! I’LL PAY!” God the Father functionally said, “I LOVINGLY ACCEPT YOUR OFFER, AND LKOVINGLY OFFER YOU TO SUFFER AND DIE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR SAVING GRACE EXACTED BY OUR OWN JUSTICE.”

As a consequence, Christ was born to die.

I think you misunderstood my question. I was fishing for the answer below:

Suicide refers to “despair”, and is the supreme act of selfishness. The scenario on this thread refers to selflessness and sacrifice, and is the greatest act of love, according to Jesus.

 

[mark_a]

And the water around you is infested with hungry man eating sharks, so the first person to leave the lifeboat for the water will surely die.

Since the water is infested with man-eating shrarks, I’d try to get one of the women to get in the water and hang on to the side.

 

[o_mlly]

…He intended to die. Would you characterize His crucifixion as suicide?

I understand what you are saying by “intent to survive,” but that becomes clouded if the intent is that “others survive”.

As to the OP, since killing an innocent person is an intrinsic evil and the act of disordered will, the Catholic answer to the original post is clearly – No.

The topic has morphed in relation to our Savior to: Is it OK to accept death to bring about a higher good? The morality issue now focuses on the victim instead of the executioner. I believe Jesus, as he explained to Pilate, came to testify to the Truth and, as we pray each day in our Confession of Faith, “He freely accepted death.” This was clearly his intention; not to die but to do the Father’s will and profess the Truth.

Peter suggests He saves His life instead of following the Father’s will. Jesus rebukes Peter for his suggestion reminding him that His testimony, the good news, is the very reason He became incarnate.

God cannot be the source of any evil and He is the source of all that is good. (“All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit,” [EP III].) Intending one’s own death is an evil. So we may not say that Jesus intended to die. However, accepting death for the sake of others, as Jesus taught us, is the greatest act of charity. The difference in interpreting Jesus’ attitude, I think, is not subtle but crucial in understanding Catholic soteriology.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As an abstract rule, you are correct. However, we are in a hypothetical in which the act is defined – pushing him off the lifeboat – which is not an intrinsically evil act. Therefore, the morality of the act – good or evil – is determined by its effects (objects), intent and circumstances.

That one effect of the act is the saving of human life is sufficient to determine the act potentially good. That the good effect outweighs the bad effect is sufficient to retain the potential of a goodness of the act. That the actor intends the good effect is sufficient to determine the act, in fact, morally good.

Peace,
O’Malley

Neither is pulling a trigger evil - but it can still be a capital crime, because its moral character is defined not in isolation, but as one of a complex of acts. The pushing in this case involves pushing another human being to his death - not a mere giving of impetus to the body of that of that living person, but an impetus which leads from the relative safety of a lifeboat or raft to what may reasonably be regarded as the danger of a sea in which sharks are present. The good intention to save many lives by acting so as to kill one person does not “contaminate” the killing with its goodness - the pushing into the sea of another human being remains a bad human act, & an act of unjustifiable homicide. If the pushed person were near to death, or had volunteered, that would lessen, but not cancel, the evil of the bad act.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

God is governed by His Own rules. We were only made “in His image” and “in His likeness.” We aren’t God photocopies. So, our rules differ.

When God created us to engage in a love relationship with Him here and in Heaven, the logic which is “in and of God” required that we be free to walk away from Him. However, innate in that design is, (temptation + free will) x 0 grace = failure every time. That’s the lesson of the story of Adam and Eve. However, God’s Own perfect justice functionally says, “NO! NO ONE GETS PENNIES FROM HEAVEN! SOMEONE HAS GOT TO PAY FOR THAT SAVING GRACE!” God the Son functionally said, “I WILL! I’LL PAY!” God the Father functionally said, “I LOVINGLY ACCEPT YOUR OFFER, AND LKOVINGLY OFFER YOU TO SUFFER AND DIE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR SAVING GRACE EXACTED BY OUR OWN JUSTICE.”

As a consequence, Christ was born to die.

There’s a very dangerous argument - if God’s idea of good, & ours, are not similar, then God’s goodness may be what we would regard as unspeakable wickedness. Stalin may be far more Christlike - by God’s standards - than Francis of Assisi or Mother Theresa: who may be devils incarnate as far as God is concerned.​

That is the danger with the Barthian POV as I understand it - if God is totally unknowable apart from Christ, on the ground that natural theology is illegitimate as a way to God, then human kindness may be an obscenity; maybe we should all be exterminating Jews & others instead. Maybe genocide counts as the greatest of virtues Saying that love is the supreme virtue is no answer - because love can (in a sense that St. John probably did not intend) be made to cover a multitude of sins, from lust to murder & beyond.

 

[o_mlly]

Neither is pulling a trigger evil - but it can still be a capital crime, because its moral character is defined not in isolation, but as one of a complex of acts. The pushing in this case involves pushing another human being to his death - not a mere giving of impetus to the body of that of that living person, but an impetus which leads from the relative safety of a lifeboat or raft to what may reasonably be regarded as the danger of a sea in which sharks are present. The good intention to save many lives by acting so as to kill one person does not “contaminate” the killing with its goodness - the pushing into the sea of another human being remains a bad human act, & an act of unjustifiable homicide. If the pushed person were near to death, or had volunteered, that would lessen, but not cancel, the evil of the bad act.​

I grant the hypothetical is extreme in its circumstance and pulls at our passion and sympathy for the person who may die. However, the morality of our acts is determined by by our will ruled by our intellect, not our passion. Divine law always transcends positive law, so I don’t see bringing any clarity to the case by introducing the potential of capital crime as we are already operating at the highest level in determining the permissibility of the act.

Putting you child into your car and driving to work could lead to the child’s death at some level of probability but not certainty. Yet we do not claim the act immoral. Similarly, pushing the man into the water may also cause his death as some (higher) level of probability but not certainty. The act, pusing him overboard, does not kill him; the jaws of the shark may kill him. Therefore, the act is morally neutral; the effects double, the good outweighs the bad, the good is intended, and the good does not occur as a result of the bad. (If the man survives the waters, the good effect still occurs.)

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[bobzills]

I grant the hypothetical is extreme in its circumstance and pulls at our passion and sympathy for the person who may die. However, the morality of our acts is determined by by our will ruled by our intellect, not our passion. Divine law always transcends positive law, so I don’t see bringing any clarity to the case by introducing the potential of capital crime as we are already operating at the highest level in determining the permissibility of the act.

Putting you child into your car and driving to work could lead to the child’s death at some level of probability but not certainty. Yet we do not claim the act immoral. Similarly, pushing the man into the water may also cause his death as some (higher) level of probability but not certainty. The act, pusing him overboard, does not kill him; the jaws of the shark may kill him. Therefore, the act is morally neutral; the effects double, the good outweighs the bad, the good is intended, and the good does not occur as a result of the bad. (If the man survives the waters, the good effect still occurs.)

Peace,
O’Malley

I don’t see where pushing a man into an area of the ocean with man eating hungry sharks swarming around is morally neutral?

 

[Contarini]

God is governed by His Own rules.

I am quite sure that this is heresy. We are governed by natural law, which is our participation in the divine Reason–the “rules” by which God is governed.

Furthermore, the NT is full of exhortations for us to follow Christ’s example.

Edwin

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t see where pushing a man into an area of the ocean with man eating hungry sharks swarming around is morally neutral?

I understand your hesitancy to separate the object or act from its circumstances. But the Church teaches us to do so in evaluating the morality of any act.

The circumstances in the hypothetical are “the lifeboat has a capacity of ten people, and it will sink soon with all eleven people on board unless one person gets off" and the one leaving the raft “will surely die.”

These circumstances depart from reality but we can salvage the hypothetical by inserting “probably sink” and “probably die.”

With the modifications, the circumstances then become a matter of prudence in assigning the probabilities. The captain judges, as he is morally obligated to do so, that eleven or one will probably die. He pushes (the heaviest?) survivor overboard. That ten survive (the good effect) does not come about because one dies (bad effect) but because one exits the raft. Eleven may possibly survive if the captain does nothing and eleven may survive if the captain pushes one overboard. If the captain judges that doing nothing is more likely to kill eleven then he is obligated to save the ten.

While we can see the dilemma clearly, we cannot see the special graces God most certainly provides before He allows such a cross as falls to the captain in this hypothetical.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[essayons7]

Killing the person would really be a waste. Better to chop off one limb at a time and use it as a food source. As long as the person stays alive then the meat will be nice and fresh.

Your answer gives atheists a bad name. What a shame.