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

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobzills
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobzills

Guest
Of course, our first answer to this is no. It is not OK to kill an innocent person. But we have heard of some exceptions, such as self-defense. But in that case, the person is not innocent, but guilty of trying to kill you. But consider the following scenario:
Your cruise ship has sunk and you and ten other people are now in a small lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. Unfortunately, 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 water around you is infested with hungry man eating sharks, so the first person to leave the lifeboat for the water will surely die. Now the captain has a gun with one bullet. It is no good for the captain to give up his life since he is the only one with the necessary navigation skills to save everyone else in the lifeboat by guiding the boat to safety. It would not work if the captain were to use the one bullet to kill a shark, because there are literally tens of them swarming around the boat. So should he then let the boat sink and then all eleven will die, being eaten by the sharks, or should he use his bullet to kill one innocent person and get him or her off the boat to save the remaining ten? In this last case, who should be chosen to die?
 
bobzills said:
Of course, our first answer to this is no. It is not OK to kill an innocent person. But we have heard of some exceptions, such as self-defense. But in that case, the person is not innocent, but guilty of trying to kill you. But consider the following scenario:
Your cruise ship has sunk and you and ten other people are now in a small lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. Unfortunately, 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 water around you is infested with hungry man eating sharks, so the first person to leave the lifeboat for the water will surely die. Now the captain has a gun with one bullet. It is no good for the captain to give up his life since he is the only one with the necessary navigation skills to save everyone else in the lifeboat by guiding the boat to safety. It would not work if the captain were to use the one bullet to kill a shark, because there are literally tens of them swarming around the boat. So should he then let the boat sink and then all eleven will die, being eaten by the sharks, or should he use his bullet to kill one innocent person and get him or her off the boat to save the remaining ten? In this last case, who should be chosen to die?
Click to expand...
Well, first a lifeboat that has a max person limit may very well support 1 additional individual. Secondly, if the lifeboat does not support that 1 extra person then it is not up to the captain to decide who goes overboard. I’ll volunteer as I have had a good life and would leave this world with nothing left undone. Of course at about the same time I jump overboard, I’ll be hoping that a school of tuna swims by and heads further out to sea causing the sharks to follow. 😃
 
It seems odd that 1 extra person will sink the boat, you would expect the activity of the sharks to tip it over even if it is empty. Also if it holds all 11 people for any amount of time, it won’t sink later on if it still afloat, it’s not as if there is a hole in it’s hull.

No, The captain can’t shoot anyone on board, that would be direct murder.
 
If I were the captain, I would inform everyone of the situation and that they all have the choice of whether or not they want to sacrifice themselves for the rest. That way, if all of them are too selfish or too cowardly, everyone will die as a result of that. I would jump out myself, but as you said, the captain is needed. 🤷
 
bobzills said:
Of course, our first answer to this is no. It is not OK to kill an innocent person. But we have heard of some exceptions, such as self-defense. But in that case, the person is not innocent, but guilty of trying to kill you. But consider the following scenario:
Your cruise ship has sunk and you and ten other people are now in a small lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. Unfortunately, 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 water around you is infested with hungry man eating sharks, so the first person to leave the lifeboat for the water will surely die. Now the captain has a gun with one bullet. It is no good for the captain to give up his life since he is the only one with the necessary navigation skills to save everyone else in the lifeboat by guiding the boat to safety. It would not work if the captain were to use the one bullet to kill a shark, because there are literally tens of them swarming around the boat. So should he then let the boat sink and then all eleven will die, being eaten by the sharks, or should he use his bullet to kill one innocent person and get him or her off the boat to save the remaining ten? In this last case, who should be chosen to die?
Click to expand...
No it is not okay to kill an innocent person for a greater good. The Church specifically teaches it is not okay.

CCC 1789** Some rules apply in every case**:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
 
bobzills said:
Of course, our first answer to this is no. It is not OK to kill an innocent person. But we have heard of some exceptions, such as self-defense. But in that case, the person is not innocent, but guilty of trying to kill you. But consider the following scenario:
Your cruise ship has sunk and you and ten other people are now in a small lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. … So should he then let the boat sink and then all eleven will die, being eaten by the sharks, or should he use his bullet to kill one innocent person and get him or her off the boat to save the remaining ten? In this last case, who should be chosen to die?
Click to expand...
The advantage of a hypothetical in determining morality is the concreteness of the context surrounding the moral decision. The disadvantage, as I think you will see, is that the replies will attempt to avoid the decision by circumventing the “box” into which the hypothetical proposes to place us.

Assuming you are taking us into the area of moral theology where one is faced with the decision which has two effects – one good and one bad, I would offer you the principles of the double effect as guidelines to determining the morality of the contemplated act.
  1. The action taken is good or morally neutral.
  2. The bad effect must not be intended, but only permitted.
  3. The good effect cannot be brought about by means of the bad effect.
  4. There good effect is proportionally superior or equal to the bad effect.
Applying these conditions to your hypothetical, principle #1 prevents the captain from murdering anyone.

If you change the act from murdering to ordering one of the passengers to go overboard, then the morality may be justified assuming the captain does not intend the death of the individual. Some may argue that principle #3 is violated. However, the good effect is not brought about by the death of the individual (probable, though it may be) but by the elimination of his person form the craft.

As to the choice of “who,” one I would hope never to face, one can only hope the blessings of God always precedes his demands and one will be equipped and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
O’Malley
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
If I were the captain, I would inform everyone of the situation and that they all have the choice of whether or not they want to sacrifice themselves for the rest. That way, if all of them are too selfish or too cowardly, everyone will die as a result of that. I would jump out myself, but as you said, the captain is needed. 🤷
Click to expand...
That’s okay, I’ll jump out for you, but with the understanding that I intend to swim as fast as I can to the nearest shore. I’m ignoring the sharks… Oh good, they’re just large dolphins!
If you can make up stories, Bobzills, so can I. In my sleep I always change nightmares into pleasant dreams!
 
o_mlly said:
The advantage of a hypothetical in determining morality is the concreteness of the context surrounding the moral decision. The disadvantage, as I think you will see, is that the replies will attempt to avoid the decision by circumventing the “box” into which the hypothetical proposes to place us.

Assuming you are taking us into the area of moral theology where one is faced with the decision which has two effects – one good and one bad, I would offer you the principles of the double effect as guidelines to determining the morality of the contemplated act.
  1. The action taken is good or morally neutral.
  2. The bad effect must not be intended, but only permitted.
  3. The good effect cannot be brought about by means of the bad effect.
  4. There good effect is proportionally superior or equal to the bad effect.
Applying these conditions to your hypothetical, principle #1 prevents the captain from murdering anyone.

If you change the act from murdering to ordering one of the passengers to go overboard, then the morality may be justified assuming the captain does not intend the death of the individual. Some may argue that principle #3 is violated. However, the good effect is not brought about by the death of the individual (probable, though it may be) but by the elimination of his person form the craft.

As to the choice of “who,” one I would hope never to face, one can only hope the blessings of God always precedes his demands and one will be equipped and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
O’Malley
Click to expand...
I would argue that in the hypothetical, the captain knows the fate of anyone going overboard is death. The fate of the individual is the same, caused by the Captian, whether he pulls the trigger or compels the unfortunate one to go overboard.

That is, of course, assuming a lack of divine intervention for the one going overboard.

Perhaps morally speaking, there is an alternative; shoot one shark, which could cause a feeding frenzy or the sharks following the wounded shark out of the area, whereby a person could safely stay in the water by the raft.

But that would be changing the moral dilemma posed by the OP. 😉

In short, killing an innocent person to achieve good is never pernissible.
 
No, but ever Catholic is guilty of it. We have all gained from the slaughter of an innocent.

Beyond that, collaterial damage in a just war can be just as long as it is not deliberate. Other then that, I am not aware of any other “just” reasoning.
 
bobzills said:
Of course, our first answer to this is no. It is not OK to kill an innocent person. But we have heard of some exceptions, such as self-defense. But in that case, the person is not innocent, but guilty of trying to kill you. But consider the following scenario:
Your cruise ship has sunk and you and ten other people are now in a small lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. Unfortunately, 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 water around you is infested with hungry man eating sharks, so the first person to leave the lifeboat for the water will surely die. Now the captain has a gun with one bullet. It is no good for the captain to give up his life since he is the only one with the necessary navigation skills to save everyone else in the lifeboat by guiding the boat to safety. It would not work if the captain were to use the one bullet to kill a shark, because there are literally tens of them swarming around the boat. So should he then let the boat sink and then all eleven will die, being eaten by the sharks, or should he use his bullet to kill one innocent person and get him or her off the boat to save the remaining ten? In this last case, who should be chosen to die?
Click to expand...
No. It would be better for everyone to die than for anyone to commit such a wicked act.

However, there would be nothing wrong with someone volunteering to get off the boat, or with everyone agreeing to draw lots–but in that latter case if the person on whom the lot fell chickened out, it would be wrong to push them off the boat.

Even pushing the person off the boat would be less evil than directly killing them, even though a bullet to the head would arguably be more humane than being eaten alive by sharks. For one thing, it is always possible that the person who got off the lifeboat would survive. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. The point is that by getting off, or even making someone get off, no direct killing is happening–you’re doing the best with the situation handed you and leaving room for Divine Providence to intervene.

Edwin
 
Newbie2 said:
I would argue that in the hypothetical, the captain knows the fate of anyone going overboard is death. The fate of the individual is the same, caused by the Captian, whether he pulls the trigger or compels the unfortunate one to go overboard.

…
Click to expand...
Knowledge of a future temporal event can only be probabilistic. Even though the captain may believe death as a highly probable outcome, he is not the cause of this death. That is precisely why the principle is called the double effect.

While the captain’s act may not be an heroic one, it is a morally acceptable one.

Peace,
O’Malley
 
Contarini said:
… Even pushing the person off the boat would be ***less evil ***than directly killing them, even though a bullet to the head would arguably be more humane than being eaten alive by sharks. … Edwin
Click to expand...
Pushing him off the boat should not be labelled “the lesser evil.” As long as the good is intended, the act has moral value. Further, there is no humanity at all in an act of murder.

Peace,
O’Malley
 
o_mlly said:
Knowledge of a future temporal event can only be probabilistic. Even though the captain may believe death as a highly probable outcome, he is not the cause of this death. That is precisely why the principle is called the double effect.

While the captain’s act may not be an heroic one, it is a morally acceptable one.

Peace,
O’Malley
Click to expand...
We are assuming in the hypothetical that the one that goes overboard goes to certain death. Otherwise, the situation is changed, no?
 
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.
 
The unfortunate situation is that the boat will sink with all eleven on board and everyone will be eaten by the sharks, and the only way to prevent that is to lighten the boat by one person. So, from the answers given here then, the moral solution to this is to let the boat sink and all eleven die, rather than to require that only one person die and the other ten be saved? There seems to be something wrong with this solution of letting all eleven die, although I agree it does seem to be the one which is dictated by appealing to the moral principles we know: We are not allowed to do evil to bring about a higher good.
 
o_mlly said:
Pushing him off the boat should not be labelled “the lesser evil.” As long as the good is intended, the act has moral value.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. In the light of the first sentence, the second sentence seems to be saying that an action directed toward a good end should not be labeled evil. That is consequentialism and is in my opinion a serious moral error (the Catholic Church agrees with me, I’m quite sure). I agree that the intention makes a huge difference–hence my use of the word “lesser.”

It seems to me that forcing someone else to sacrifice his life, even indirectly, is at least questionable. Perhaps I should have said “less clearly evil,” but my point was that even if it is evil it is not direct murder and thus of lesser gravity (because your intention is not to kill the person but to save everyone else, and it’s always possible that the person might somehow survive).

Edwin
 
bobzills said:
The unfortunate situation is that the boat will sink with all eleven on board and everyone will be eaten by the sharks, and the only way to prevent that is to lighten the boat by one person. So, from the answers given here then, the moral solution to this is to let the boat sink and all eleven die, rather than to require that only one person die and the other ten be saved? There seems to be something wrong with this solution of letting all eleven die
Click to expand...
Of course there’s something wrong with it. But the “wrong” is in the failure of any of the people to volunteer to jump overboard, or to submit to a random choice to determine who will jump overboard.

Fortunately, in real life choices are rarely quite that stark. There are usually other options if we have the wit and courage to look for them.

Edwin
 
I don’t know but if I ever go on a cruise I am going to make sure the life boats can hold, safely, large numbers of people first. I also want posters # 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 to be with me.

I especially liked the idea of the Captain shooting one of the sharks, I would have added, far enough away from the life boat, then cause the feeding frenzy and get the heck out of those waters and into safer ones.

As for the atheist who wants to eat us, (poster # 14), please stay home.😃
 
Contarini said:
But the “wrong” is in the failure of any of the people to volunteer to jump overboard, or to submit to a random choice to determine who will jump overboard.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top