Is killing objectively morally wrong?

[Flatty10]

by this i mean to say is killing a human being by another human being, under all circumstances wrong?

My friend tells me yes, but then i present the case for killing an intruder in your home or self defence. Which then i say it is not wrong to kill this person in this circumstance…

making killing not objectively wrong…?

 

[Redratfish]

by this i mean to say is killing a human being by another human being, under all circumstances wrong?

My friend tells me yes, but then i present the case for killing an intruder in your home or self defence. Which then i say it is not wrong to kill this person in this circumstance…

making killing not objectively wrong…?

For self defense, or in the case of a “just” war, killing maybe allowed.

 

[_Locke]

by this i mean to say is killing a human being by another human being, under all circumstances wrong?

My friend tells me yes, but then i present the case for killing an intruder in your home or self defence. Which then i say it is not wrong to kill this person in this circumstance…

making killing not objectively wrong…?

You might find Augustine’s Sermon 57 on the New Testament enlightening:

“But what if he say to you, when you have despised the things which you possess, what if he say to you, “I will kill you”? If you have given ear to Christ, answer him, “Will You kill me? Better that you should kill my body, than that I by a false tongue should kill my soul! What can you do to me? You will kill my body; my soul will depart at liberty, to receive again at the end of the world even this very body she has despised. What can you do to me then? Whereas if I should give false witness for you, with your tongue do I kill myself; and not in my body do I kill myself; ‘For the mouth that lies kills the soul.’” But perhaps you do not say so. And why do you not say so? You wish to live; you wish to live longer than God has appointed for you? Do you then “beware of all covetousness”? So long was it God’s will that you should live, till this person came to you. It may be that he will kill you, to make a martyr of you. Entertain then no undue desire of life; and so you will not have an eternity of death. You see how that covetousness everywhere, when we wish for more than is necessary, causes us to sin. Beware we of all covetousness, if we would enjoy eternal wisdom.”

 

[Iron_Donkey]

From the Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

As I understand it, an action which has as its goal killing an innocent is always wrong, but there are cases where an action which has as an unintended side effect the killing of an innocent (as in one who has not yet committed a crime that would justify his execution) is not wrong.

Note also that “[t]he traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,” but that cases where the death penalty is the only practicable way “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (CCC 2267)

A fairly common opinion I’ve come across is that pacifism to the point of declining to harm attackers even when necessary to preserve your own life can be admirable (except when you must preserve yourself to protect, say, your children - CCC2265ish), but by no means is necessary.

 

[Flatty10]

ok cool thanks very much.

If i asked you the question now then…

Is killing objectively wrong? Yes or No?

 

[stephe1987]

Yes. But there are instances mentioned in the Bible which support killing in certain circumstances.

So, although killing is objectively morally wrong, as it is offensive to God, there are cases where it might be the best decision (self-defense, serial killers, etc.). There is a book in the Veritas Series (Knights of Columbus) that talks about capitol punishment.

 

[Flatty10]

ok so then is killing someone in self defence morally wrong?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"Flatty10:

Is killing objectively wrong? Yes or No?

What do you mean by objectively wrong? Also killing is a bit of general statement. Depending on what you mean by “objectively” the answer may very well be “sometimes.”

ok so then is killing someone in self defence morally wrong?

Not necessarily. If a 7 year old comes at you with a feather duster and you hit them with a grenade, yes. But if someone is likely to kill (or seriously harm) you, and your reasonable efforts to stop them result in their death: no. (Again, I refer you to the Catechism quotes above.)

 

[Flatty10]

if in some circumstances it is not the wrong thing to do, but in fact the right and honourable thing to do…How can it be objectively wrong then?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Killing an intruder? I think if the intruder is not harming anybody PHYSICALLY then there should be no need to kill him. Maybe wait for the cops to deal with that or try to stop him. I think killing is really only acceptable in self-defense.

Aside from it being a sin,

Is it true that a person is charged with murder for killing an intruder if the intruder is not physically harming anybody?
EDIT: after looking it up, I guess it is actually considered murder.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

if in some circumstances it is not the wrong thing to do, but in fact the right and honourable thing to do…How can it be objectively wrong then?

Again with the “objectively wrong.” I’m not sure what exactly you mean by this. If by “killing is objectively wrong” you mean “there is never a case when it is morally permissible to perform an action which ends the life of another” then killing is not objectively wrong.

Whether or not it is permissible to perform an action which has an effect (but not the actual main purpose) the ending of another person’s life absolutely depends on the circumstances.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

I don’t mean to derail the thread, but a thought came up while reading the excerpt from the Catechism (2263-2265) above. Perhaps someone can answer quickly.

How does this teaching work in regards to getting an abortion to save a mother’s life? Abortion is considered wrong by the church because it is considered murder. However, if the abortion is done in order to defend the mother’s life, wouldn’t that fall under the exception that it was done in self-defense?

I realize that these types of abortions do not make up the majority, but they do happen (A nun was recently excommunicated because she authorized this type of abortion.) I have always heard that the Catholic stance is that these mother’s should not get an abortion because the doctors may be wrong or God may intervene. Couldn’t the same be said for a violent home intruder; that the home owner should not attack because the intruder may not be as violent as s/he seems or that God may intervene?

Thanks a lot in advance!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The primary differences that I see between abortion to save a mother’s life and defending oneself against an attacker are that:

1. The child is undeniably innocent, whereas a person who is intentionally trying to take your life, to the point where the only means available to you to stop him result in his death, is almost certainly not.
2. Abortion always results in the death of the child. That is the whole point of abortion. It is hoped that the mother’s life will be saved as a consequence, but the act is to kill the innocent child. An act of self defense may or may not result in the attacker’s death and, for the most part, we hope that it won’t.

 

[John21652]

ok cool thanks very much.

If i asked you the question now then…

Is killing objectively wrong? Yes or No?

That question cannot be answered without filling in a major assumption, which is that the question refers to all killing. The phrasing of the question leaves no room for admitting that their are different classifications for killing. What about, for instance, accidental killing? What about justified self defense? What about premeditated Murder? The human race, history, the bible, has always classified killing. What about the killing of animals?

If you are genuinely asking is “all” killing objectively wrong, the answer is “no”. For if the answer was “yes”, you’d starve to death as a result of your silly philosophy. That is if, of course, some immoral invader didn’t put you to the sword beforehand.

 

[PJM]

=Flatty10;7243739]by this i mean to say is killing a human being by another human being, under all circumstances wrong?

My friend tells me yes, but then i present the case for killing an intruder in your home or self defence. Which then i say it is not wrong to kill this person in this circumstance…

making killing not objectively wrong…?

UNJUSTIFIED KILLING is an “intrinsic evil.” Fifth Commandment

 

[Flatty10]

i don’t think most of you are understanding what im trying to say.

i have stated by killing i mean a human killing another human being.

I have always understood killing to be objectively morally wrong.

Again this means it is always wrong to kill another human being reguardless of the situation.

Even though you may be presented with a situation where you must kill another person in self defence etc…Is this considered morally wrong. Because the person dying is still counted as an evil act.

What i was getting at, is this maybe still considered morally objectively wrong, but because of the situation and intention you are not considered morally responsible.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Again this means it is always wrong to kill another human being reguardless of the situation.

Even though you may be presented with a situation where you must kill another person in self defence etc…Is this considered morally wrong. Because the person dying is still counted as an evil act.

What i was getting at, is this maybe still considered morally objectively wrong, but because of the situation and intention you are not considered morally responsible.

I don’t think this works. This is because scripture and history are full of times when people are tortured and killed to try to get them to deny God or worship something else, and in none of these cases does it come up that they could have done whatever it is to save their own lives and the blame would lie solely on the tormentors. If such a principal were what made certain acts of self defense permissible in certain cases, I think it would probably apply here as well.

Not to mention that causing someone else to sin is also wrong, and so if there was such a principle, then in defending yourself you’d be adding to the sins of your attacker, which would be wrong.

If it is always wrong to do something, then it is always wrong to do it. It may be possible for others to share in the blame for the action but as I understand it (and excluding such cases as when a person doesn’t have use of reason) the person who does the action is always responsible for it.

The death of the attacker (as the unnatural death of anyone) is always regrettable, but I don’t think we can ever say the person who was defending himself committed a morally wrong act but just wasn’t responsible for it.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

The primary differences that I see between abortion to save a mother’s life and defending oneself against an attacker are that:

1. The child is undeniably innocent, whereas a person who is intentionally trying to take your life, to the point where the only means available to you to stop him result in his death, is almost certainly not.
2. Abortion always results in the death of the child. That is the whole point of abortion. It is hoped that the mother’s life will be saved as a consequence, but the act is to kill the innocent child. An act of self defense may or may not result in the attacker’s death and, for the most part, we hope that it won’t.

Thanks! Makes sense to me!

 

[PJM]

=Flatty10;7247008]i don’t think most of you are understanding what im trying to say.

i have stated by killing i mean a human killing another human being.

I have always understood killing to be objectively morally wrong.

Again this means it is always wrong to kill another human being reguardless of the situation.

Even though you may be presented with a situation where you must kill another person in self defence etc…Is this considered morally wrong. Because the person dying is still counted as an evil act.

What i was getting at, is this maybe still considered morally objectively wrong, but because of the situation and intention you are not considered morally responsible.

Killing can be justified both by man and by our God. Two examples: self-defence and just war.

**CCC 2263 **The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

**CCC 2269 **The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

 

[John21652]

Killing can be justified both by man and by our God. Two examples: self-defence and just war.

**CCC 2263 **The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

**CCC 2269 **The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

             In May 1884, the British yacht *Mignonette* set sail for Sydney, Australia                 with four crew on board. On July 5, disaster struck, the yacht was lost, and the                 crew were forced to take to a small lifeboat. For eighteen days, they drifted around                 the ocean more than 1000 miles from land. By this point, things were desperate:                 they had been without food for seven days and water for five. All crew members were                 in a bad way, but worst off was 17 year old cabin boy, Richard Parker. He was barely                 conscious, if indeed he was conscious at all.
         
                         At this point, the captain of the ship, Tom Dudley, suggested they ought to draw                 lots to select one of them to be killed, thereby giving the others a chance of survival.                 The thought was they could use the body of the dead person as a source of food and                 liquid. This idea was in the first instance rejected by one of the crew members,                 Edmund Brooks, but Dudley didn't let the issue drop, and later the same day                 discussed the matter with Edwin Stephens, the fourth member of the crew. He pointed                 out that it was overwhelmingly likely that Richard Parker, the cabin boy, was going                 to die whatever happened, but if they killed him - which was the best way of ensuring                 his blood would be in a fit state to drink - there was a chance that he and Stephens                 would see their wives and families again.
                          The following day, with no prospect of rescue, Dudley, with the assent of Stephens,                 killed the boy. The three remaining crew members then fed on his body, enabling                 them to survive long enough to be rescued on July 29th. Dudley later described the                 scene as follows: "I can assure you I shall never forget the sight of my two                 unfortunate companions over that ghastly meal we all was like mad wolfs who should                 get the most and for men fathers of children to commit such a deed we could not                 have our right reason."
                          The facts in this case are well-established. Richard Parker was killed by Tom Dudley,                 with the consent of Edwin Stephens, because they genuinely believed there was no                 immediate prospect of rescue, that Parker would likely die regardless of what happened,                 and that all of them would die if he was not sacrificed.


                          The question is were they morally justified in killing him?