Is this wrong?

[Matthias123]

Here is a moral dilemma that I cannot completely figure out. Say there is a container ship containing a High value terrorist target that needs to be taken out. He is guarded by 20 or so radical Islamic militants.

The ship is assaulted by Navy Seals deployed from a submarine. They cannot take prisoners because it is not feasible due to where they were deployed. During the assault they make contact with the enemy, and a firefight ensues. When they reach the bridge they discover the High value target was wounded in the firefight and is now incapable of fighting. There primary mission objective is to eliminate him. They cannot take him prisoner. Would it be immoral to kill that man, because of is injured state?

I don’t think it would be because they can’t risk that man somehow surviving and escaping because innocent lives depend on it. Also he probably would have been very hard to track down.

Any thoughts?

(I am not sure if Navy Seals usually deploy from Submarines to attack ships, but I thought it would be good for the example)

 

[teachccd]

Killing is always immoral. Is it justified to kill one to save the many? Perhaps. But I don’t think that his injured state has any bearing on the morality of this decision. Tough question. Sounds like my kid’s XBox game more than a real situation but I know where you are going with this. I’ll monitor this post to catch other ideas…teachccd

 

[whatevergirl]

Here is a moral dilemma that I cannot completely figure out. Say there is a container ship containing a High value terrorist target that needs to be taken out. He is guarded by 20 or so radical Islamic militants.

The ship is assaulted by Navy Seals deployed from a submarine. They cannot take prisoners because it is not feasible due to where they were deployed. During the assault they make contact with the enemy, and a firefight ensues. When they reach the bridge they discover the High value target was wounded in the firefight and is now incapable of fighting. There primary mission objective is to eliminate him. They cannot take him prisoner. Would it be immoral to kill that man, because of is injured state?

I don’t think it would be because they can’t risk that man somehow surviving and escaping because innocent lives depend on it. Also he probably would have been very hard to track down.

Any thoughts?

(I am not sure if Navy Seals usually deploy from Submarines to attack ships, but I thought it would be good for the example)

Killing is immoral–but if we are to defend ourselves or others from harm, and we have that capacity to do so, it could be seen as necessary (like self defense) While we should always seek to avoid killing and war–in the situation you post, it sounds like killing the person would be considered defending others. Now, of course, my first thought was to keep him captive, and get him help…but you took that option away! lol I agree with teach–this sounds like Call of Duty or something that my son plays on PS3!

 

[Matthias123]

Killing is always immoral. Is it justified to kill one to save the many? Perhaps. But I don’t think that his injured state has any bearing on the morality of this decision. Tough question. Sounds like my kid’s XBox game more than a real situation but I know where you are going with this. I’ll monitor this post to catch other ideas…teachccd

I believe, as the Church teaches, in just war. Killing is not immoral in a just war. If it were immoral it would be a sin. We a have the right to legitimate defense. The Church teaches that wounded soldiers should be treated humanely. I understand the concept of what they are saying but I would like to know what the limits or of this teaching are.

Obviously at the end of a firefight if you go over to check for intelligence and body counts, and you find a wounded soldier he cannot be touched.

But what if your a sniper, and you are tasked with killing a General. You aim at is head, but your a bad shot and you miss. You hit him in the shoulder. Would it be immoral to finish your mission and kill the General with a second shot? If you take the teaching of the Church in the most literal sense it would be immoral because he is wounded. But that is how scruples starts.

It is impossible for the Church to lay out an exact teaching for every single circumstance without writing a book. Written language is just not that good at conveying meaning for that to happen. So one must try to understand the intent of the person writing it.

For example he/she obviously doesn’t mean if the combatant is wounded with a paper cut we can’t touch him. But the person obviously means that if you find a wounded person after a battle you can’t behead him or anything, you must treat him humanely.

Thoughts?

BTW I was playing COD4 when I thought this up.

 

[whatevergirl]

BTW I was playing COD4 when I thought this up.

I knew it! My son just got that game!

 

[whatevergirl]

As far as your second post–

I remember my dad talking about the war, and my husband’s dad…and my husband’s dad in particular talking about how one day, during WWII, he came face to face with one of the german troops…and let him go, because then, the war ‘had a face,’ as he put it. That sober remark has always stuck with me…

I would say err on the side of life, if faced with something that puts you at a crossroads with your faith. I think war can be just…necessary and righteous to defend ourselves, but beyond that…it becomes a very difficult concept to imagine.

 

[markomalley]

Matthias,

Your scenario is likely not all that realistic, for the following reasons: First, the high value target would likely not be on the bridge of the ship, he would be in a more secure location. Secondly, Seals, as well as other special operations forces, operate by stealth. They utilize extremely focused violence to accomplish their mission as quietly and quickly as possible. If the target was exposed, they would likely take him out ‘long range’ (i.e., sniper). If the target was not exposed, they would operate by stealth and sneak up on him. They would not do an assault on the ship like a group of old-style Naval Infantry.

However, assuming your scenario was an accurate one, they may not have killed everybody on board. In which case, the question arises, would it be more questionable to kill the target or to have to kill any remaining people on board, in order to get close enough to the target to effect a capture?

The difference between a ‘high value target’ and an ordinary soldier is what is in the ‘high value target’s’ head. That’s what makes him a legitimate military target in the first place. Not his ability to pull a trigger. Designating a person as a ‘high value target’ means that it is important to neutralize his ability to use what’s in his head. Wounding him does not do that. Killing him does. Capturing him does (but then we have to ask, if, in capturing him, we face the likelihood of having to kill many others, is it better to kill the others and capture him or kill him and spare the others)

(Please note, in my opinion, it would be morally unjustifiable to arbitrarily kill an ordinary soldier who was wounded…even if you couldn’t take him into custody)

As to culpability, the person giving the order to the Seal bears far more responsibility: to ensure that the intelligence, upon which the order was based, was accurate, and that the person in question is, in fact, a high value target that must be eliminated. The Seal Commander is responsible for designing and executing a plan to carry out those orders that results in mission accomplishment with the minimal loss of life on both sides. The individual Seal is responsible for carrying out the order with professionalism and not using any more violence than is required to accomplish the legitimate orders by his commander.

 

[Meathead]

Shoot first, question later.

 

[rpp]

Unless there are large number of civilians or non-combatants on the ship, I find it very unlikely that an armed group would storm the ship. Much safer for US forces to disable or sink the ship.

Also, as a reminder, killing is not always immoral. In the scenario presented, killing the target, which was the purpose of the mission, may be a moral act presuming that the motivation is to keep people safe.

My father also fought in WWII in Europe. He also met a German soldier face to face. That is how he earned his first purple heart and first bronze star. The German solder knocked out his front teeth with his rifle butt in hand-to-hand combat with my dad. My father never told the story, it was in his service record which I found after he passed away in October. I presume my father got the better of the German soldier because, well, I am here to post this. (By the end of the war, he had earned two purple hearts, three bronze stars and a silver star. I never knew any of this until after his death. He never talked about his wartime experiences.)

 

[StCsDavid]

To answer this question, we might need to turn to the C.I.A…that being circumstance, intent, and act. Keep in mind that an immoral act can never be good, it is always evil. For example, aborting a baby, regardless of circumstance or intent is an evil act. Committing adultery, regardless of circumstance or intent is an evil act. Now in this case, killing the enemy terrorist in a war, to protect innocent lives would not be considered an immoral act.

Now this gets a bit more complicated if the intent was evil. Let’s say said Navy SEAL had it mind to wound the terrorist so he could torture him for the SEAL’s own amusement and in the process of torturing killed the terrorist…now the act becomes immoral. The intent was no longer to save lives but to satisfy his desire to torture. An evil intent can never result in an ultimately good act no matter how it may externally appear, which in this case was one less terrorist to harm the innocent.