Killing an innocent person to save 100?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Almeria:
Any WWII historians around? I’d grab my husband, but he’s busy.

I think a similiar topic was what happened in WWII in England; the big decision Churchhill had to make. Allies had cracked German ciphers, and discovered that an England town was going to be bombed. A major Allied operation was being planned, though, that could turn the tide of the war–problem was, it was scheduled for after the town would be bombed. Having the ability to read their ciphers would be very beneficial to the outcome of the operation. Faced with the choice of warning the townsfolk of the bombing and let the Germans know we had cracked the ciphers, or keeping silent about the attack and using the intelligence for the upcoming operation, Churchhill chose to keep silent. Many died in the town’s bombing, but the war was cut short due to the operation. I believe my husband said that experts think it cut 18 months at least off the war, and a sizable amount of dead on both sides as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.
 
FYI I would like to get this message out to all online now:
Drew Mariani is on Relevant Radio right now, go on the internet to find it if they don’t broadcast in your state. He is having a pro life show and he just said, he thinks we will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Norma is talking now.
www.relevantradio.com

They have a listen live icon on the top of the page. It is a great station.
 
40.png
MamaGeek:
What if you lived in a country where women bring their children every day to a set of people who kill them for her. In this country it is perfectly legal. Peaceful means to bring about an end to the grisly practice have been ongoing for more than 30 years, but it is still allowed, and the numbers of children dying are rising every year. Is is moral to kill the killers?

I’m talking about the U.S.A. and those killers are abortionists. It’s so easy to say “kill one to save many,” but it is obvious that violence is not the means to end abortion. You can’t always make a blanket statement. How would you interpret the Catachism in defense of either side of the abortion/violence debate?
Click to expand...
Given the information already posted on this thread (I don’t have a Catechism at hand), here is how I would interpret it.

  1. *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
Click to expand...

  1. I suppose if you thought of the act in question as saving a life rather than killing an abortionist, this tenet in and of itself does not directly go against violence, but taken in conjunction with the other principles, it cannot be used to justify violence.
    1. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
    Click to expand...
    Because there are other ways of preventing abortion which would not result in the death of the abortionist (e.g. sidewalk counseling), trying to justify violence from this tenet would be difficult if not impossible. In the Bin Laden example, there would be no other way to prevent him from pressing the button.
    1. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
    Click to expand...
    This tenet obviously shows that killing the abortionist is unjustified. First of all, the good effect does not flow from the action as immediately as the death of the abortionist does. Most likely, the woman would choose to go to another abortionist, so it is possible that not even that one life would be saved. It might even result in more abortions, because people would be less likely to listen to those who oppose abortion. In the Bin Laden example, it is highly unlikely that there is another terrorist with another button who would do the same thing before Chicago was either evacuated or the bomb was deactivated/destroyed.
    1. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).
    Click to expand...
    Given that the good effect would probably not even occur, and that the act might even cause more harm, I would say that this principle would also not justify violence.

    If anyone could make my argument better, please do. I am just trying to answer a question, and I realize that my understanding and knowledge is limited.🙂
 
40.png
MamaGeek:
What if you lived in a country where women bring their children every day to a set of people who kill them for her. In this country it is perfectly legal. Peaceful means to bring about an end to the grisly practice have been ongoing for more than 30 years, but it is still allowed, and the numbers of children dying are rising every year. Is is moral to kill the killers?

I’m talking about the U.S.A. and those killers are abortionists. It’s so easy to say “kill one to save many,” but it is obvious that violence is not the means to end abortion. You can’t always make a blanket statement. How would you interpret the Catachism in defense of either side of the abortion/violence debate?
Click to expand...
Blanket statement? Easy to say? I’m just answering the hypothetical as posed. I didn’t mean to suggest they were absolutes. Are you saying lethal force is never morally acceptable? If so, can you cite Church teaching?

Also, I would be interested to see what the Church specifically has said (if anything) with regards to what measures the faithful may take to end abortion. Thanks.

Scott
 
I can see, from the discussions in this thread, that we need a defintion.

For purposes of Post #1,

WHAT

IS

AN

“INNOCENT”

PERSON?
 
Felra,
… mighty subjective in determination… personal (or collective) responsibility aspect to applying moral principles to one’s moral choices.
Click to expand...
Making moral choices has always been a difficult personal choice, and it’s never been without a subjective element. No matter how clear cut some moral choices may be for some, there will always be other choices that necessarily require prayerful discernment and difficult decision making. The best we can hope to do is to properly inform our conscience, the aboriginal vicar of Christ, then follow it.
 
40.png
josea:
killing and innocent person to save 100?

Is it morally licit to kill an innocent person to save, say, 100 innocents?

A new law is now being taken for approval in Germany that will allow the use of force against a hijacked plane to avoid a “major disaster”.

Regards
Click to expand...
It is NEVER moral to intentionally take the life of an innocent person.
 
Within the bounds of civil law, it is licit for NORAD to shoot down a plane (given that they have received a lawful order to do so) if that plane is perceived to be an immanent threat to national security. Germany has every right to make a similar law.

Are these laws in violation of either ecclesiastical or Divine Law? If so, will someone please demonstrate that it is?

As I understand it, this law is neither opposed to ecclesastical or Divine Law.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
I can see, from the discussions in this thread, that we need a defintion. For purposes of Post #1, WHAT IS AN “INNOCENT” PERSON?
Click to expand...
Hello Bible Reader,

Actually I think what we need to first do is to define Jesus will on when a faithful obeidient to Jesus Catholic should kill to protect the innocent. In the past I have debated “just war” with people only to find out in the end that they believe that Jesus never wills us to kill. They end up telling me they were only debating with me on when the Church believes we should kill to protect the innocent.

Why on earth would I or anyone want to know when the Church believes it is ok to kill if it is believed that the Church is in opposition to Jesus will when they say it is ok to kill in certian war instances?

Let us define Jesus will on when to kill to protect the innocent.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
Boy, I’d sure hate to be the head of state to make such a decision.

It’s never morally licit to kill one innocent person even to save many.

It, however, might be necessary, such as in the aircraft scenario above. In which case, I think moral culpability of the authorizing person and the firer are minimized, due to the tough circumstances.
 
This discussion is getting very interesting.
Steven Merten:
Hello Bible Reader,
Click to expand...
Why on earth would I or anyone want to know when the Church believes it is ok to kill if it is believed that the Church is in opposition to Jesus will when they say it is ok to kill in certian war instances?

Let us define Jesus will on when to kill to protect the innocent.

That was also one of my problems. Jesus was always against the use of force in general and, I suppose against the killing even of evil people, as you can deduce from the gospels. On the other side God has allowed and even ordered the killing of some people in the Bible, I do not know now if these people were innocent or guilty. I just remember some cases in Number 31 or in Samuel 15:
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:
Israel
Click to expand...
in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Am’alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.’"

I am sure here there were also innocent people dying in those actions. What brings me to the next point: It seems that God can order the killing even of an innocent person as a punishment. If this is so, then God should be over the natural law. I say that because some times the argument has been used that killing guilty people is not intrinsically evil because God orders it some times in the Bible and God can not do evil. But here it seems to me that God ordered to kill even innocent people. If killing an innocent person is against the natural law, then the natural law is something that applies only for man and God is on top of it.:hmmm:

What do you think?

Regards,

Jose
 
Steven Merten:
…
There was a poster who showed Swiss guard fire power as being capable of shooting 700 rounds a minuete. Can the Pope swear to God that he absolutely believes that no innocent Vatican pilgrims, standing in the vacinity of a papal assassin, will get killed if Swiss guards start throwing down 700 rounds a minuet? …
Click to expand...
Just as a side note, even though it can fire 700 rounds per minute, it only holds 40 rounds so the gun would be empty of bullets in about three and a half seconds. It is for this reason that fully automatic weapons are a bad idea – they throw around a lot of bullets which are either wasted or harmful to innocent individuals. A better approach is to use a gun which fires three bursts. You have better firepower than single shots and you’re not wasting ammo all over the place as is the case with full auto.
 
40.png
josea:
This discussion is getting very interesting.

That was also one of my problems. Jesus was always against the use of force in general and, I suppose against the killing even of evil people, as you can deduce from the gospels. On the other side God has allowed and even ordered the killing of some people in the Bible, I do not know now if these people were innocent or guilty. I just remember some cases in Number 31 or in Samuel 15:

I am sure here there were also innocent people dying in those actions. What brings me to the next point: It seems that God can order the killing even of an innocent person as a punishment. If this is so, then God should be over the natural law. I say that because some times the argument has been used that killing guilty people is not intrinsically evil because God orders it some times in the Bible and God can not do evil. But here it seems to me that God ordered to kill even innocent people. If killing an innocent person is against the natural law, then the natural law is something that applies only for man and God is on top of it.:hmmm:

What do you think?

Regards,

Jose
Click to expand...
Lemme just remind everyone that Jesus was ONE innocent (as in 100% innocent) who dies to save a worldful of guilty people. That’s a bigger scandal, doncha think? 🙂
 
40.png
josea:
killing and innocent person to save 100?

Is it morally licit to kill an innocent person to save, say, 100 innocents?

A new law is now being taken for approval in Germany that will allow the use of force against a hijacked plane to avoid a “major disaster”.

Regards
Click to expand...
Whether it is morally licit or not, does any government have the moral obligation to protect its people? If so, does the moral obligation of the government to protect it’s people take precedence over the issue of whether it is morally licit to kill an innocent person to save however many innocents?

Case in point. America deliberately dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki after it had been provoked into war via Pearl Harbor. If America had not been provoked into war by the Japanese government, atomic weaponry would not have been dropped on Japanese civilians. In my humble estimation, it was the Japanese government that was morally responsible and accountable by provoking such a response. America responded with overwhelming force in order to protect it’s citizenry from what was obviously a perceived threat to their security. Countless Japanese civilians died, but the American government did what it needed to do.

If there is a hijacked plane and the hijackers make credible threats against civilians and/or targets on the ground in certain countries, then, yes, a government has the duty to protect it’s citizens against the threat. If the plane must be shot down, the train blown up, the car exploded by a heat seeking missile, the fanatical terrorist leader hunted down and brutally executed, so be it. The moral accountability for the civilians killed in the action lies in the hands of the unjust aggressors.

I realize this sounds harsh, but desperate times often call for desperate measures.

Moral issues are rarely, if ever, cut and dry. There are always certain nuances that must be considered. I know there are people who are uncomfortable with this. They want everything spelled out in black and white. Life, however, dictates otherwise.
 
Jesus was always against the use of force in general and, I suppose against the killing even of evil people, as you can deduce from the gospels.
Click to expand...
After reading the Book of Revelation, I don’t get the impression that Jesus is the pacifist that many make him out to be.

What happen to Jerusalem in AD 70, and did Jesus have anything to do with it?
 
40.png
porthos11:
It’s never morally licit to kill one innocent person even to save many.
Click to expand...
Actually, you need to be more precise with how the above is worded.

From Paul VI:
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8)" *Humanae Vitae, *14]
Click to expand...
The evil cannot cause the good. Yet, an action can have two effects, one good, one evil. Under certain conditions, this is morally licit.
 
40.png
porthos11:
It’s never morally licit to kill one innocent person even to save many.
Click to expand...
Actually, you need to be more precise with how the above is worded.

From Paul VI:
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8)" *Humanae Vitae, *14]
Click to expand...
The evil cannot be intended, and it cannot cause the good. Yet, an action can have two effects, one good, one evil. Under certain conditions, this is morally licit.
 
4 marks:
Moral issues are rarely, if ever, cut and dry. There are always certain nuances that must be considered. I know there are people who are uncomfortable with this. They want everything spelled out in black and white. Life, however, dictates otherwise.
Click to expand...
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, man must struggle to “always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law” when confronted by less than black & white issues:

“Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law. Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it. Conscience enables one to assume *responsibility *for the acts performed. ” (CCC 1787, 1789, 1781).

By prayer we can discern “what is the will of God” and obtain the endurance to do it.108 Jesus teaches us that one enters the kingdom of heaven not by speaking words, but by doing "the will of my Father in heaven."109 (CCC 2826)

2827"If any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him."110 Such is the power of the Church’s prayer in the name of her Lord, above all in the Eucharist. Her prayer is also a communion of intercession with the all-holy Mother of God111 and all the saints who have been pleasing to the Lord because they willed his will alone. (CCC 2827)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top