Killing an innocent person to save 100?

[jess7396]

A bit OT-

This reminds me of the issue of the use of vaccines which are derived from aborted fetal tissue. In these cases, one was sacrificed for the lives of many.

Here’s a link for more info.:
cogforlife.org/

 

[Ham1]

We need to make sure that we emphasize the distinction between deliberate killing (shooting someone) and acts which kill as an evil affect (shhoting down an airplane). In the former case the object of the act would be immoral (provided that person is innocent) and in the latter the object morally indifferent.

An act which has an evil object can NEVER be morally chosen. For this reason, acts like dropping a bomb deliberately targeting civilians or abortion or contraception can never be morally chosen despite the outcome that may occur.

People who believe that it is all a matter of “balance” and “weighing the outcomes” are known as “proportionalists” and are utterly out of step with Christian philosophy.

You can never commit an evil act even though good may come of it, indeed, even if that good seems to far outweigh the original evil act.

 

[4_marks]

felra:

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).

Problem. No act is purely good or purely evil.

 

[Ham1]

4 marks:

Problem. No act is purely good or purely evil.

What do you mean by “purely”?

 

[Angainor]

josea:

killing and innocent person to save 100?

Is it morally licit to kill an innocent person to save, say, 100 innocents?Generally my rule of thumb is “first do no harm”.

josea:
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”.

RegardsIn this specific example, if you are very sure the hijacked plane will be used as a weapon (the passangers will die no matter what you do) then I say, fire at will. You didn’t kill those people, the terrorists did.

 

[DavidFilmer]

This isn’t much different than the question of “aborting” an ectopic prenancy. A fetus which implants in the fallopian tube has absolutely no chance of survival - it is medically impossible (unless some major medical breakthrough has been recently made). But, unless removed, this condition will kill the mother. I’ve never heard a moral theologian object to an abortion under these circumstances - though I’ll probably hear from some now

Kill one person (with NO chance of survival) to save another? Sure. Passengers aboard a plane piloted by a murdering maniac have the same chances of survival as an ectopic pregnancy.

But what if a terrorist hit squad hails a taxi and heads to New York intent on mass meyhem… an F14 flying overhead has a small window of opportunity to bomb the cab (but no other options) before it gets lost in city traffic. But bombing the cab would kill the innocent and unwitting driver (who probably would not number among the terrorists intended victims). That gets harder to justify.

 

[porthos11]

itsjustdave1988:

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?

Not just that, but Jesus instructed his disciples to carry swords shortly before he died.

 

[Prometheum_x]

DavidFilmer:

This isn’t much different than the question of “aborting” an ectopic prenancy. A fetus which implants in the fallopian tube has absolutely no chance of survival - it is medically impossible (unless some major medical breakthrough has been recently made). But, unless removed, this condition will kill the mother. I’ve never heard a moral theologian object to an abortion under these circumstances - though I’ll probably hear from some now

Kill one person (with NO chance of survival) to save another? Sure. Passengers aboard a plane piloted by a murdering maniac have the same chances of survival as an ectopic pregnancy.

But what if a terrorist hit squad hails a taxi and heads to New York intent on mass meyhem… an F14 flying overhead has a small window of opportunity to bomb the cab (but no other options) before it gets lost in city traffic. But bombing the cab would kill the innocent and unwitting driver (who probably would not number among the terrorists intended victims). That gets harder to justify.

I am no moral theologian, but I find the justification for an abortion in the case of a pregnancy in the fallopian tube hard to swallow.

From what I have read, it is justified using the double-effect principle. Apparently, in such a procedure it is the fallopian tube which is removed and the death of the child is a secondary effect.

However, I find that odd reasoning, for it is the child itself which is causing the problem in the first place. The danger that exists because of the condition of the fallopian tube is directly caused by the presence of the child in the wrong location. The only way to eliminate the problem is to either move the child to the correct location or destroy it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Prometheum_x:

However, I find that odd reasoning, for it is the child itself which is causing the problem in the first place. The danger that exists because of the condition of the fallopian tube is directly caused by the presence of the child in the wrong location. The only way to eliminate the problem is to either move the child to the correct location or destroy it.

Obviously the child is the direct cause of the problem. S/he is not an innocent third party (innocent yes, but not a third party). The child has no chance of survival under current medical technology (as far as I know there is no way to remove/transplant the embryo). But this isn’t a thread about abortion - I was simply pointing out that the two situations are morally similar. It would be logically inconsistent to be OK with ectopic “abortion” (with which most sensible people agree) but disagree with shooting down airplanes piloted by terrorist madmen.

 

[Prometheum_x]

DavidFilmer:

Obviously the child is the direct cause of the problem. S/he is not an innocent third party (innocent yes, but not a third party). The child has no chance of survival under current medical technology (as far as I know there is no way to remove/transplant the embryo). But this isn’t a thread about abortion - I was simply pointing out that the two situations are morally similar. It would be logically inconsistent to be OK with ectopic “abortion” (with which most sensible people agree) but disagree with shooting down airplanes piloted by terrorist madmen.

I understand your point now and I fully agree.

Incidentally, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the issue is exactly that of “kill one innocent to save another” or “lose one to avoid losing two”. In that case, this thread is very much about that sort of abortion.

 

[4_marks]

Ham1:

What do you mean by “purely”?

Entirely.

 

[felra]

4 marks:

Entirely.

As in the Holy Spirit is entirely/purely Good, and Satan is entirely/purely Evil? and any action deriving from this *source *accordingly? Scripture would seem to support a systemic understanding of the source for one’s actions.

Luke**, Chapter 6**
43"A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its own fruit…

Matthew**, Chapter 7**
17Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.

Matthew**, Chapter 12**
33 "Either declare the tree good and its fruit is good, or declare the tree rotten and its fruit is rotten, for a tree is known by its fruit.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jess7396:

A bit OT-

This reminds me of the issue of the use of vaccines which are derived from aborted fetal tissue. In these cases, one was sacrificed for the lives of many.

Here’s a link for more info.:
cogforlife.org/

The killing of the fetus was intended. Such does not fall under the principle of double effect. And to profit from such intended evil is far from praiseworthy, and may even promote more killing of innocent fetuses.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

DavidFilmer:

This isn’t much different than the question of “aborting” an ectopic prenancy. A fetus which implants in the fallopian tube has absolutely no chance of survival - it is medically impossible (unless some major medical breakthrough has been recently made). But, unless removed, this condition will kill the mother. I’ve never heard a moral theologian object to an abortion under these circumstances - though I’ll probably hear from some now

Kill one person (with NO chance of survival) to save another? Sure. Passengers aboard a plane piloted by a murdering maniac have the same chances of survival as an ectopic pregnancy.

But what if a terrorist hit squad hails a taxi and heads to New York intent on mass meyhem… an F14 flying overhead has a small window of opportunity to bomb the cab (but no other options) before it gets lost in city traffic. But bombing the cab would kill the innocent and unwitting driver (who probably would not number among the terrorists intended victims). That gets harder to justify.

David,

I suggest you read the following link.
cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf or html format here:
216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:TbAJi5CalJ8J:www.cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf+Ectopic+for+discussion+a+catholic+approach+to+tubal+pregnancies&hl=en

If the abortion is intended, it is immoral. If the evil effect (abortion) causes the good effect, then it is immoral.

We’ve had other discussion about the moral difficulties of ectopic pregnancies on this thread here: Ectopic pregnancy possible – what’s allowed?

 

[jess7396]

Yes Dave- I am well aware of this, did you check out the link I gave? I brought this up, b/c I would be willing to bet that many posting here are #1- unaware of how these vaccines were made, and #2- going to have to face the issue being discussed here head on via the vaccine issue. Since learning of this link, I have refused these vaccines for my children.

itsjustdave1988:

The killing of the fetus was intended. Such does not fall under the principle of double effect. And to profit from such intended evil is far from praiseworthy, and may even promote more killing of innocent fetuses.