Lesser Evil Dilemma

[STT]

Killing is not objectively immoral. Murder is objectively immoral.

There is a difference.

Murdering is killing to me. I think we need to define them first before we can discuss further.

 

[dshix]

Murdering is killing to me. I think we need to define them first before we can discuss further.

I told you the definition earlier in the thread (according to the Catechism):

Keep in mind that killing, or homicide, is not intrinsically evil. That is, it is not evil in and of itself. Rather, murder is evil because it is homicide of an innocent man, or suicide is evil because it is the killing of oneself, which is a violation of the just love of self.

 

[STT]

I told you the definition earlier in the thread (according to the Catechism):

Keep in mind that killing, or homicide, is not intrinsically evil. That is, it is not evil in and of itself. Rather, murder is evil because it is homicide of an innocent man, or suicide is evil because it is the killing of oneself, which is a violation of the just love of self.

Murdering is killing to me. So according to you the act of killing a criminal or enemy is moral?
Why Jesus said, Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemy…” if you are correct.

 

[dshix]

Murdering is killing to me. So according to you the act of killing a criminal or enemy is moral?
Why Jesus said, Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemy…” if you are correct.

We’ve had this conversation already in this thread. I will not repeat my full argument.

Murder, the killing of an innocent person, is immoral. Not so for a person who is NOT innocent.

It is very simple.

 

[tonyrey]

Charlemagne:

Just in the off-chance you are asking this in the context of the up-coming presidential election and want to decide which candidate is the “lesser of two evils”, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, let me offer a suggestion that our deacon gave at last Sunday’s homily.

Given that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president instead of asking which is the lesser of the two evils, ask yourself this: Which one is more likely to do the most good?

That is true but we should consider both the most good and also the most harm (which may outweigh the most good).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is true but we should consider both the most good and also the most harm (which may outweigh the most good).

Certainly in the case of Hitler that would have been the question to ask.

 

[ericc]

We’ve had this conversation already in this thread. I will not repeat my full argument.

Murder, the killing of an innocent person, is immoral. Not so for a person who is NOT innocent.

It is very simple.

We need to qualify “killing”. There are a few situations where killing is not immoral:

1. Unintentional or accidental killing. I shot a deer, bullet ricocheted, hit and killed someone. Victim is innocent. Motor accidents. Someone hit your car which collided and killed someone else.
2. Self defense or preventing further killing by a person gone amok i.e. gunman in universities randomly shooting anyone on sight. It would have been immoral not to stop this rampage. There is intention. A mentally unstable person may be deemed innocent because he didn’t take his medicines that day, or couldn’t afford it or someone messed with his medicines. Take your pick.
3. War. Just throw whatever you have at that region. Doesn’t matter if there are civilians there or not. Couldn’t tell or the civilians are actively assisting enemy soldiers or even child soldiers and living among them with babies and son.
4. Commanded by God (Amalakites eg). Sensitive I know but literally the story was told that way.
5. State sanctified killing. In some countries mandatory death penalty for certain drug offenses or blaspheming their local holy man.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[tonyrey]

We need to qualify “killing”. There are a few situations where killing is not immoral:

1. Unintentional or accidental killing. I shot a deer, bullet ricocheted, hit and killed someone. Victim is innocent. Motor accidents. Someone hit your car which collided and killed someone else.
2. Self defense or preventing further killing by a person gone amok i.e. gunman in universities randomly shooting anyone on sight. It would have been immoral not to stop this rampage. There is intention. A mentally unstable person may be deemed innocent because he didn’t take his medicines that day, or couldn’t afford it or someone messed with his medicines. Take your pick.
3. War. Just throw whatever you have at that region. Doesn’t matter if there are civilians there or not. Couldn’t tell or the civilians are actively assisting enemy soldiers or even child soldiers and living among them with babies and son.
4. Commanded by God (Amalakites eg). Sensitive I know but literally the story was told that way.
5. State sanctified killing. In some countries mandatory death penalty for certain drug offenses or blaspheming their local holy man.

Just off the top of my head.

It would be a far greater evil to allow a terrorist to destroy a large city with a nuclear missile than kill one innocent person. Jesus had committed no sin or crime but he allowed Himself to be killed as an example to us that we should choose the lesser evil.

 

[ericc]

It would be a far greater evil to allow a terrorist to destroy a large city with a nuclear missile than kill one innocent person. Jesus had committed no sin or crime but he allowed Himself to be killed as an example to us that we should choose the lesser evil.

If life is so clear cut, there won’t be a dilemma. How about 9 good men vs 10 evil men or some other ratio.

However, it is my personal believe that God will understand in a moment of stress we won’t be able to do armchair analysis properly. What count is the intent to do the most good/less evil, even if we messed up our thinking process along the way. I think at a situation where we do not prefer any option over another, throwing lots may be a valid decision. The office of Judas was determined that way. Let God decide which way the coin/dice rolls.

 

[dshix]

It would be a far greater evil to allow a terrorist to destroy a large city with a nuclear missile than kill one innocent person. Jesus had committed no sin or crime but he allowed Himself to be killed as an example to us that we should choose the lesser evil.

You are conflating two different things: murder and self-sacrifice.

How dare you equate Christ’s sacrifice of self with the immoral act of murdering an innocent man?

The ends do not justify the means. “Choose the lesser of two evils” is an absolutely false principle, for the reasons have been very thoroughly explained in this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are conflating two different things: murder and self-sacrifice.

How dare you equate Christ’s sacrifice of self with the immoral act of murdering an innocent man?

The ends do not justify the means. “Choose the lesser of two evils” is an absolutely false principle, for the reasons have been very thoroughly explained in this thread.

Jesus Christ chose the lesser of two evils, that he should die innocent on the cross that the whole world would not perish.

 

[dshix]

Jesus Christ chose the lesser of two evils, that he should die innocent on the cross that the whole world would not perish.

No he did not. Christ did **not **choose to commit an evil act. He did not choose evil, period. That would contradict the fact that He is God.

I understand that this is probably not what you mean, but you really need to change your language.

“Choosing the lesser of two evils” explicitly means that you are choosing something evil, which is ALWAYS immoral. No exceptions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No he did not. Christ did **not **choose to commit an evil act. He did not choose evil, period. That would contradict the fact that He is God.

I understand that this is probably not what you mean, but you really need to change your language.

“Choosing the lesser of two evils” explicitly means that you are choosing something evil, which is ALWAYS immoral. No exceptions.

You may not think of it as an evil that men murdered their lord and savior, but I do.

Yet it was a murder that saved all who are willing to be saved.

Take a deep breath and calm down.

 

[dshix]

You may not think of it as an evil that men murdered their lord and savior, but I do.

Yet it was a murder that saved all who are willing to be saved.

Take a deep breath and calm down.

I do not find your condescension necessary or welcome.

I have been very clear, and I think you agree with me in principle, that is: I don’t think you actually believe Christ committed an evil act by sacrificing himself (though you implied this in saying “Jesus Christ chose the lesser of two evils”)

You don’t yet seem to understand that using that phrase, “lesser of two evils” communicates the wrong idea. I’m trying to convey to you that you should not use this phrase when speaking to others, because it conveys a false principle.

 

[tonyrey]

t would be a far greater evil to allow a terrorist to destroy a large city with a nuclear missile than kill one innocent person. Jesus had committed no sin or crime but he allowed Himself to be killed as an example to us that we should choose the lesser evil.

The topic is Lesser Evil Dilemma. Jesus gave us an example we should follow and allow ourselves and other Christians to be killed rather than condone evil. He told His apostles and disciples they should follow His example and die as martyrs for the faith.

The ends do not justify the means. “Choose the lesser of two evils” is an absolutely false principle, for the reasons have been very thoroughly explained in this thread.

It is obviously false to choose the** greater **of two evils. :tsktsk: The Church teaches the principle of proportionality:

“The expected good to be achieved must be greater than the destruction and disorder that will be caused by the use of force.”

If the only way to save an entire city from nuclear destruction by a terrorist with a hostage is to kill both of them we are justified in doing so. The hostage would surely prefer to die rather than allow himself and all his relatives, friends and fellow citizens to be killed. This is undoubtedly a case of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[dshix]

The topic is Lesser Evil Dilemma". Jesus gave us an example we should follow if necessary and allow an innocent person to be killed rather than

It is obviously false to choose the greater of two evils. The Church teaches the principle of proportionality:

“The expected good to be achieved must be greater than the destruction and disorder that will be caused by the use of force.”

If the only way to save an entire city from nuclear destruction by a terrorist with a hostage is to kill both of them we are justified in doing so. The hostage would surely prefer to die rather than allow himself and all his relatives, friends and fellow citizens to become the victims of radiation. This is undoubtedly a case of choosing the lesser evil.

Actually, the Church doesn’t teach for proportionality to applied here alone; rather, the principle of double effect must be used (which in itself, contains proportionality).

One cannot actually commit the act of murder (or any other intrinsically evil act) in order to prevent some greater evil. One CAN do a morally neutral/good act which has a good and bad effect (per the principle of double effect).

Do you see why? According to your principle of proportionality, one could argue that he would be justified in brutally raping a child if it would then appease the terrorist’s disordered interest. Could you bring yourself to do that, and say you were justified because you were saving a city?

I hope not.

(Please read my post #7 for a full explanation of the principle of double effect)

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus Christ chose the lesser of two evils, that he should die innocent on the cross that the whole world would not perish.

Irrefutable! In theeyes of the world it is insanity to let yourself be killed for a crime you didn’t commit but in His wisdom Jesus knows it is a virtue if it liberates others from the vortex of violence. And Gandhi followed in His footsteps by risking his life for the sake of peace…

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, the Church doesn’t teach for proportionality to applied here alone; rather, the principle of double effect must be used (which in itself, contains proportionality).

One cannot actually commit the act of murder (or any other intrinsically evil act) in order to prevent some greater evil. One CAN do a morally neutral/good act which has a good and bad effect (per the principle of double effect).

Do you see why? According to your principle of proportionality, one could argue that he would be justified in brutally raping a child if it would then appease the terrorist’s disordered interest. Could you bring yourself to do that, and say you were justified because you were saving a city?

I hope not.

Non sequitur. The two cases are quite different - and yours is fanciful as well.

(Please read my post #7 for a full explanation of the principle of double effect)

You haven’t refuted my example of the terrorist with a hostage. If you were the hostage what would you prefer?

And according to your argument there is no such thing as a just war of self-defence in which innocent people are killed. The Nazis should have been allowed to overrun Europe and eventually the world…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I do not find your condescension necessary or welcome.

I have been very clear, and I think you agree with me in principle, that is: I don’t think you actually believe Christ committed an evil act by sacrificing himself (though you implied this in saying “Jesus Christ chose the lesser of two evils”)

You don’t yet seem to understand that using that phrase, “lesser of two evils” communicates the wrong idea. I’m trying to convey to you that you should not use this phrase when speaking to others, because it conveys a false principle.

Jesus Christ knew Deicide was coming. How could he not know this?

And how can you not know that he chose to allow the evil of Deicide in order to save mankind?

 

[ericc]

Jesus Christ chose the lesser of two evils, that he should die innocent on the cross that the whole world would not perish.

I think we have to be careful here. It may be painted to look like Jesus knowingly chose evil, even though it was the lesser of the two the way you put it. But Jesus cannot sin. At all.

I may have to digress a bit but I reckon some explanation is necessary. There is a theory of Christology (scapegoat theory) that is making the rounds in that his crucifixion reflects the evil of Man and not that Jesus chose suicide. Jesus was the scapegoat. In the words of the High Priest , it is better than one die rather than the whole nation perish. Jesus mission was to teach us how to live in the kingdom of God. Being human, he may experience death. And we ask ourselves, why this gruesome death. He could die in his sleep peacefully and painlessly and God will still raise him from the dead. He knows how his death going to come by. And he showed us how to live as well as how to die. He continued to preach the Good News in accordance to his Father’s will. He wished he didn’t have to go through that suffering as seen in the Gethsemane Garden. Mat 26:39,42,44 but he remained obedient to his Father. He chose obedience (despite the evil of Man) over disobedience/denial. So it is not the lesser of the 2 evils at all. He taught us obedience even if it leads to one’s death. The torture and suffering are the work of man and incidental to the hazards of his profession to put a modern spin to it. And that is the way to live in the kingdom of God.

And you can see how His example affect the early Christians. So many chose obedience (ending in death) rather than deny Him. I have never heard of the Christian martyrs choosing the lesser of the 2 evils. For these martyrs, it is life(disobedience) or death (obedience). It always has been good vs evil and not evil vs less evil.