Moral dilemma: would you kill this man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In some ways doesn’t this hypothetical moral dilemma match the very real one that St. Maximillian Kolbe found himself in in Auschwitz? It seems to me that his example of what to do could provide all of us with the appropriate answer. The right moral thing to do isn’t always the easiest and doing the right thing may cost us more than we’d like to give up.

ChadS
 
DeOppressoLiber said:
Good Grief Charlie Brown! The whole point of these logic/moral exercises, is that they are not realistic.

The real world has too many variables and options. The point of these type set ups is to do away with all that. The point is to have an artificially simple situation that has an either/or answer with no wiggle room, to force you to defend a stance, and not have options to find another route.
:confused:
Click to expand...
Thing is, there are some people who actually sit around thinking up reasons/times/excuses for killing babies.

The end of this little “exercise” is that Flyingfish compares an innocent baby in mother’s womb to the man tied to the machine - you have to shoot him to save your own precious life.

I can think of way better hobbies than thinking up reasons to kill babies.
 
DeOppressoLiber said:
Given the parameters set…

Killing the other man is a completely self serving act. Value of life is not at issue, and given the situation one could hardly be called an impartial judge in this situation.

Pray for strength. Throw the gun a way so that no last second weakness overcomes you. Look to the Father, and make the sacrifice. This shouldn’t be a difficult decision for a Christian to make.
Click to expand...
Totally agree! AMEN!
 
I would shoot the man. Why? I’m human. I value my life, and self preservation. I would think of my family and children having to manage without me. While I would know it is WRONG to shoot the other man, I would do it, all the while, praying that God have mercy on my soul.

I love and hate these types of threads, as it really makes you wonder how many people out there really answer honestly, and not just to “sound good”. Me thinks the latter is the case in most cases. 🙂
 
Sorry, but I’m not that noble.

I’d probably shoot the guy and feel bad about it later. (And so would most of you, you just won’t admit it. You’d let your wife become a widow and your kids become orphans without lifting a finger to prevent it? Isn’t that in fact suicide?)

Then I’d do my best find the guy who made that machine and shoot him, too. Tolstoyan non-resistance to evil has proven to be *ineffective *time and time again. (And I say this as a great fan of Lev Nikolayevich.)

I read that Korea is making great strides as a Catholic country. This isn’t because they chose *not *to fight the commie invasion in 1950.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
 
Giving in to weakness at the last second I understand.

To some of you that are self identified “Christians” and “Catholics”, you should be ashamed of yourselves. You’re not even being faced with the actual danger and fear of the situation. You’re sitting safely at your computer, and yet still rationalizing killing the man.

Yes you may give in to fear and weakness at the last moment, and I would not hold that against you. We’re only human, and don’t have the perfectness of Christ. But, there is only one right answer to this question in keeping with the example laid before us by Christ.

Can one carry through with the answer? Who knows. But you **should **know what the right answer is.
 
Doc_Keele said:
It would be self defence to kill the man and so permissible.
Click to expand...
It is not self defense to intentionally kill a person that you know to be an innocent to save yourself. This person is a victim too, not the perpetrator. It’s murder.

Just as the Church says it is murder to intentional abort a child to save the mother. You try to save the mother and the child, if the child dies in spite of your best efforts that’s Gods will. But you don’t set out with the **goal **of killing the child.
 
DeOppressoLiber said:
It is not self defense to intentionally kill a person that you know to be an innocent to save yourself. This person is a victim too, not the perpetrator. It’s murder.

Just as the Church says it is murder to intentional abort a child to save the mother. You try to save the mother and the child, if the child dies in spite of your best efforts that’s Gods will. But you don’t set out with the **goal **of killing the child.
Click to expand...
You’re wrong there. The innocence of the person does not deny you the right to self defence.
 
Doc_Keele said:
You’re wrong there. The innocence of the person does not deny you the right to self defence.
Click to expand...
It does from a moral and Christian standpoint. You are speaking legalistically. The OP if I am not mistaken is posing a moral question to us, not a legal one.
 
DeOppressoLiber said:
Giving in to weakness at the last second I understand.

To some of you that are self identified “Christians” and “Catholics”, you should be ashamed of yourselves. You’re not even being faced with the actual danger and fear of the situation. You’re sitting safely at your computer, and yet still rationalizing killing the man.

Yes you may give in to fear and weakness at the last moment, and I would not hold that against you. We’re only human, and don’t have the perfectness of Christ. But, there is only one right answer to this question in keeping with the example laid before us by Christ.

Can one carry through with the answer? Who knows. But you **should **know what the right answer is.
Click to expand...
But the question was not do you know what the right answer is, but rather, what would you do. We all KNOW what the correct answer is, but some of us answered honestly as to what we would do, given the situation, whether that be 100% right or wrong.

Your statement regarding not being faced with the actual danger, and still choosing to kill the man, should cause shame is ridiculous. For that very reason, not being faced with the actual danger, and choosing to allow yourself to be killed, is what should cause shame. Were the situation actually real, I would be willing to bet that better than 1/2 of those that would choose to let themselves be killed in the “fake situation” would choose the opposite, whether they would admit it here or not.
 
Hereswith said:
It does from a moral and Christian standpoint. You are speaking legalistically. The OP if I am not mistaken is posing a moral question to us, not a legal one.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, it is the moral and Christian justification Hereswith. I am answering the moral question.

You might not defend yourself from a madman firing an assault rifle at you and other people, but I would. That would be the moral and Christian response.
 
Doc_Keele said:
I have to disagree, it is the moral and Christian justification Hereswith. I am answering the moral question.

You might not defend yourself from a madman firing an assault rifle at you and other people, but I would. That would be the moral and Christian response.
Click to expand...
And you don’t see the moral distiction between shooting someone who is activley trying to kill you, and shooting an innocent person in a chair who is not trying to kill you?😊

I guess I’ll just leave it there. I don’t know how to even start to see eye to eye with that mindset:(
 
rotlex said:
But the question was not do you know what the right answer is, but rather, what would you do. We all KNOW what the correct answer is, but some of us answered honestly as to what we would do, given the situation, whether that be 100% right or wrong.

Your statement regarding not being faced with the actual danger, and still choosing to kill the man, should cause shame is ridiculous. For that very reason, not being faced with the actual danger, and choosing to allow yourself to be killed, is what should cause shame. Were the situation actually real, I would be willing to bet that better than 1/2 of those that would choose to let themselves be killed in the “fake situation” would choose the opposite, whether they would admit it here or not.
Click to expand...
I guess I can concede to parts of your post and see your POV there. Some may be trying to give an honest account of how the think they would realistically behave in the situation. Mea culpa.

But, I would like to point out it is not at all clear that “we all KNOW what the correct answer is” Case in point Doc, who is adamant that this is a case of self defense, and is justified in shooting the man in the chair.
 
DeOppressoLiber said:
And you don’t see the moral distiction between shooting someone who is activley trying to kill you, and shooting an innocent person in a chair who is not trying to kill you?😊

I guess I’ll just leave it there. I don’t know how to even start to see eye to eye with that mindset:(
Click to expand...
You don’t understand the justification for self defence. It’s nothing to do with a “mindset”, it’s the inevitable conclusion of examining the issues surrounding self defence.
 
Personally, I would shoot the man…Here are several reasons why:
  1. Since in reality I don’t know anything about him, I cannot weigh our lives to where it would be logical and reasonable to die instead of live.
  2. I would think about everyone I would be abandoning if I died. Even if he has something similar.
  3. I was forced into this choice. To die instead of killing him, yes it is the low road. But it is an understandable low road. Even God would understand this situation and let it slide as a Venial Sin instead of a Mortal Sin. Thus, repentance is possible.
  4. You are forced to make a harsh choice. Neither choice is right. Die, and abandon all your loved ones, which depending on the situation might cause more deaths, or kill the man and survive which in turn might end up the same way.
Either way. In this situation, there is no right and wrong. Because both are wrong, so you would automatically resort to the part of your brain that holds your Survival instincts, and you would uncontrollably kill the man.
 
I think its a no brainer to not kill the man, what may be a little more complex is if it was someone else like your child. Still not right of course, but I think culpabilty would be muddled.
 
I assume there is a minute or so to make the decision. So why not get the other person involved. Perhaps he is willing to sacrifice his life for you and would rather you shoot him than die. Why should you be the one who get to decide to sacrifice your life. If I’m in this predicament, the person better have a darn good argument for why I should let him live and myself die or else I’m pulling the trigger.

Here is what I wonder. What if you have two saintly individuals in this predicament. Who gets to be the one that lives? How would you decide with another individual over who dies for the other?
 
I would shoot the man coming to me and stop the machine. But I would be using blank cartridges that would only imitate bullets but cause no real damage and let the man know about it so that he can pretend that he is dead. I would be let go, and the man would also live since he was shot with blank cartridges. So we both live. and then we would take the real bullets and put them in our guns and then shoot the evil criminals who had devised this satanic scheme in the first place.
 
In all reality I would probably convince myself to kill the man. I’d like to think I could make the right choice, but the prospect of a slow, agonizing death would probably make me do what I did not want to do. Although, I may also take into account my chance of ultimate survival and the opportunity to go to confession afterward. I am assuming both of those things are likely. So in my weakness I shoot the guy and am really sorry I did it. Although enduring the machine may make me an eventual candidate for sainthood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top