Moral Quandry - Killing Innocents/ Defeating Evil

[FlaviusGratian]

So I was wondering something today, and I have yet to come up with a good answer to this question, so I was wondering what seemed the most moral solution.

There are ten men, and you have legitimate reason suspect that they may be physical incarnations of evil, demons in human form, prowling the world seeking the ruin of souls. You are 100% sure that 5 of them are demons, so you fight them and kill them and send them back to hell. You are however, not necessarily sure if the other five are demons and do not know if you should kill them. If you let a demon out, they will prowl the world, drag souls into hell, commit grave acts, and their victims may count you as their murder. You have two options. You can kill all 10 of them to ensure that no evil escapes, or you can let the remaining five go as to not kill an innocent. What do you do?

If this is confusing, this is the heart of my question: **Is it better to possibly kill an innocent rather than let evil remain, or is it better to allow evil to escape in order to make absolutely sure no innocents die? **

I’ve always leaned towards the kill an innocent to ensure evil’s defeat. After all, you are not willingly killing somebody whom you know is innocent, and evil must be defeated no matter the cost. My support for my side comes from the fact that the Church teaches that moral decisions must be made for the greater good and with justice in mind, but we are not allowed to commit evil so that good may come. If you aren’t willingly committing an evil, then it should be fine. I do, however, fully understand that killing an innocent is very unjust.

What do the rest of you think? Please note that this is not a death penalty thread. That is not the moral question I have been asking.

 

[minion]

I’ve always leaned towards the kill an innocent to ensure evil’s defeat. After all, you are not willingly killing somebody whom you know is innocent, and evil must be defeated no matter the cost. My support for my side comes from the fact that the Church teaches that moral decisions must be made for the greater good and with justice in mind, but we are not allowed to commit evil so that good may come. If you aren’t willingly committing an evil, then it should be fine. I do, however, fully understand that killing an innocent is very unjust.

Keep in mind your answer was that of Caiaphas, which resulted with Jesus’ crucifixion.

I don’t believe what you posted about Catholic Church teaching is exactly correct…I’m pretty sure it opposed the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, and the same logic extends to why Catholics aren’t running around the U.S. burning down abortion clinics.

Assuming I have no means to hold them, I would spare the innocent, despite the risk of sparing the “demonic incarnates.” And duly warn the surrounding populace. I am not responsible for the evil acts another person chooses to do, and neither are the innocent men I spared…why should they die, if I don’t follow them too?

EDIT: Just to add, the value of life isn’t quantifiable. This scenarios is kind of similar to the “Fire in the Clinic” scenario, which might interest you:

ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=307

 

[FlaviusGratian]

Keep in mind your answer was that of Caiaphas, which resulted with Jesus’ crucifixion.

I don’t believe what you posted about Catholic Church teaching is exactly correct…I’m pretty sure it opposed the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, and the same logic extends to why Catholics aren’t running around the U.S. burning down abortion clinics.

Assuming I have no means to hold them, I would spare the innocent, despite the risk of sparing the “demonic incarnates.” And duly warn the surrounding populace. I am not responsible for the evil acts another person chooses to do, and neither are the innocent men I spared…why should they die, if I don’t follow them too?

EDIT: Just to add, the value of life isn’t quantifiable. This scenarios is kind of similar to the “Fire in the Clinic” scenario, which might interest you:

ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=307

You make decent points, although I am not sure that it’s the same reasoning between killing Jesus and killing an innocent. Caiaphas clearly had malice in his heart, where as I in this situation would be doing my best to do the good act.

I still think that even the nuclear bomb scenario is different. When we feel that we have the means to create peace and save live, and even if by doing so killing is involved, less so than what would have occured should we not have acted, then the action is just. Unless I understand Augustine’s just war theory incorrectly, I thought that that was one of the basic parts: if by going to war we can save lives and if by not going to war we lose lives, then that war is potentially just. The Just War Theory is obviously much bigger and more complex than that, but that is part of it.

Also, it is probably just as large of an evil to allow evil to exist, if we have the ability to stop it.

 

[minion]

Caiphas: “Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not.” John 11:50

Whatever was in Caiaphas’ heart, the rationale is the same. An innocent should die to save a nation.

It took me awhile to find this, but concerning the use of atomic bombs, the Church expressly forbids it.

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes. (CCC 2314)

The same idea is present, is it okay to drop a nuke two cities of innocent civilians to potentially save millions of lives? Church says no.

Also, it is probably just as large of an evil to allow evil to exist, if we have the ability to stop it

God has the power end ALL evil, but chooses to allow it to exist. And, um, quoting Tolkien’s Gandalf:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

This same question bothered me before, and I brought it up an CAF in another thread. The scenario is called the “Prisoner Dilemna,” a fantasy scenario, but since you brought up demons…fair game?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9745854&postcount=27

 

[Rete]

The Church most certainly does not teach utilitarianism. That’s what you described.

newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm

 

[SonCatcher]

Any taking of life is an evil. When that taking is of a guilty person and for the purpose of protecting yourself or others, it is justifiable. However, when that life is innocent and harmless, that taking is unjustifiable.

We cannot commit evil, even for noble purpose.

 

[FlaviusGratian]

Okay, this is getting away from what I was getting at. The question is about evil. I am not advocating utilitarianism, since in that scenario I would have to be choosing who lives and who dies purely by the state of the world at the end, which I am not doing.

I am merely suggesting that it is better to kill one innocent, so long as one does not consciously know that they are innocent, rather than to allow evil to continue its works. I’m not speaking of the actions of men, and although I believe that there are truly evil men on this planet, men so evil as for the light of God to be nearly extinguished inside of them, I am not suggesting that the murder of innocents is permitted if at the end evil is defeated.

The ends absolutely do not justify the means, but if at the end you are in the same spot or in a worse spot, then one can agree that the means themselves were in vein.

If I were ever in the reverse, I would like to think I would understand, since if my death could potentially save the lives of countless others, and provided I am in a state of grace at the moment of death, then I shall receive my reward in heaven. Would I in reality? I hope I’ll never have to prove myself right or wrong.

But the life of Christ himself can provide us with a guide. He, both man and God, willingly chose to die so that we, the many, may have the chance at salvation.

 

[Reepicheep]

So I was wondering something today, and I have yet to come up with a good answer to this question, so I was wondering what seemed the most moral solution.

There are ten men, and you have legitimate reason suspect that they may be physical incarnations of evil, demons in human form, prowling the world seeking the ruin of souls. You are 100% sure that 5 of them are demons, so you fight them and kill them and send them back to hell. You are however, not necessarily sure if the other five are demons and do not know if you should kill them. If you let a demon out, they will prowl the world, drag souls into hell, commit grave acts, and their victims may count you as their murder. You have two options. You can kill all 10 of them to ensure that no evil escapes, or you can let the remaining five go as to not kill an innocent. What do you do?

If this is confusing, this is the heart of my question: **Is it better to possibly kill an innocent rather than let evil remain, or is it better to allow evil to escape in order to make absolutely sure no innocents die? **

I’ve always leaned towards the kill an innocent to ensure evil’s defeat. After all, you are not willingly killing somebody whom you know is innocent, and evil must be defeated no matter the cost. My support for my side comes from the fact that the Church teaches that moral decisions must be made for the greater good and with justice in mind, but we are not allowed to commit evil so that good may come. If you aren’t willingly committing an evil, then it should be fine. I do, however, fully understand that killing an innocent is very unjust.

What do the rest of you think? Please note that this is not a death penalty thread. That is not the moral question I have been asking.

Never kill an innocent.
If you are not certain of their innocence or guilt you must not kill them.

Never do an evil thing to reach a good goal.
.

 

[SonCatcher]

Okay, this is getting away from what I was getting at. The question is about evil. I am not advocating utilitarianism, since in that scenario I would have to be choosing who lives and who dies purely by the state of the world at the end, which I am not doing.

I am merely suggesting that it is better to kill one innocent, so long as one does not consciously know that they are innocent, rather than to allow evil to continue its works. I’m not speaking of the actions of men, and although I believe that there are truly evil men on this planet, men so evil as for the light of God to be nearly extinguished inside of them, I am not suggesting that the murder of innocents is permitted if at the end evil is defeated.

The ends absolutely do not justify the means, but if at the end you are in the same spot or in a worse spot, then one can agree that the means themselves were in vein.

If I were ever in the reverse, I would like to think I would understand, since if my death could potentially save the lives of countless others, and provided I am in a state of grace at the moment of death, then I shall receive my reward in heaven. Would I in reality? I hope I’ll never have to prove myself right or wrong.

But the life of Christ himself can provide us with a guide. He, both man and God, willingly chose to die so that we, the many, may have the chance at salvation.

I don’t think His freewill sacrifice compares with your hypothetical scenario. Also, I don’t think this clarification changes one iota of your original scenario. I understand that you have been struggling with this for some time.

Holy Week is just around the corner. It is an excellent time for us all to reflect on the Passion of our Lord.

 

[FlaviusGratian]

I quit.

 

[Reepicheep]

Okay, this is getting away from what I was getting at. The question is about evil. I am not advocating utilitarianism, since in that scenario I would have to be choosing who lives and who dies purely by the state of the world at the end, which I am not doing.

I am merely suggesting that it is better to kill one innocent, so long as one does not consciously know that they are innocent, rather than to allow evil to continue its works. I’m not speaking of the actions of men, and although I believe that there are truly evil men on this planet, men so evil as for the light of God to be nearly extinguished inside of them, I am not suggesting that the murder of innocents is permitted if at the end evil is defeated.

The ends absolutely do not justify the means, but if at the end you are in the same spot or in a worse spot, then one can agree that the means themselves were in vein.

If I were ever in the reverse, I would like to think I would understand, since if my death could potentially save the lives of countless others, and provided I am in a state of grace at the moment of death, then I shall receive my reward in heaven. Would I in reality? I hope I’ll never have to prove myself right or wrong.

But the life of Christ himself can provide us with a guide. He, both man and God, willingly chose to die so that we, the many, may have the chance at salvation.

Christ chose to die. He did not choose to kill someone else.

I know Flavius Gratian has left the thread. This point was still worth making.

 

[Rete]

Okay, this is getting away from what I was getting at. The question is about evil. I am not advocating utilitarianism, since in that scenario I would have to be choosing who lives and who dies purely by the state of the world at the end, which I am not doing.

I am merely suggesting that it is better to kill one innocent, so long as one does not consciously know that they are innocent, rather than to allow evil to continue its works. I’m not speaking of the actions of men, and although I believe that there are truly evil men on this planet, men so evil as for the light of God to be nearly extinguished inside of them, I am not suggesting that the murder of innocents is permitted if at the end evil is defeated.

The ends absolutely do not justify the means, but if at the end you are in the same spot or in a worse spot, then one can agree that the means themselves were in vein.

If I were ever in the reverse, I would like to think I would understand, since if my death could potentially save the lives of countless others, and provided I am in a state of grace at the moment of death, then I shall receive my reward in heaven. Would I in reality? I hope I’ll never have to prove myself right or wrong.

But the life of Christ himself can provide us with a guide. He, both man and God, willingly chose to die so that we, the many, may have the chance at salvation.

It occurs to me that there is one way of putting it that might not get the same response, but let’s dispense with the demons.

Assume a Catholic officer is engaged in a just war. That part is not in question. The Pope says it is just. It’s a just war.

Now, to prosecute that war, he must recapture a town from enemy combatants who now occupy it. Before he orders the assault, proper military doctrine requires he order artillery and/or airstrikes on hardened positions, especially heavy weapons. Doing so will likely result in collateral casualties of noncombatants (innocents).

The death of those innocents is a regrettable side effect of his properly defeating the enemy forces. If the war is not just, then he is wrong no matter what. But if the war is just, and the town must be recaptured, and doing so will necessarily result in the death of innocents, then he may very well be justified. I would not go as far as to say he is definitely justified. I think he would do well to go to confession (and it takes a while to spiritually heal from something that dark).

But I do think we would be wrong to claim he was unjustified in conducting that attack. This is not the case because he attacked the town for the greater good (utilitarianism), but because he was faced with fulfilling two conflicting moral rules, and he had to choose the one which takes precedence. That doesn’t necessarily mean the greater good either.

Likewise, if a pregnant woman suffers a complication where the pregnancy is going to kill her, one can argue his aborting the child is a justifiable act to save her life. The death of the fetus is a regrettable side effect of his treating the sick woman. Otherwise, they might both die.

In both of these hypothetical cases, it may be justifiable to take an innocent life, but the taking of that life is not for the greater good.

An example of where it would not be justified, is if you have a person dying from a failed liver, and an old man lingering in the hospice ward, and you decide to accelerate his death in order to provide the liver to the person who will then live. A utilitarian would state that this is justified because the man in hospice is already dying, with little life left anyway, and the young person in need of a liver has a whole life ahead of them. Clearly, the “greater good”, as most westerners would measure it anyway, is in transplanting the liver. But that would run directly against Catholic morals in a very big way.

 

[Eleve]

Likewise, if a pregnant woman suffers a complication where the pregnancy is going to kill her, one can argue his aborting the child is a justifiable act to save her life. The death of the fetus is a regrettable side effect of his treating the sick woman. Otherwise, they might both die.

How’s that a side effect? According to the traditional distinction, something is intentional (and thus not a side effect) when it’s done as a means or an end. In the case of abortion for the sake of someone’s health, death is caused as a means to health. Therefore it’s intentional killing, and not permissible.

That’s very different from the artillery case, where the deaths of the innocents are not a means to bombing the military targets.

 

[Rete]

How’s that a side effect? According to the traditional distinction, something is intentional (and thus not a side effect) when it’s done as a means or an end. In the case of abortion for the sake of someone’s health, death is caused as a means to health. Therefore it’s intentional killing, and not permissible.

That’s very different from the artillery case, where the deaths of the innocents are not a means to bombing the military targets.

It’s the principle of double effects:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

• The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
• 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.

• 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.

• The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/#Formulations

Read the entire article for a lot more detail. I find Stanford’s online encyclopedia of philosophy to be very useful for such investigations.

 

[Eleve]

Believe me, I’m very familiar with the Principle of Double Effect. My point is that the case of abortion which you describe is pretty plainly ruled out by the Double Effect. In particular, it fails criterion #2 because the abortionist wills an abortion rather than merely permitting it.

 

[Rete]

Believe me, I’m very familiar with the Principle of Double Effect. My point is that the case of abortion which you describe is pretty plainly ruled out by the Double Effect. In particular, it fails criterion #2 because the abortionist wills an abortion rather than merely permitting it.

If, for example, she suffers from an ectopic pregnancy, she will die if the pregnancy is allowed to continue. He wills to save her from that death. The surgeon does not intend or want to kill the fetus, but to save the mother.

I think the problem with your statement might be that you altered the heuristic to consider the acts rather than the effects in the third criterion?

There exist two effects here: the death of the fetus and rescue of the mother’s life. The act, abortion, in this case is morally neutral since he is not doing it for morally repugnant reasons. He does not want for the fetus to die.

 

[Eleve]

Oh, sure, in the case of ectopic pregnancy that’s one thing. I thought you were talking about abortion more generally. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, Catholic moralists have held that it’s permissible to destroy the fetus, but only indirectly, through salpingectomy.

 

[Eleve]

In the case of ectopic pregnancy and salpingectomy, the act is permissible not merely because the mother’s life is in danger but because the act itself involves the death of the fetus only indirectly. It is manifestly not true that the Catholic Church or the traditional Doctrine of Double Effect permit a direct abortion simply because the mother’s life is in danger.

The fact that the physician “does not want for the fetus to die” is irrelevant to the DDE. Because the physician is in fact deliberately killing the fetus, the DDE rules it out as impermissible. Note this sentence from the Stanford Encyclopedia entry: “We can summarize this by noting that for certain categories of morally grave actions, for example, causing the death of a human being, the principle of double effect combines a special permission for incidentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as a side effect of one’s pursuit of that end) with a general prohibition on instrumentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as part of one’s means to pursue that end).” Whether or not the abortionist wants that the fetus should die, as a matter of fact he kills the fetus for the sake of some end or another. So the DDE rules out his action.

 

[Rete]

I only meant it in the sense that a mother will necessarily die. A small percentage of all pregnancies.

I am pretty sure you are not justified in appealing to the principle if you really intend the evil effect, and the good effect is trivial in comparison.

So in the case of a necessary abortion, somebody is going to die. The evil and good effects are relatively proportionate. Furthermore, if he doesn’t abort the fetus, the fetus will die anyway.

If the “doctor” is performing an abortion because the alleged evil effect is a perceived economic cost on the mother, or whatever other rationalization people make for elective abortions, then he certainly cannot appeal to that principle at all. That’s flat-out murder as far as Catholic morality is concerned.

I am sure there exist plenty of ambiguities and pitfalls involved in the application of this principle, though. I don’t know them that well. My background is in theoretical computer science, not ethics. I can only go so far here.

 

[Eleve]

So in the case of a necessary abortion, somebody is going to die. The evil and good effects are relatively proportionate. Furthermore, if he doesn’t abort the fetus, the fetus will die anyway.

Nevertheless, under the DDE (and the standard Catholic assumptions about the personhood of the fetus and so on) it is not permissible to perform a direct abortion simply because the fetus will die anyway. Instead, the death of the fetus has to be indirect.

Consider the three procedures discussed here. Note that the situation is held constant for all of them: an ectopic pregnancy, a grave threat to the life of the fetus and the mother alike. So it is true that the fetus will die anyway if no abortion is performed. Nevertheless, the Catholic view is that it is wrong to apply methotrexate or to selectively remove the fetus from the fallopian tube. In other words, it matters how the fetus dies. If the procedure is directed toward destroying the fetus, or if the destruction of the fetus is a means toward a goal, it will be impermissible under the DDE. It is only when the fetus is destroyed incidentally to some other goal that the DDE finds that procedure permissible, even though the fetus would have died anyway.

As it happens, I think that the Catholic Church is wrong on this point, and that the Doctrine of Double Effect is wrong. But it’s pretty clear what the Catholic Church and the traditional formulation of the Doctrine of Double Effect say. And what you’re saying does not line up with that.