Morality of using a "self-destruct" mechanism?

[masterjedi747]

Can a ship’s “self-destruct” mechanism ever be used morally, assuming that there are people aboard? Assume for all given situations that it is only being used as a last resort.

Thomas Aquinas’ Principles of Double Effect:

1. The action itself is morally neutral or morally good.
2. The good effect cannot be not the result of the bad effect.
3. The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only.
4. The good effect is at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

I believe it can be used under certain conditions, but I’m having some trouble figuring out what those conditions are. Could you use it as a last resort to prevent vital information from falling into enemy hands? Could you use it as a last resort to destroy an enemy that had boarded your ship and was attempting to capture it? What about using it as a last resort (essentially as a weapon) to destroy nearby enemy ships and save the rest of your fleet?

Here’s what I’m thinking so far…
Action: Destroying a ship/base is a morally neutral action.
Bad Effect: The crew (and any passengers) would almost certainly be killed.
Good Effect: [Need ideas for what situations could morally fit here, if any.]

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

What ship has a self destruct mechanism? It may be necessary to scuttle a war vessel to prevent capture under certain circumstances, but I am not aware that there is a mechanism in place to do this intentionally. My understanding is that this might be done by detonating ordnance (that would normally be used as weaponry) in an enclosed space against the hull below the waterline.

Of course, I suppose it is possible some ships may have such charges built in for such a purpose. If so, I would hardly expect this to be public information. But I doubt this seriously. The potential for accidental detonation is too risky. A safer alternative would be valves that could be opened to admit water, sinking the ship.

 

[masterjedi747]

Joseph Bilodeau:

What ship has a self destruct mechanism?

Sorry. That’s my fault for being unlear. I’m really talking more about science-fiction type situations here. Spaceships and planetary bases…ideas found on shows such as Star Trek, Stargate, and Battlestar Galactica. The idea of these advanced spaceships and military bases have “self destruct” mechanisms (that can only be activated by the commanding officers) is not all too uncommon, so I was just wondering about the general concept of using such a device as a last resort. Similar to scuttling a naval ship, I suppose, but on a much larger scale.

 

[Madia]

Could you use it as a last resort to prevent vital information from falling into enemy hands?

Is the purpose of the self destruct is to prevent someone from getting information from the crew then it would be immoral because it would fail the second principle of double effect:

1. The good effect cannot be not the result of the bad effect.

For example, it wouldn’t be morally licit for a spy who was about to be captured take a cyanide pill because the good effect (preventing the enemy from getting information from the spy) would be the result of the bad effect (the death of the spy).

 

[Catilieth]

To me it seems like the question is “is it licit to commit suicide for a good cause”. The ship would not self-destruct without someone causing it to do so. This person would then be killing himself and also killing all those on board.
The only time doing an evil can be even considered would be that the only other choices are even more evil
The only example that comes to my mind would be ( we **are ** talking sci-fi) that the ship was headed towards a heavily populated area and was out of control. If the ship is not stopped, thousands or millions of people would be killed. If every other way of stopping the ship had been exhausted and there was no other way to keep a greater disaster from happening, then the intent is not to kill everyone on board (which would be sinful), but to stop the ship. I think it would then be licit to destroy the ship.
In a way, the people who took over the plane and crashed into the field on 9/11 did just that.

 

[Madia]

is it licit to commit suicide for a good cause

To commit suicide I think you need to intend to kill yourself. For example, someone pushing someone out of the way of a truck and then getting killed themselves doesn’t seem to be suicide since the person pushing the other person wouldn’t intend to die; they would merely permit their death to save the other person’s life.

 

[Catilieth]

Madia:

To commit suicide I think you need to intend to kill yourself. For example, someone pushing someone out of the way of a truck and then getting killed themselves doesn’t seem to be suicide since the person pushing the other person wouldn’t intend to die; they would merely permit their death to save the other person’s life.

I thought about that after i posted, but it was too late to edit. The sin is in the intent, not the action, of suicide. You may realize that your death is inevitable, but your intent is to save a life.