One problem, several solutions

[Bagheera]

Let’s contemplate this problem. A terrorist threatens to blow up a city. There is one person who can prevent this act, by killing the terrorist. This person has a gun, and is able to kill the terrorist. Here are three possible scenarios:

1. Joe, a Catholic asserts that “one cannot perform evil, so that some good would come out of it”. Besides, he adds, everyone has to die sooner or later, and this life is not all there is. As such he refuses to act, and allows the terrorist to go on.
2. Jack, another Catholic has different approach. He says that his aim is to save the innocent people, but he did not intend to kill the terrorist. The death of the terrorist is simply a foreseen, but unintended consequence of pointing the gun to the terrorist’s head and pulling the trigger. Besides, he adds, we deal here with the double effect of intending to save the lives of people, which carries the unintended side effect of killing the terrorist.
3. Jim, an atheist looks at it differently. He has absolutely no problem with killing the terrorist. The situation is simply an extension of the justified homicide performed for self defense. After all “self” defense cannot be taken literally. One is justified to defend one’s children, or family, or one’s friends, etc…

There can be sub-variants for this problem, but I would suggest to explore the stipulated scenarios first.

What is your opinion?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Let’s contemplate this problem. A terrorist threatens to blow up a city. There is one person who can prevent this act, by killing the terrorist. This person has a gun, and is able to kill the terrorist. Here are three possible scenarios:
…]
2) Jack, another Catholic has different approach. He says that his aim is to save the innocent people, but he did not intend to kill the terrorist. The death of the terrorist is simply a foreseen, but unintended consequence of pointing the gun to the terrorist’s head and pulling the trigger. Besides, he adds, we deal here with the double effect of intending to save the lives of people, which carries the unintended side effect of killing the terrorist.
…]

This kind of looks likes a metaphor for either killing an abortion Dr. or removing a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy depending on if the life to be saved is the fetus or the mother respectively.

 

[Qoeleth]

Let’s contemplate this problem. A terrorist threatens to blow up a city. There is one person who can prevent this act, by killing the terrorist. This person has a gun, and is able to kill the terrorist. Here are three possible scenarios:

1. Joe, a Catholic asserts that “one cannot perform evil, so that some good would come out of it”. Besides, he adds, everyone has to die sooner or later, and this life is not all there is. As such he refuses to act, and allows the terrorist to go on.
2. Jack, another Catholic has different approach. He says that his aim is to save the innocent people, but he did not intend to kill the terrorist. The death of the terrorist is simply a foreseen, but unintended consequence of pointing the gun to the terrorist’s head and pulling the trigger. Besides, he adds, we deal here with the double effect of intending to save the lives of people, which carries the unintended side effect of killing the terrorist.
3. Jim, an atheist looks at it differently. He has absolutely no problem with killing the terrorist. The situation is simply an extension of the justified homicide performed for self defense. After all “self” defense cannot be taken literally. One is justified to defend one’s children, or family, or one’s friends, etc…

There can be sub-variants for this problem, but I would suggest to explore the stipulated scenarios first.

What is your opinion?

The case you outline is in the second response, is not, I think, a proper interpretation. If the gun is aimed at the terrorist and fired, his death is NOT an unintended consequence. The act of killing someone necessarily has as its intended consequence the death of that person. The saving of the other lives would, technically, be the side effect (although foreseen).

If you deliberately kill the person (e.g. by shooting them), you cannot say that their death was unintended.

No offence, but Jim and Jack both sound like the same person, more or less. If carefully considered, ther attitudes come to the same thing.

 

[Bagheera]

This kind of looks likes a metaphor for either killing an abortion Dr. or removing a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy depending on if the life to be saved is the fetus or the mother respectively.

There are lots of different way to formulate this problem. All of them boil down to the same thing: “omission” vs. “commission”. If, by acting one does harm, while by NOT acting one causes more harm, which one is the ethical way to go? The same issue is discussed in the famous trolley-problem.

 

[Bagheera]

The case you outline is in the second response, is not, I think, a proper interpretation.

There is no such thing as “proper” interpretation. We deal with the intent of the person. We deal with the “is the glass half empty or half full” type of problem. Did he intend to kill the terrorist, or did he intend to save the people? He might try to say that he hoped that the shot would merely disable the terrorist. It is possible (though very rare) that a head-shot is not lethal. (For the atheist this is not a problem: he intended to do both, but he follows the principle of “justified homicide in case of self-defense”.)

If the gun is aimed at the terrorist and fired, his death is NOT an unintended consequence. The act of killing someone necessarily has as its intended consequence the death of that person. The saving of the other lives would, technically, be the side effect (although foreseen).

If you deliberately kill the person (e.g. by shooting them), you cannot say that their death was unintended.

Yet, this is the line of argument frequently brought up when discussing why God created - KNOWINGLY - all those evil beings, like Satan and his cohorts. According to what you say, God cannot say that the acts of Satan were merely foreseen, but unintended, since he deliberately created Satan, knowing full well what he was about to do, Of course I agree with you, one hundred percent!

No offence, but Jim and Jack both sound like the same person, more or less. If carefully considered, ther attitudes come to the same thing.

Agreed! Jack is simply a hypocritical person, who is unwilling to come clean, and admit what he did. The principle of self-defense and its extension is sufficient justification for the deed.

 

[inocente]

One way to decide what’s good and what’s evil is to look at the consequences. For example, in a 9/11 situation the US government might authorize shooting down the airliner, killing the innocent passengers but potentially saving many more on the ground.

Another way to decide is to say some actions are always categorically wrong. For instance the German constitution prohibits its government from shooting down innocent civilians by saying such acts are categorically wrong.

So Joe could be a German atheist and still say killing the terrorist is categorically wrong, while Jim could be a Christian who believes the consequences warrant killing (and I get the impression many American Christians might say killing in self-defense is warranted).

Incidentally, you know threads about atheism are banned? If not, read the stickies.

 

[Qoeleth]

There is no such thing as “proper” interpretation. We deal with the intent of the person. We deal with the “is the glass half empty or half full” type of problem. Did he intend to kill the terrorist, or did he intend to save the people? He might try to say that he hoped that the shot would merely disable the terrorist. It is possible (though very rare) that a head-shot is not lethal.

OK, if the person shot the terrorist in the head without intending to kill him (i.e. the shooter really believed he might not die), then you could argue that the death was not the intended consequence. If that were that case (far-fetched as it seems) that interpretation could hold up, but it would be a big stretch.

But, the more likely situation is that the shooter intends to kill the terrorist (or seriously to harm him), and THEREBY to save lives. The killing (or disabling) of the shooter is an instrumental factor, and not a side effect.

 

[Qoeleth]

Yet, this is the line of argument frequently brought up when discussing why God created - KNOWINGLY - all those evil beings, like Satan and his cohorts. According to what you say, God cannot say that the acts of Satan were merely foreseen, but unintended, since he deliberately created Satan, knowing full well what he was about to do, Of course I agree with you, one hundred percent!

All stories and images about God are metaphors, and say more about us than about God. It is a category error to apply moral standards to an image of God, which is the ‘God’ we encounter through our thoughts.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But, the more likely situation is that the shooter intends to kill the terrorist (or seriously to harm him), and THEREBY to save lives. The killing (or disabling) of the shooter is an instrumental factor, and not a side effect.

Shots to disable are generally to the arms or legs. Shots to kill are generally to the head or torso. It would be difficult to argue an intent to disable and not kill while aiming for the head. Of course some one with bad aim could aim for an appendage and shoot the head, but that’s a discussion of an outcome, not the discussion of the decision/intent.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This kind of looks likes a metaphor for either killing an abortion Dr. or removing a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy depending on if the life to be saved is the fetus or the mother respectively.

Not so. In the ectopic pregnancy case, the baby will not survive either way. Dead mommy, dead baby.

In the stipulated case above, killing the terrorist will actually save lives, and not killing the terrorist will actually save the terrorist’s life.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Incidentally, you know threads about atheism are banned? If not, read the stickies.

How is this thread about atheism?

 

[Lasting_faith]

Tricky one, but what would a normal person do? I think shoot, and most likely not so much to save others, no, to save him self. I reckon that is a normal reaction.

Nobody know how we preform in a very unexpected situation. A trained person, a police officer or someone like that would most likely act according to his/hers training, but a civilian would most likely shoot. I don’t know much about guns, never even fired one, but I know it is easier to make a good hit with a rifle then a pistol, and I think that everyone, trained or not, would shoot to kill in a situation like that. So, what kind of weapon is used may have some impact on the answer. But a “normal” person with a gun would shoot.

I know my answer don’t cover the possibility what a priest would do, or a monk, or nun, but they would not carry a gun so…

 

[Bagheera]

One way to decide what’s good and what’s evil is to look at the consequences. For example, in a 9/11 situation the US government might authorize shooting down the airliner, killing the innocent passengers but potentially saving many more on the ground.

Another way to decide is to say some actions are always categorically wrong. For instance the German constitution prohibits its government from shooting down innocent civilians by saying such acts are categorically wrong.

So Joe could be a German atheist and still say killing the terrorist is categorically wrong, while Jim could be a Christian who believes the consequences warrant killing (and I get the impression many American Christians might say killing in self-defense is warranted).

I don’t think we are on the same wavelength. You seem to argue from a legal standpoint, while I contemplate an ethical problem.

Incidentally, you know threads about atheism are banned? If not, read the stickies.

I never intended this to be about atheism. Just an innocent ethical question… (please pardon the pun).

 

[GEddie]

Tricky one, but what would a normal person do? I think shoot, and most likely not so much to save others, no, to save him self. I reckon that is a normal reaction.

Nobody know how we preform in a very unexpected situation. A trained person, a police officer or someone like that would most likely act according to his/hers training, but a civilian would most likely shoot. I don’t know much about guns, never even fired one, but I know it is easier to make a good hit with a rifle then a pistol, and I think that everyone, trained or not, would shoot to kill in a situation like that. So, what kind of weapon is used may have some impact on the answer. But a “normal” person with a gun would shoot.

I know my answer don’t cover the possibility what a priest would do, or a monk, or nun, but they would not carry a gun so…

Some priests do carry guns, but this is not an armed society/ US 2nd Amendment debate so I’ll leave it at that.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bagheera]

OK, if the person shot the terrorist in the head without intending to kill him (i.e. the shooter really believed he might not die), then you could argue that the death was not the intended consequence. If that were that case (far-fetched as it seems) that interpretation could hold up, but it would be a big stretch.

It is farfetched, no doubt.

But, the more likely situation is that the shooter intends to kill the terrorist (or seriously to harm him), and THEREBY to save lives. The killing (or disabling) of the shooter is an instrumental factor, and not a side effect.

Possibly. But the person could still argue, that “IF” there would be a different way to save the city, he would choose that one. For example: in the stipulated scenario he can only target the head, because that is the only visible part of the body. I do not see the need for such “convoluted” way to justify the act, but it is possible.

All stories and images about God are metaphors, and say more about us than about God. It is a category error to apply moral standards to an image of God, which is the ‘God’ we encounter through our thoughts.

So all utterances about God being “good”, “loving”, “caring” etc… are also “category errors”? Since we only have “images” about God, we can only apply moral standards to that image. If that image is correct, then there is no problem. If the image is incorrect, then all the positive assessments are erroneous, too. I hope you do not subscribe to the fallacy of special pleading, where people are “justified” to say good things about God, but are NOT justified to make negative comments.

The point was different, however. We were talking about performing an action with known consequences, and the question was: “can one correctly say that the known consequence is not intended”. You said that such an utterance would be incorrect, and I agreed.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think we are on the same wavelength. You seem to argue from a legal standpoint, while I contemplate an ethical problem.

Nope, consequentialism and categoricalism are very basic to ethics, if you’ve never heard of them you could do some reading.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I never intended this to be about atheism. Just an innocent ethical question… (please pardon the pun).

Good, so there was no reason to mention atheism in the OP.

 

[Bagheera]

Nope, consequentialism and categoricalism are very basic to ethics, if you’ve never heard of them you could do some reading.

Of course I am familiar with them, but I disagree with all of them for certain reasons, which go beyond the scope of this thread. The Kantian categorical imperative fails as a useful guide, since it rests of the irrational assumption that there is “absolute” morality, decoupled from its end “product”.

The point was that the OP was designed to explore a very simple scenario (the life of the terrorist vs. the lives of the intended victims, WITHOUT “collateral” damage), and you introduced a more complicated one. Of course we can explore the more complicated one, too. In such a case we can use a version of the Hippocratic principle: “first, do harm; but if the circumstances force you to do harm, make it as small as possible”.

Good, so there was no reason to mention atheism in the OP.

I always find actual examples useful, for the sake of clarity.

 

[Bagheera]

“first, do harm; but if the circumstances force you to do harm, make it as small as possible”.

Ouch! Serious typo, it was supposed to say: “first, do NO harm”… sorry about that.

 

[inocente]

Of course I am familiar with them, but I disagree with all of them for certain reasons, which go beyond the scope of this thread. The Kantian categorical imperative fails as a useful guide, since it rests of the irrational assumption that there is “absolute” morality, decoupled from its end “product”.

Here’s the first couple of articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, please say where you think they’re irrationally absolute and should only apply some of the time:

*1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

un.org/en/documents/udhr/*

*The point was that the OP was designed to explore a very simple scenario (the life of the terrorist vs. the lives of the intended victims, WITHOUT “collateral” damage), and you introduced a more complicated one. Of course we can explore the more complicated one, too. In such a case we can use a version of the Hippocratic principle: “first, do [no] harm; but if the circumstances force you to do harm, make it as small as possible”. *

I think medics would not agree with ever doing harm, it’s more like “do good or at least do no harm”.

Morality is complicated.

 

[Bagheera]

Here’s the first couple of articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, please say where you think they’re irrationally absolute and should only apply some of the time:

Excellent starting point, which should be applicable MOST of the time… Of course “rights” without being enforced are merely “pie in the sky”. As far as I am concerned, there is only ONE positive right - the right to be left alone - and even that is not granted. All the other positive rights are simply wishful thinking. Let’s remember: “a right is always something that the strong one gives to the weak one, and it allows the weak one to engage in some action (or refrain from doing some action) with IMPUNITY”. There are no “natural rights”… though it would be nice if there were.

1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

That reminds me of a great Charlie Brown cartoon, where Charlie Brown talks about their latest baseball game: “For a short moment victory was in our grasp”. And Linus replies: “And then the game stated” (in this case: “… and then people start to grow up”). I might be inclined to agree that “equality” in the eyes of the law is a very good, basic principle, but that is hardly a panacea for all the moral problems. However, there can be exceptions when such generic ideas cannot be followed. (Example: if one catches a terrorist, and there is no time to engage in nice legalities, like arrest, and 12 jurors selected from your peers, etc… sometimes one must act then and there…)

They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Equal in reason? Equal in conscience? Would be nice, if it were true… how about those people who are born with some mental deficiency, and who exhibit sociopathic tendencies even in their young ages?

I think medics would not agree with ever doing harm, it’s more like “do good or at least do no harm”.

Very nice, but naïve. Sometimes one does not have the luxury of being spared to make “unpalatable” choices, when every possible action causes some harm, even inaction. And then what? One must choose, so the only rational method is to do as little harm as possible.