Self defense? Defending others?

[po18guy]

Someone certainly is either pessimistic, or has a morbid sense of life. I was in harm’s way for three decades and not once had to strike a lethal blow - while paid to look for trouble. OTOH, if one is looking for a chance to use lethal force, they exist all around us. Whether or not they live, can we then live with ourselves?

 

[Rosebud77]

You are correct. I reject the “divine law”, because there is no evidence for it. But I am willing to contemplate it - provisionally, for the sake of this discussion.

This divine law says that I am allowed to use deadly force to defend against an explicit and visible attack (like a wielded axe).

What does it say when I am in the danger to be exposed to a deadly virus, which will infect me if I get a bodily contact with the carrier, who is unaware of the result of this contact? If this carrier is unaware of this result, he or she is “innocent” of any malice. But he or she will still exposing me to a deadly danger. If the only way to avoid this contact is a deadly force, am I allowed to use this force?

small question. Why not just isolate the disease carrier? You may be interested in a village in Derbyshire called Eyam way back where they had and contained the Plague by isolating the village, The vicar organised and ran that. google it? No need to kill

Sorry; did not read to the end f the thread… But is there ever a need to kill a plague carrier? In this age of eg tranquilliser datrts? Not HIS fault he is ill.

reminded too of the Dunblane massacre when a teacher died as she shielded the children. I lived nearby at the time

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

LOL…. Good to see you allow means other than murder now! You seek to persuade the carrier, he refuses, you now seek to compel, he resists, you use force, he uses force to resist. He is by this point a threat by his actions, not his mere existence. Could this lead to his death? Yes. Nothing new.

Obviously you did not pay a lot of attention. Please go back and read the OP again. It was very explicit: if there is no other way to prevent the epidemic, is the use of lethal force allowed? The other posters said: NO, killing an innocent person is always forbidden. (and they tried to find loopholes to wiggle out of the dilemma.) The Apologist said: YES.

But your analysis still tries to twist the problem. There is no way to communicate with the virus carrier - for some reason. You cannot persuade him. He does not explicitly threaten with the disease. It is infected status which poses the threat, not his unwillingness to be quarantined.

Someone certainly is either pessimistic, or has a morbid sense of life.

No morbidity here. I just like to exercise my mind, and check out the “dusty corners” of morality. The good, old gray areas. Because they are interesting.

small question. Why not just isolate the disease carrier?

If possible, yes. It was also (implicitly) included in the OP

But the point was to explore the problem: “is the killing of an innocent (gotta love this word ) ever permissible?” Intentionally taking the life of someone “innocent” is considered murder, under any and all circumstances. No appeal to the “double effect”. There can be no exceptions. It is “intrinsically” evil. Well, my “sicko” (but very logical) mind wanted to see if it is true, so I created this highly unlikely, but not impossible scenario, where the two principles (the other being “killing in self defense”) “collide”.

And according the Apologist, who is obviously far more qualified to decide the question (than you are), said that in some circumstances it is permissible. The conclusion is simple: “killing innocents is not ALWAYS forbidden, it is NOT INTRINSICALLY evil”.

So what are we still talking about?

 

[LucyEm]

Please go back and read the OP again. It was very explicit: if there is no other way to prevent the epidemic, is the use of lethal force allowed? The other posters said: NO, killing an innocent person is always forbidden. (and they tried to find loopholes to wiggle out of the dilemma.) The Apologist said: YES.

No, the other poster said murder, directly killing a diseased person (as means, or end) is not permitted. No one disagrees with the Apologist’s answer to the question you asked him. Anyone would read that as sanctioning steps to stop a person whose actions threaten you. Had you asked the Apologist if it’s ok to chuck an “innocent” out of the lifeboat, merely because his added weight threatens your life, do you think he’d have said yes? That innocent is unintentionally placing you in mortal danger, isn’t he? You would have us believe that the Apologist would be obliged to say yes on the basis of an answer provided to a different question. But I think even YOU know that he would not, because murder is not permitted. Why don’t you ask the Apologist if you can kill a person whose added weight in the lifeboat threatens your life?

But your analysis still tries to twist the problem. There is no way to communicate with the virus carrier - for some reason. You cannot persuade him. He does not explicitly threaten with the disease. It is infected status which poses the threat, not his unwillingness to be quarantined.

If persuasion fails, reasonable force comes next Are you unable to see how the reality is then changed? Do you not see how this could progress to lethal force (which is not the same as intentional killing).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

…lethal force (which is not the same as intentional killing).

I can just visualize the defendant who says: “I merely pointed a gun to the virus carrier’s head, and pulled the trigger in order to stop him. His death was a foreseen, but unintended consequence of pulling the trigger”… and the whole jury just rolls on the floor, laughing their heads off.

I suggest you read the Apologist’s answer again. When the person puts you into mortal danger, intentionally or unintentionally, AND your only option is to use (lethal force = kill), then you are permitted to use it.

Case closed.

 

[LucyEm]

I can just visualize the defendant who says: “I merely pointed a gun to the virus carrier’s head, and pulled the trigger in order to stop him. His death was a foreseen, but unintended consequence of pulling the trigger”… and the whole jury just rolls on the floor, laughing their heads off.

*2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
*I could be wrong, but I’m guessing the Apologist concurs with this, it is ONLY you who does not. .

Your earlier post nearly got there. You can’t persuade, so you force. He resists. It may reach a level of lethal force, (which is distinct from murder) though a right to murder is what you really want to establish - as your lifeboat scenario demonstrates.

I suggest you read the Apologist’s answer again. When the person puts you into mortal danger, intentionally or unintentionally, AND your only option is to use (lethal force = kill), then you are permitted to use it.

LOL, Agreed, I kinda thought I said THAT earlier . NOW, I suggest you ask the Apoligist the right question!

Ask about the lifeboat, where your meaning is clear.

Vera - no one here is buying.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Vera - no one here is buying.

I could not care less if anyone “here” is “buying” or not. I asked the Apologist, and he concurred. That is the only thing that matters.

Come back when you can differentiate “killing” from “murder” - because in your last two posts you hopelessly confused them. Killing in self-defense is NOT murder. Even intentional killing. Even intentional killing of an “innocent” person, if he put you into mortal danger - unintentionally and unknowingly. And killing the virus carrier is self-defense (as long as it is the only remaining option).

 

[LucyEm]

I could not care less if anyone “here” is “buying” or not. I asked the Apologist, and he concurred. That is the only thing that matters. .

LOL, that you’ve gained great respect for the Catholic apologists, and rely on their counsel, is wonderful. And I concur with the apologist!! .

But you are yet to establish a right to murder. Now, for an old consequentialist/proportionalist like you, that is really necessary isn’t it? The intrinsically evil cannot exist, right? Only the outcomes matter?

Is it morally good to throw that little girl out of the lifeboat so her weight no longer threatens your life? Is she not (unintentionally) placing you in mortal danger? Why don’t you ask the Apologist what you may do in “legitimate self-defense” if it turns out the little girl trapped with you in the boat is a few pounds too heavy?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

LOL, that you’ve gained great respect for the Catholic apologists, and rely on their counsel, is wonderful.

I have equal respect for everyone who uses reason and logic in their arguments.

But you are yet to establish a right to murder.

Since you are still confused about the meaning of “murder”, am not interested in having a conversation with you.