Self-Sacrifice is OK. Assisted Suicide is NOT. But what about "Assisted Self-Sacrifice?"

[ScrupulousMonk]

Let us pretend and say that you are a cop is storming a building full of hostages. All of the hostages manage to escape except one. That particular hostage is being used as a human-shield by one of the criminals. The criminal, who is also in possession of a remote that can trigger explosives that were previously placed around the area, decides to take everyone with him (cops, hostages, criminals, and all). The hostage asks the you to shoot through him/her in order to kill the criminal before he detonates the explosives. You try to look for openings at which to shoot at so that you would be able to hit the criminal without hitting the hostage, but it was of no avail. You even try to find ways to shoot through the hostage without hitting vital organs, but that, too, was futile. You then have to make a decision.

This scenario may seem far-fetched, but I am sure there have been experiences like this in some people’s lives. It is those experiences where one person is willing to sacrifice his/her life for the good of all, but one has to kill him/her in order for that sacrifice to occur. Indeed, it is mandated by Heaven to sacrifice your life for the sake of others. The hostage, I believe, would be in the right in this situation if you were to choose to shoot through him/her. But what about you? If you were to shoot through the hostage, then would you be committing murder/assisting of suicide? Would you not then be in the wrong if you chose to do so?

Please, help me to form my conscience on this issue. Is it morally permitted to commit “assist in self-sacrifice?” Does the Bible/Catechism/Church Teaching/etc. have anything to say about this? I thank you all in advance.

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

I heard that if a plane is taken over by terrorists, and someone in the government knows the plane is going to hit a target and kill thousands of people, the military could shoot the plane down before it gets to strike.

Many people fighting for this country die in battle.

These scenarios don’t seem fair, but I guess you could call it assisted self-sacrifice. The innocent people on the plane don’t want to die. Neither do the soldiers want to die. I think it happens more than we think.

 

[randomusername]

Self-sacrifice ands suicide are different. In one you are doing it to save someone/something. The other is just killing yourself because of depression or whatever.

 

[SuperLuigi]

As is often the case in these kinds of questions on the forums, a lot of what sin is has to do with intention.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I think the law of double effect would apply. The late Fr. John Hardon S.J. writes:

An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed.

Note that in this case, the innocent victims did not even have the opportunity to consent to being sacrificed.

For a definition of the law of double effect, click the link.

 

[ScrupulousMonk]

To ALL

Pardon me, but I feel that none of your answers are directly responding to my question. Perhaps I should have made my question less vague.

“Is it morally permissible to help someone sacrifice themselves for the sake of others?”

In the example I made above, the hostage asked you the cop to shoot through him/her in order to stop the criminal from detonating the explosives. The hostage is willing to sacrifice his/her life to save others. But is it morally permissible for you the cop to DIRECTLY kill an innocent hostage even if the hostage consents to it? I hope this clarifies things.

To Ad Orientem

This is just my personal analysis: From what I know of double effect, it is wrong to bring about good from an evil action. The evil action in this case would be killing the hostage and the good would be stopping the criminal. So, if I analyzed correctly, double effect would find this immoral to do.

However, I would like other eyes on this issue if you know what I mean.

 

[SuperLuigi]

To Ad Orientem

This is just my personal analysis: From what I know of double effect,** it is wrong to bring about good from an evil action.** The evil action in this case would be killing the hostage and the good would be stopping the criminal. So, if I analyzed correctly, double effect would find this immoral to do.

However, I would like other eyes on this issue if you know what I mean.

That rule is not as rigid as you seem to think. The Church recognizes and understands the need to have police and military force for the simple, mere sake of keeping human civilization.

For instance, abortion is permissible in rarer cases of danger to mother where the intention is not to kill the child but save the mother.

So to answer your question, give the right conditions, yes, it would be permissible.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The evil action in this case would be killing the hostage and the good would be stopping the criminal.

Why is killing the hostage an action and not a mere effect? I think it only counts as an action if it is the shooter’s direct intent, or if it is the only thing that happens. In the scenario you describe, however, the action is pointing the gun at the terrorist and firing. The hostage happens to be in the way, yes, which is very unfortunate. But I don’t think the shooting of the hostage is the action; it’s an unwanted effect.

Double effect can of course be abused. An abortionist, for example, might say that preventing suffering is the action, and that the death of the infant is an unintended effect. But clearly this is nonsense, since the real act consists of the direct killing of the infant, and that alone. Any temporary relief which may come from it is a mere effect (although I don’t think relief is what most mothers experience).

 

[ScrupulousMonk]

To SuperLuigi

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I found your statement regarding abortion to be incorrect. Abortion is never permitted under any circumstance. If I may make assumptions, I believe the example you meant to give is the one in which cancer has developed in a woman’s fallopian tubes. (Please correct me if I am wrong) In most cases, if not all, the removal of the fallopian tubes will indeed save the life of the mother but cause the death of the unborn infant. Double effect finds removing the fallopian tubes to be morally permissible because it is intended to save the life of the mother. The death of the infant, although very unfortunate, is simply a negative effect occurring from an otherwise moral action.

I do not recall the Church ever condoning the direct abortion of an unborn child to save the mother. Such a thing is doing evil in the name of good, which is very scandalous. Pardon me if I offended.

To Ad Orientem

Indeed, double effect does have this potential for being perverted. You are right, aiming at the terrorist and inadvertently hitting a civilian who happened to run in your line of fire would be morally permissible. But, you must know that the terrorist is using a civilian as a human shield. You would have to aim at the civilian in order to hit the terrorist. In this case at least, one can not say that killing the civilian is an unwanted effect. Rather it is the action itself. You want to aim at the civilian in order to hit the terrorist.

To ALL

I appreciate these answers so far and thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I would still like to hear more discussion on this issue if possible. I humbly request that you reply to this post if you feel you have some answers.

 

[styrgwillidar]

For the cop to actually stop the criminal from hitting the remote, the shot will have to sever the spine at the base of the skull. He won’t be able to take that shot through the hostage, as the bullet will deflect unpredictably. Any other shot will not prevent the criminal from pushing the remote button or muscle spasms from pushing it.

“The criminal, who is also in possession of a remote that can trigger explosives that were previously placed around the area, decides to take everyone with him (cops, hostages, criminals, and all).”

If he has already decided to take everyone with him he has pushed the button and activated the explosives- everyone’s dead, before the hostage can even ask you to shoot.