shoot Hittler

[Lost_Wanderer]

This scenario is synonomous with one that you were in a bank with 100 other people. Someone came into rob it. They thrust a gun in your hand and told you to shoot someone, else everyone was going to die. IT would be morally wrong for you to shoot one to save the 99. A moral evil never is right.

Oh that’s easy. Shoot the robber. Problem solved.

 

[someguy14]

You have a gun aimed at Hittler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Would it be morally acceptable to shoot?

I can imagine that situation, bowing down together with him and asking God to fill us and forgive us of any trangressions. For mercy.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Oh that’s easy. Shoot the robber. Problem solved.

Greetings Lost Wanderer,

I am sure in this scenario that the robber would have brought along some friends. Scenarios fun ways to waste time.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Newbie2]

It was morally unacceptable not to shoot him…/QUOTE]
Pfaffenhoffen;8464731:

Hitler had 20 and more attempts to his life. Some who did it like Stauffenberger and Rommel were soldiers. They paid with their lives the following of their conscience.
I do not see much difference between soldier an civilian in this aspect. I know that Genev convention has this distinction but for this subject, it does not matter for the civilian would not be at war as, for instance, Hitler wouldbe passing by.
I am not dwelling in the theological cathegories otherwise I will be lost. But if Hitler’s killing may avoid 6 million death of Jews, of course it is a morally obligation to kill him.

You are wrong.

Never is anyone under any obligation to end the life of another. One must use proportional means to stop the other party who intends to do or continue to do evil.

IF it were possible to capture Hitler alive, that would have been the morally acceptable thing to do. Now if it were a sniper that had a shot at him, and it wasn’t clear to that sniper that if he failed that Hitler would be captured alive, yes, he could shoot him and such would be a morally acceptable choice.

However, if the sniper had Hitler in his sights, and Hitler was surrounded with his capture imminent, it would be immoral to kill him.

But let’s look at a more recent example; Bin Laden. Only those who were there know exactly what happened; whether or not he resisted, whether or not he was armed, whether or not he had others who were armed in the same room.

However, the morally acceptable thing to do would have been, IF POSSIBLE, take him into custody instead of shooting. Like I said, though, only those who were in that room at the time he was killed know the circumstances, so we can only speak in ideals about that situation. Chances are we will not know for many, many years what the classified federal government documents have to say what happened there, and even then we cannot be assured that what was recorded was exactly was as it really happened.

 

[carn]

Never is anyone under any obligation to end the life of another.

Cop who swore to uphold the laws and ptrotect the innocent has a kidnapper, who already killed one hostage, in the crosshair, while the kidnapper presses a gun to another hostage head and counts down the seconds till the moment he declared, he will kill another hostage.
The cop receives a direct order. No obligation to kill?

(Note: In training cops are taught as far as i know that the only riskfree way to save the victim in such situation is aiming for the cerebellum of the kidnapper, which means guranteed death and immidiate inability to pull the trigger.)

 

[Mudgely]

You have a gun aimed at Hittler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Would it be morally acceptable to shoot?

If you can take him prisoner, then it would not be right to kill him. If he can’t be taken into custody, then yes. The most recent example was Saddam Hussein. He chose to surrender. Hitler might not have surrendered. He chose to commit suicide.

 

[Newbie2]

Cop who swore to uphold the laws and ptrotect the innocent has a kidnapper, who already killed one hostage, in the crosshair, while the kidnapper presses a gun to another hostage head and counts down the seconds till the moment he declared, he will kill another hostage.
The cop receives a direct order. No obligation to kill?

(Note: In training cops are taught as far as i know that the only riskfree way to save the victim in such situation is aiming for the cerebellum of the kidnapper, which means guranteed death and immidiate inability to pull the trigger.)

Correct, the cop is under no moral obligation to kill the bad guy.

This falls under the principle of double effect. The cops primary intention must not be to take the life of the bad guy, it must be to free the hostage. Killing the bad guy is a forseeable and probable unavoidable side effect of freeing the hostage.

The cop is morally allowed to use proportionate force to disable the bad guy, but he is under no moral obligation to kill (him); there is a world of difference in the intent of the act. In this case, proportionate force means shooting him in the head, which has the forseeable effect of the bad guy’s death. Shooting him anywhere else, in the scenario you describe, would not likely achieve the result of saving the hostage’s life.

IF there were some kind of “phaser-rifle” (like in Star Trek) that had a “stun” setting that a SWAT or police team member could use to disable the bad guy in the same situation, the cop would be under a moral obligation to use such a weapon instead of lethal force.

However, sticking to the present day scenario, it is never morally acceptable to INTEND to take the life of the bad guy as the primary intention. The primary intention must be to free the hostage, even though the forseeable side effect is the death of the bad guy.

Understand the differece? It may seem subtle, but it’s important.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am sure in this scenario that the robber would have brought along some friends. Scenarios fun ways to waste time.

No, you said someone. That’s singular, not plural. Furthermore, what kind of idiot robber gives his targets a weapon?

 

[PbloPicasso]

Now if you asked if I would shoot Hitler during WWII, I’d say, absolutely without a doubt.

 

[carn]

Correct, the cop is under no moral obligation to kill the bad guy.

This falls under the principle of double effect. The cops primary intention must not be to take the life of the bad guy, it must be to free the hostage. Killing the bad guy is a forseeable and probable unavoidable side effect of freeing the hostage.

The cop is morally allowed to use proportionate force to disable the bad guy, but he is under no moral obligation to kill (him); there is a world of difference in the intent of the act. In this case, proportionate force means shooting him in the head, which has the forseeable effect of the bad guy’s death. Shooting him anywhere else, in the scenario you describe, would not likely achieve the result of saving the hostage’s life.

IF there were some kind of “phaser-rifle” (like in Star Trek) that had a “stun” setting that a SWAT or police team member could use to disable the bad guy in the same situation, the cop would be under a moral obligation to use such a weapon instead of lethal force.

However, sticking to the present day scenario, it is never morally acceptable to INTEND to take the life of the bad guy as the primary intention. The primary intention must be to free the hostage, even though the forseeable side effect is the death of the bad guy.

Understand the differece? It may seem subtle, but it’s important.

I understand the difference. But the intent of the cop and the intent of the order he was given is to save the hostage life.

As this is only possible by killing, he has an obligation to act that way.

Od dont you think the cop in this situation has an obligation to shoot?

If one has an obligation to shoot and it is guaranteed that the shot will kill, i do not know why it should not be called an obligation to kill.

 

[John21652]

You have a gun aimed at Hittler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Would it be morally acceptable to shoot?

What year do I have a gun pointed at Hitler?

Before, or after the war has started?
If before, the answer is “No”.
If after, the answer is “Yes”, becuase he is a uniformed enemy combatant and also in charge of ordering invasion, territorial plunder, the denial of national soveriegnty to other countries, mass murder and a host of other things. Like the dropping of the atomic bombs later in the war, if I pulled the trigger, I’d more than likely shorten the war.

 

[meltzerboy]

You have a gun aimed at Hittler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Would it be morally acceptable to shoot?

Let’s take the historical date out of the discussion, so that we go back in time knowing what we now know transpired as a result of Hitler’s behavior. Further, let’s suppose that killing Hitler does not make the situation even worse, if that were possible, as one poster suggested. And let’s also distinguish this scenario from shooting one person in a bank to save the other 99, as another poster spoke about, since in the latter situation the one person is innocent, unlike Hitler. (Or even the old moral dilemma of pressing a button and thereby killing one person to save the whole world, since that one person we kill may also be innocent.) And finally, assume it’s not a matter of direct self-defense or wartime activity as a soldier, but rather we’re a civilian time-traveler who must make a decision whether or not to alter history. Then what would people do? For myself, I would STILL have a tough time taking a human life, even Hitler’s. However, I can certainly understand how others might choose to do so.

 

[John21652]

Let’s take the historical date out of the discussion, so that we go back in time knowing what we now know transpired as a result of Hitler’s behavior. Further, let’s suppose that killing Hitler does not make the situation even worse, if that were possible, as one poster suggested. And let’s also distinguish this scenario from shooting one person in a bank to save the other 99, as another poster spoke about, since in the latter situation the one person is innocent, unlike Hitler. (Or even the old moral dilemma of pressing a button and thereby killing one person to save the whole world, since that one person we kill may also be innocent.) And finally, assume it’s not a matter of direct self-defense or wartime activity as a soldier, but rather we’re a civilian time-traveler who must make a decision whether or not to alter history. Then what would people do? For myself, I would STILL have a tough time taking a human life, even Hitler’s. However, I can certainly understand how others might choose to do so.

Aw c’mon Meltzerboy, that’s a cop out!

Going back in time armed with the knowledge of retrospectivity would compel you to shoot Hitler. If you got back there and didn’t pull the trigger, you’d never forgive yourself when you got back here and read the history books!

I stated my case, above, based on the catholic maxim that the ends doesn’t justify the means. However, if I went back in wartime, I’d be caught up in a Just War and it would be my moral duty to shoot Hitler. Yours too, if you were caught up in that same Just War.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

This scenario is synonomous with one that you were in a bank with 100 other people. Someone came into rob it. They thrust a gun in your hand and told you to shoot someone, else everyone was going to die. IT would be morally wrong for you to shoot one to save the 99. A moral evil never is right.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

To shoot who? The the robber? Of course, I would kill him.
To shoot another person? Of course not! If I do not kill that person and if 99 get killed, it is not my fault, it is the robber’s fault. If I do not kill the robber and I can do it, it is in part my fault.

That is a real case and it is dramatic. One young serbian soldier was asked to shoot other ethnic group of women and children. He protested. So, he was invited to go to the group to be shot at. So, he prefered to shoot and was later condemned by the International Tribunal of Hague (to which the uSA shamefully does not belong)

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The solution is that Hitler was committing murder or at least a crime equal to murder and therefore lethal force against him - if effective - was justified.

If someone breaks in a house to murder someone, the act of murder already started with the break in and therefore self-defense against a would-be murderer is different to self-defense when the would-be murderer readies his weapon only different due to different options. (e.g. while he breaks in you could run, when he draws a weapon that might not be an option)

Hitler started his criminal act on January 30, 1933 at latest. Obvious was his criminal act at latest 1939. The only issue left is, if there was a situation where assasinating Hitler was the least serious act of self defense and yet an effective act. (Because he was not acting alone.)

Normally we talk about self-defense, but we should talk about other-defense. If a guman is pointing a rifle to a child with the intention of killing her, if I have the possibility, no doubt I will kell him, though I am not at risk (and maybe put in risk my life!)

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Pfaffenhoffen;8461990:

It was morally unacceptable not to shoot him…/

QUOTE]

You are wrong.

Never is anyone under any obligation to end the life of another. One must use proportional means to stop the other party who intends to do or continue to do evil.

IF it were possible to capture Hitler alive, that would have been the morally acceptable thing to do. Now if it were a sniper that had a shot at him, and it wasn’t clear to that sniper that if he failed that Hitler would be captured alive, yes, he could shoot him and such would be a morally acceptable choice.

However, if the sniper had Hitler in his sights, and Hitler was surrounded with his capture imminent, it would be immoral to kill him.

But let’s look at a more recent example; Bin Laden. Only those who were there know exactly what happened; whether or not he resisted, whether or not he was armed, whether or not he had others who were armed in the same room.

However, the morally acceptable thing to do would have been, IF POSSIBLE, take him into custody instead of shooting. Like I said, though, only those who were in that room at the time he was killed know the circumstances, so we can only speak in ideals about that situation. Chances are we will not know for many, many years what the classified federal government documents have to say what happened there, and even then we cannot be assured that what was recorded was exactly was as it really happened.

Your distinctions are too fine and not useful for war. You cannot go to was with that atittude or you will get killed. No one tried to capture Hitler but blast him out of the way. Even if capture he could not be kept alive for the followers. It is one of those guys where you cannot make distinctions. Everyone had the obligation to kill hil, if possible.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

No, you said someone. That’s singular, not plural. Furthermore, what kind of idiot robber gives his targets a weapon?

Greetings Lost Wanderer,

So I did. However, it still stands. A moral evil does not make a right. Probably should figure out that the other 99 oughta jump the robber. The odds are not in the robbers favour.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So I did. However, it still stands. A moral evil does not make a right.

Killing is not necessarily a moral evil.
The Church believes in every person’s right to a legitimate self-defense, even if such defense would be lethal.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Killing is not necessarily a moral evil.
The Church believes in every person’s right to a legitimate self-defense, even if such defense would be lethal.

Greetings Lost Wanderer,

Okay perhaps we should try it this way. Things happen for a reason, by the permissive Will of God. To tamper with past historical events would be playing God. Who knows the world could be a worse place than it is now, if Hithler had been assassinated before his time of passing. One can only speculate.

Either way in my opinion it would be wrong.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Mudgely]

Correct, the cop is under no moral obligation to kill the bad guy.

This falls under the principle of double effect. The cops primary intention must not be to take the life of the bad guy, it must be to free the hostage. Killing the bad guy is a forseeable and probable unavoidable side effect of freeing the hostage.

The cop is morally allowed to use proportionate force to disable the bad guy, but he is under no moral obligation to kill (him); there is a world of difference in the intent of the act. In this case, proportionate force means shooting him in the head, which has the forseeable effect of the bad guy’s death. Shooting him anywhere else, in the scenario you describe, would not likely achieve the result of saving the hostage’s life.

IF there were some kind of “phaser-rifle” (like in Star Trek) that had a “stun” setting that a SWAT or police team member could use to disable the bad guy in the same situation, the cop would be under a moral obligation to use such a weapon instead of lethal force.

However, sticking to the present day scenario, it is never morally acceptable to INTEND to take the life of the bad guy as the primary intention. The primary intention must be to free the hostage, even though the forseeable side effect is the death of the bad guy.

Understand the differece? It may seem subtle, but it’s important.

Having said all that, the sniper’s intent is to the kill the guy. Just ask any sniper. There is no way around that. But some law enforcement circles use the word “stop” as a euphemism for killing. They stop the criminal with lethal force. Some cops still shoot multiple shots to the torso. A shot to the head is preferred in cases such as described, and also in a situation where the suspect could be a suicide bomber with explosives on his body.