Sinning to save someone's life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
Heres a hypothetical situation…

lets say an armed criminal holds a gun to the head of a child and they hold the child’s parent captive…

the criminal gives the parent a choice…

all the parent has to do is commit any sin the parent wants…even a little one…and the child will be spared

…but if he refuses to sin…the child will be killed

the kid’s life is in the hands of the parent. he can either commit a venial sin or he will have to allow a mortal sin from happening

what should the parent do in this situation?
 
The parent should not sin.

Abraham was so prepared to obey God that he would sacrifice his own son. And this was accredited to him as righteousness.

And God followed this Himself in sacrificing His only son for us.

Our love for God comes before all else, and death is not the worst thing that can possibly happen to us. Indeed, it will happen to us all.
 
Havign said all that…it would be hard to not commit a very minor sin in that situation!
 
but wouldn’t it be a mortal sin to allow the child to be murdered? since the choice is up to him whether the child lives or not
 
This is the same type of dilemma that motivated the first crusade. Also if you were hiding a Jew in Nazi Germany and a soldier asked you if a Jew was hiding in your house, what would you say?

I believe there is a just war doctrine and we can extrapolate from that and the wars in the Old Testament that love of neighbor and protection of innocents demands justice if they are being oppressed.

It troubles me when I find a pacifist who believe in no karma or God. The whole point of why being non-violent is a virtue is because some divine or higher justice will right wrongs. If you believe that no such justice will happen it betrays a total disregard for a moral order and other people.
 
40.png
underacloud:
The parent should not sin.

Our love for God comes before all else, and death is not the worst thing that can possibly happen to us. Indeed, it will happen to us all.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that your post covers the catholic “ethical” system rather correctly. It is not a consquentialist system, as many other posters have already pointed it out. In other words, the result or consequence of an action is irrelevant, only the action itself matters. From such a distorted point of view comes the idea that some actions, which are not just NOT detrimental, but actually beneficial to everyone involved are deemed to be “intrinsically evil”.

No wonder that for rational people this “ethical system” is horrible, frightening and totally irrational. How can the result of an action be separated from the action itself, is beyond comprehension. Fortunately in real life the the ethical system is different. It recognizes that in such cases (which can be real and not hypothetical) the person acts under duress, and does not hold the person responsible for the act if he commits a crime (there is no “sin” in real life).

The really funny thing is that we are supposed to “respect” such a system.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
all the parent has to do is commit any sin the parent wants…even a little one…and the child will be spared

…but if he refuses to sin…the child will be killed
Click to expand...
O_O

This hypothetical question is messed up
 
underacloud said:
The parent should not sin.

Abraham was so prepared to obey God that he would sacrifice his own son. And this was accredited to him as righteousness.

And God followed this Himself in sacrificing His only son for us.

Our love for God comes before all else, and death is not the worst thing that can possibly happen to us. Indeed, it will happen to us all.
Click to expand...
If a man came to you and said an Angel from God demands that your own child be sacrificed, and look he brought the knife and everything, would you hand your child over? Oh and the reason why God didn’t tell you directly, this man said, is a test of your faith in God.

If you can honestly tell me with a straight face that if you seriously believed God asked that your child be sacrificed you would do it I hope CPS finds you.
SwissGuard25 said:
O_O

This hypothetical question is messed up
Click to expand...
Life is pretty messed up too.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
but wouldn’t it be a mortal sin to allow the child to be murdered? since the choice is up to him whether the child lives or not
Click to expand...
There would be mortal sin involved in the murder of the child, but it would fall on the murderer, not the parent. The choice is not up to the parent in this scenario, but the murderer. The parent is not forcing the murderer to kill the child…
 
capoly said:
I am pretty sure that your post covers the catholic “ethical” system rather correctly. It is not a consquentialist system, as many other posters have already pointed it out. In other words, the result or consequence of an action is irrelevant, only the action itself matters. From such a distorted point of view comes the idea that some actions, which are not just NOT detrimental, but actually beneficial to everyone involved are deemed to be “intrinsically evil”.

No wonder that for rational people this “ethical system” is horrible, frightening and totally irrational. How can the result of an action be separated from the action itself, is beyond comprehension. Fortunately in real life the the ethical system is different. It recognizes that in such cases (which can be real and not hypothetical) the person acts under duress, and does not hold the person responsible for the act if he commits a crime (there is no “sin” in real life).

The really funny thing is that we are supposed to “respect” such a system.
Click to expand...
So you think it’s ok to do *anything, *as long s the result is “good”?
 
capoly said:
I am pretty sure that your post covers the catholic “ethical” system rather correctly. It is not a consquentialist system, as many other posters have already pointed it out. In other words, the result or consequence of an action is irrelevant, only the action itself matters. From such a distorted point of view comes the idea that some actions, which are not just NOT detrimental, but actually beneficial to everyone involved are deemed to be “intrinsically evil”.

No wonder that for rational people this “ethical system” is horrible, frightening and totally irrational. How can the result of an action be separated from the action itself, is beyond comprehension. Fortunately in real life the the ethical system is different. It recognizes that in such cases (which can be real and not hypothetical) the person acts under duress, and does not hold the person responsible for the act if he commits a crime (there is no “sin” in real life).

The really funny thing is that we are supposed to “respect” such a system.
Click to expand...
You can never know the full consequences of an action, therefore deontology makes more sense.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
all the parent has to do is commit any sin the parent wants…even a little one…and the child will be spared
Click to expand...
Doesn’t sin require consent? And by forcing the person to sin, the consent is removed so there may be no sin.

There’s the catch-22…force them to sin, but by forcing them they are not sinning, so then they cannot commit a sin…
 
AHapka said:
Doesn’t sin require consent? And by forcing the person to sin, the consent is removed so there may be no sin.

There’s the catch-22…force them to sin, but by forcing them they are not sinning, so then they cannot commit a sin…
Click to expand...
Removal of consent disqualifies the sin as mortal, but it is still venial sin. I am not aware of this condition removing all culpability for sin.

It seems that committing a venial sin to prevent a mortal sin such as murder is a fair trade-off, even though no evil may be done so that a good may result. I think it is fair because it would clearly be a mortal sin to allow a murder to occur when it could otherwise be prevented. A venial sin is easily forgiven and does not cost the soul of the person committing it. However, if the potential murderer requires a mortal sin be committed, this is a much thornier problem. Will you trade your soul for another’s life? Will the murderer simply kill you too and send you to Hell? No easy answers here.
 
St Francis:
So you think it’s ok to do anything, as long s the result is “good”?
Click to expand...
Obviously I do not. Only the believers subscribe to the black-and-white evaluation of actions, rational people see gray areas, too. The “end does not justify the means”, but the “end” cannot be separated from the “means” either. One must consider the action and its foreseeable consequences together, and decide if the “means and the end” together constitute a morally acceptable course or not. To leave out either one only leads to ludicrous ethical systems. But, if the action has only positive results, and it does not hurt anyone during the execution of the action, then to call it “intrinsically evil” is simply idiotic.
40.png
albertus_magnus:
You can never know the full consequences of an action, therefore deontology makes more sense.
Click to expand...
One does not need to foresee all the consequences of an action. Whatever can be rationally foreseen must be taken into account and the decision must be based upon it. Deontology makes absolutely no sense, since it relies on blind faith in some authority, and NOT on rational evaluation of known and knowlable facts. Of course in real life everyone accepts the duck principle and base their actions upon it.
40.png
AHapka:
Doesn’t sin require consent? And by forcing the person to sin, the consent is removed so there may be no sin.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct. But the “argument” is that the person’s “free will” is not curtailed by the threat, that he is “free” to give in or not.
 
capoly said:
Obviously I do not. Only the believers subscribe to the black-and-white evaluation of actions, rational people see gray areas, too. The “end does not justify the means”, but the “end” cannot be separated from the “means” either. One must consider the action and its foreseeable consequences together, and decide if the “means and the end” together constitute a morally acceptable course or not. To leave out either one only leads to ludicrous ethical systems. But, if the action has only positive results, and it does not hurt anyone during the execution of the action, then to call it “intrinsically evil” is simply idiotic.

One does not need to foresee all the consequences of an action. Whatever can be rationally foreseen must be taken into account and the decision must be based upon it. Deontology makes absolutely no sense, since it relies on blind faith in some authority, and NOT on rational evaluation of known and knowlable facts. Of course in real life everyone accepts the duck principle and base their actions upon it.

You are absolutely correct. But the “argument” is that the person’s “free will” is not curtailed by the threat, that he is “free” to give in or not.
Click to expand...
How does it make any sense to only consider certain consequences of an action?
 
If the attacker does think he can make you sin after putting you at such duress, he doesn’t know the Faith well enough to realize the situation and would be satisfied with what appears to be a minor sin.
 
capoly said:
Obviously I do not. Only the believers subscribe to the black-and-white evaluation of actions, rational people see gray areas, too. The “end does not justify the means”, but the “end” cannot be separated from the “means” either. One must consider the action and its foreseeable consequences together, and decide if the “means and the end” together constitute a morally acceptable course or not. To leave out either one only leads to ludicrous ethical systems. But, if the action has only positive results, and it does not hurt anyone during the execution of the action, then to call it “intrinsically evil” is simply idiotic. …
Click to expand...
I think that part of the problem may be that you are considering “hurt” only in a physical sense. Because Catholics consider committing a sin to be harmful to the soul, we see that certain acts are harmful in and of themselves, even if they do not appear to have a negative material consequence.

Moreover, an argument can be made even from a material point of view that such acts are harmful to the character of the person involved. Acts which we call sinful generally involves taking the easy way, and this is bad for character development. Many of these acts also lead to what are commonly called addictions, but which we call capital sins (greed, lust, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top