Suicide...

[JSSebastianoP]

I think I understand now. Thanks!

Pax.

 

[PeterMuz]

This is not church teaching. The church teaches that one can sacrifice one’s life in service of a just cause. By your argument, a troop could not throw themselves on a grenade to save their compatriots, because they are assured they will die.

This is simply not true. There is a difference between a suicide bomber and someone throwing themselves on a grenade. The concept of a suicide bomber is that by killing yourself you can also kill x number of people, which may or may not save lives somewhere else.

In throwing yourself on a grenade, you are strictly trying to save the live of others around you. These are extremely different.

Ultimately, striking a military target whilst following the laws of war is not an inherently immoral act, even if it leads to one’s death. People, Christians included, have gone on “suicidal” missions since the dawn of time.

Well people have also been committing adultery and and stealing since the dawn of time. If that justifies tings in any way, then by your argument, its ok to steal and commit adultery.

The military in a just war is a little different than going to a grocery store when it comes to morality… people get called on to die, it’s a fact of life.

You sound like a member of the aclu. People do NOT get called on to die! This is an extreme distortion of the truth. People get called on to defend their country and innocent people who cannot defend themselves. When was the last time you saw an Army commercial that says “Be all that you can be… we’d like you to kill yourself.”

 

[JSSebastianoP]

This is simply not true. There is a difference between a suicide bomber and someone throwing themselves on a grenade. The concept of a suicide bomber is that by killing yourself you can also kill x number of people, which may or may not save lives somewhere else.

What about my hypothetical example (quoted from above)?

I am a very hypothetical person; I like to take things out of the practical realm and put them into the theoretical for a ‘what if…’ kind of scenario. For an extremely unlikely but suitable scenario, say I’m a pilot and I’m flying near the coast. I see an enemy aircraft flying towards a skyscraper on the shore which holds many people and if it crashes would kill many more. Because of a blackout the city cannot activate any defence systems and no other military craft or less damaging solution can be taken than me crashing straight into that plane. Is it morally acceptable to do so?

Pax.

 

[PeterMuz]

The question is, like I just asked PeterMuz above, is the same principle of ‘taking the bullet for someone else’ applicable to kamikaze etc? Given a more abstract sense of ‘taking the bullet’…

No. Its not the same. Maybe in some really calculated, hypothetical, manipulated, stretched of the imagination you could get them to being almost the same. But, in general, these are not the same.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

No. Its not the same. Maybe in some really calculated, hypothetical, manipulated, stretched of the imagination you could get them to being almost the same. But, in general, these are not the same.

Okay. I understand your feelings here. But what about my hypothetical example?

Pax.

 

[PeterMuz]

Right. Thou shalt not kill. But if I take the bullet for someone else, I am still killing myself. So, the law does not quite apply here. The question now is, is the same principle of ‘taking the bullet for someone else’ applicable to kamikaze etc?

I am a very hypothetical person; I like to take things out of the practical realm and put them into the theoretical for a ‘what if…’ kind of scenario. For an extremely unlikely but suitable scenario, say I’m a pilot and I’m flying near the coast. I see an enemy aircraft flying towards a skyscraper on the shore which holds many people and if it crashes would kill many more. Because of a blackout the city cannot activate any defence systems and no other military craft or less damaging solution can be taken than me crashing straight into that plane. Is it morally acceptable to do so?

First, you are not killing yourself. you are saving the life of another.

Since you are a hypothetical person lets take the scenario of the enemy aircraft as you have laid out: You are assuming that the aircraft is going to fly into the building? You do not know that for sure. So if you crash your plane into the enemy you have killed yourself and another based on a poor assumption, being that this is extremely uncommon.

If you would like we can apply the same reasoning to the “throwing yourself in from of the bullet idea” idea. You are assuming that the person is going to be shot. Worst case scenario, you throw yourself in front of someone who does not get shot.

Now you can say that "how do you not know the other person will not be killed after you have taken a bullet? You don’t. But you also do not know if there may be another enemy plane ready to crash into the building.

The point in this is you should not kill yourself and someone else based on an assumption.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

First, you are not killing yourself. you are saving the life of another.

Since you are a hypothetical person lets take the scenario of the enemy aircraft as you have laid out: You are assuming that the aircraft is going to fly into the building? You do not know that for sure. So if you crash your plane into the enemy you have killed yourself and another based on a poor assumption, being that this is extremely uncommon.

If you would like we can apply the same reasoning to the “throwing yourself in from of the bullet idea” idea. You are assuming that the person is going to be shot. Worst case scenario, you throw yourself in front of someone who does not get shot.

Now you can say that "how do you not know the other person will not be killed after you have taken a bullet? You don’t. But you also do not know if there may be another enemy plane ready to crash into the building.

The point in this is you should not kill yourself and someone else based on an assumption.

I get your point here. Thank you.
So, just to clarify, you are saying that being a suicide pilot/bomber is justifiable under no circumstances, or under extremely limited ones?

Pax.

 

[AHapka]

Right. Thou shalt not kill. But if I take the bullet for someone else, I am still killing myself. So, the law does not quite apply here. The question now is, is the same principle of ‘taking the bullet for someone else’ applicable to kamikaze etc?

Jesus said there is no greater act of love then to lay down your life for a friend. Therefore, it’s clearly established that it is a moral act.

We must remember that in both instances you speak of, the primary intent is not to die. In the first case, it’s to save a life. If you lived, you’d be happy. You have no positive intention of dying, you are trying to prevent a death.

In the second case, the primary intent is not to die either, true the odds may be 99.9999999% of you dying, but if you lived, you’d be happy. You’re primary intent is to attack a military target.

Someone trying to commit suicide is actively trying to kill themselves. That’s where the sin enters the picture.

 

[PeterMuz]

Okay. I understand your feelings here. But what about my hypothetical example?

Pax.

I believe that it would be ok… But you would have to be certain that your assumption is correct and that there is NO other solution.

I would ask you this: same scenario and you are certain that both planes are going to hit the skyscraper , "If there were two planes, and you could only take out one, would you still think it was ok?

I think the answer would be that it would not be ok.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I believe that it would be ok… But you would have to be certain that your assumption is correct and that there is NO other solution.

I would ask you this: same scenario and you are certain that both planes are going to hit the skyscraper , "If there were two planes, and you could only take out one, would you still think it was ok?

I think the answer would be that it would not be ok.

Hmm. I see what you are saying. Good point.

Pax.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Actively seeking suicide. What about those who are severly mentally ill? Those without any kind of support or help. Lord knows how many therapists I went through before I found one who was an actual help. I had no family support. I don’t mean that I did have family or not, just that the family I had/have wasn’t supportive during the “time of crisis.”

It wasn’t that I was just down, or had the blues. It wasn’t merely going through a bad time. My mental illness is a medical fact. Now that I’m getting the medications and treatment I need, the thought of suicide is far off. But it wasn’t always like that. It’s like being in a dark place, no light whatsoever. You don’t know where the door is, or if there even ***is ***a door. It is said that God doesn’t close a door without opening a window. Well, I could never find that window. It was all about darkness and pain.

Even Christians were a let down. I got tired of my fake smile and false serenity. I got tired of trying to be someone I wasn’t. Of being unacceptable even within my family. Where was God’s love then? If I wasn’t good enough for those that called themselves His people, then how could I believe that I was good enough for Him?

“It is more blessed to give than to received.” Maybe that’s true. But you can’t give what you don’t have. How could I love someone when I had not been loved? I couldn’t believe that there was this great God who cared about me. I finally believe that now, but that is a fairly recent discovery. During my darkest days, all I wanted was for the pain to end. I saw no hope, no light at the end of the tunnel. I was no coward. I was just tired of living a lie. My whole life felt like a lie.

Where am I now? Talking to you people here. Why? Because I’ve been where many/most of you have probably never been. And I pray that no one here gets to that point in their lives.

It isn’t always a point of “Gee, my boyfriend (or girlfriend) broke up with me. I can’t stnad this, so I’ll just end my life.” Sure, there are always going to be people like that. But the mentally ill? I can’t begin to describe to you how it felt. Often times it was like having a tornado inside of me. Nothing but destruction. No life, no hope for tomorrow. Forget the Pollyanna attitude of “Tomorrow will be better.” For the mentally ill, it won’t be. It will just be more of the same. Always has been, always will be.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Christy Beth, thank you very much for your well-written response. I am very happy you’re here to talk with us. I would just like to mention though, that although the thread is called “Suicide…” it is specifically about the justification of being a suicide pilot/bomber. Can you offer any advice about this given your personal experience?

Pax.

 

[promethius]

This is simply not true. There is a difference between a suicide bomber and someone throwing themselves on a grenade. The concept of a suicide bomber is that by killing yourself you can also kill x number of people, which may or may not save lives somewhere else.

In throwing yourself on a grenade, you are strictly trying to save the live of others around you. These are extremely different.

both could have situations where they could save lives in the long run. And again, there’s not a specific objection caused by a kamikaze attack which would result in enemy soldiers dying (unless you’re prepared to say that causing any death in a just war is morally wrong).

Ultimately, the two questions are seperate.

1. Is it wrong to kill enemy soldiers following the laws of war in a just war? No
2. Is it wrong to take an action which will or most likely will result in your death during a just war? No.

Well people have also been committing adultery and and stealing since the dawn of time. If that justifies tings in any way, then by your argument, its ok to steal and commit adultery.

I fail to see how you equate troops in a combat environment to committing adultery and stealing. Perhaps you’d like to revise your statement?

You sound like a member of the aclu. People do NOT get called on to die! This is an extreme distortion of the truth. People get called on to defend their country and innocent people who cannot defend themselves.

I can assure you I’m not a member of the ACLU and my position to know laws of warfare and what troops are called on to do is very assured. Perhaps you should research a certain military idea known as “unlimited liability clause” which is basically a nice way of saying you recognize that you may be called on to surrender your life during missions.

When was the last time you saw an Army commercial that says “Be all that you can be… we’d like you to kill yourself.”

And when was the last time you decided who rides in the first vehicle during a convoy?

 

[promethius]

No. Its not the same. Maybe in some really calculated, hypothetical, manipulated, stretched of the imagination you could get them to being almost the same. But, in general, these are not the same.

I gave a hypothetical situation which was not very stretched or manipulated. It is interesting to me that you chose to leave that out. The reality is that the situation occured in WWII where one government/military felt pressed to that point. What if the situation were reversed and placed in the atlantic ocean against the germans instead? Seeing as this was a real world happenstance, I don’t think the minor modifications make it “manipulated, stretched of the imagination”

Address the point I actually made or don’t quote me. I don’t appreciate using straw man arguments which hardly include more than my screen name.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Sorry, but I think I posted before I had it all written. Only goes to show you where my brain is these days. That, or I managed to delete everything. Oh well, I was getting on my soap box anyway. Back in 1991 when the first gulf war was going on, a woman in a reserve unit refused to go when her unit was called on. She said she was a CO. I got a look at her when I went to visit my ex when he was in jail at Ft. Levenworth. A little one who was allowed to visit had on a T shirt that said "prisoner of conscience… I thought it was pathetic. Apparently she only joined to get the benefits to go to medical school.

 

[promethius]

Sorry, but I think I posted before I had it all written. Only goes to show you where my brain is these days. That, or I managed to delete everything. Oh well, I was getting on my soap box anyway. Back in 1991 when the first gulf war was going on, a woman in a reserve unit refused to go when her unit was called on. She said she was a CO. I got a look at her when I went to visit my ex when he was in jail at Ft. Levenworth. A little one who was allowed to visit had on a T shirt that said "prisoner of conscience… I thought it was pathetic. Apparently she only joined to get the benefits to go to medical school.

That’s almost assured. A CO can still deploy in a non-combat role, so her refusal to go doesn’t make sense. There are actually quite a few "surprise CO"s that crop up when deployments come down.

 

[PeterMuz]

both could have situations where they could save lives in the long run. And again, there’s not a specific objection caused by a kamikaze attack which would result in enemy soldiers dying (unless you’re prepared to say that causing any death in a just war is morally wrong).

Ultimately, the two questions are seperate.

1. Is it wrong to kill enemy soldiers following the laws of war in a just war? No
2. Is it wrong to take an action which will or most likely will result in your death during a just war? No.

1. You are correct
2. You are correct – But this does not fit the kamikaze example. This WILL result in your death.

I fail to see how you equate troops in a combat environment to committing adultery and stealing. Perhaps you’d like to revise your statement?

You made the point that people have doing suicide missions for “since the dawn of time”. I was simply making the point that just because people have been doing this since the dawn of time, that does not in any way justify anything. I was responding to your argument.

I can assure you I’m not a member of the ACLU and my position to know laws of warfare and what troops are called on to do is very assured. Perhaps you should research a certain military idea known as “unlimited liability clause” which is basically a nice way of saying you recognize that you may be called on to surrender your life during missions.

And when was the last time you decided who rides in the first vehicle during a convoy?

I understand the concept of “unlimited liability clause”. I do not understand your point in bringing it up.

And no, I have not made the decision to say who rides first in a convoy. But that doesn’t change anything.

 

[PeterMuz]

I gave a hypothetical situation which was not very stretched or manipulated. It is interesting to me that you chose to leave that out. The reality is that the situation occured in WWII where one government/military felt pressed to that point. What if the situation were reversed and placed in the atlantic ocean against the germans instead? Seeing as this was a real world happenstance, I don’t think the minor modifications make it “manipulated, stretched of the imagination”

Address the point I actually made or don’t quote me. I don’t appreciate using straw man arguments which hardly include more than my screen name.

**Okay, so you like the kamikaze example. Answer me this…

I would ask you this: using the scenario from before… You see two planes and you are certain that both planes are going to hit a skyscraper , "If there are two planes, and you could only take out one, would you still think it was ok? **

I have been addressing the points you have made all along. I am not using straw man arguments. You may see it that way, but I am simply pointing out flawed logic. If you are going to accuse me of misquoting or not addressing an argument, then you are guilty of the EXACT same thing.

 

[promethius]

1. You are correct
2. You are correct – But this does not fit the kamikaze example. This WILL result in your death.

Regardless. It is acceptable to give up your life for a cause, that much is held as true by the church throughout history. Anything else is just personal invention.

You made the point that people have doing suicide missions for “since the dawn of time”. I was simply making the point that just because people have been doing this since the dawn of time, that does not in any way justify anything. I was responding to your argument.

The point of saying that suicide missions have occured since armies first waged war is not that that was an argument for the morality of it, but rather a statement to contravene what I had interpreted that you implied: that there was never an application where “suicide mission” would be seen as a necessary and viable response. That simply isn’t historically true.

No, the fact that it has been done does not make it right, that is a seperate moral argument.

I understand the concept of “unlimited liability clause”. I do not understand your point in bringing it up.

You said: “You sound like a member of the aclu. People do NOT get called on to die! This is an extreme distortion of the truth. People get called on to defend their country and innocent people who cannot defend themselves.”

The unlimited liabililty clause is patent proof that people DO get called on to die, and while it is in the convention of defending “country and innocent people” the voluntary consent to kill or destroy likewise contravenes what you seem to think on this matter. These two distinguishining factors are not unique to the military, but they are unique in that it is the only job where they are not the exception, but rather the purpose of the military. If you join, you may be asked to risk or even lose your life and your purpose will be to destroy or kill. It’s why we take our jobs so seriously.

And no, I have not made the decision to say who rides first in a convoy. But that doesn’t change anything.

Likewise, you said: When was the last time you saw an Army commercial that says “Be all that you can be… we’d like you to kill yourself.”

I just thought you should be aware that military officers tend to do a lot of thinking about who goes into harms way and how to determine that, whether that be who drives lead convoy, who kicks in a door, or who covers a fall back action. Military officers call on people to risk their lives. It’s reality.

Okay, so you like the kamikaze example. Answer me this…

**I would ask you this: using the scenario from before… You see two planes and you are certain that both planes are going to hit a skyscraper , "If there are two planes, and you could only take out one, would you still think it was ok? **

I have been addressing the points you have made all along. I am not using straw man arguments. You may see it that way, but I am simply pointing out flawed logic. If you are going to accuse me of misquoting or not addressing an argument, then you are guilty of the EXACT same thing.

You have yet to acknowledge my example. However, I will still respond to yours. Given this circumstance I would weigh the following:

1. both planes are attempting to crash into the building. Everyone on each plane is as good as dead.
2. One plane may be smaller than the other, meaning less damage done = more time before building collapse or possible total prevention of building collapse.
3. One plane my strike before the other, or at a better position to cause more damage on the building = more lives lost from a more immanent collapse.
4. whatever plane you DON’T strike may assume that the building is defended and divert from attacking.

In reality, if even one life is saved by striking one of the planes, then that is the moral action to take. The only IMMORAL action would be NOT to act, thereby becoming complicit in maximizing the damage done to the structure and ensuring that the most people inside will be assured of death.

In other words, lack of action in this case would cost FAR more lives than action, and is therefore contemptable.

 

[PeterMuz]

The unlimited liabililty clause is patent proof that people DO get called on to die, and while it is in the convention of defending “country and innocent people” the voluntary consent to kill or destroy likewise contravenes what you seem to think on this matter. These two distinguishining factors are not unique to the military, but they are unique in that it is the only job where they are not the exception, but rather the purpose of the military. If you join, you may be asked to risk or even lose your life and your purpose will be to destroy or kill. It’s why we take our jobs so seriously.

I just thought you should be aware that military officers tend to do a lot of thinking about who goes into harms way and how to determine that, whether that be who drives lead convoy, who kicks in a door, or who covers a fall back action. Military officers call on people to risk their lives. It’s reality.

The red text is key! That is what the unlimited liability clause means. There is a HUGE difference to risking your life and being “called on to die”. “Called on to die” are your words, not mine.

You have yet to acknowledge my example. However, I will still respond to yours. Given this circumstance I would weigh the following:

1. both planes are attempting to crash into the building. Everyone on each plane is as good as dead.
2. One plane may be smaller than the other, meaning less damage done = more time before building collapse or possible total prevention of building collapse.
3. One plane my strike before the other, or at a better position to cause more damage on the building = more lives lost from a more immanent collapse.
4. whatever plane you DON’T strike may assume that the building is defended and divert from attacking.

How much more calculated or manipulated can this get?? I remember you said “I gave a hypothetical situation which was not very stretched or manipulated”.

I never said that it would never be acceptable, but only that the suicide bomber scenario was not one of them.