Take the shot?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mpartyka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mpartyka said:
I don’t think it’s a matter of the innocent person, whether an unborn child or an unwitting bomb-toter, being “worthy” of dying. But if an innocent person through circumstances beyond his/her control becomes in effect an “aggressor” against one or more innocents, it may be necessary for someone who is charged with protecting and/or saving lives to intentionally cause the death of that innocent to prevent the death of one or more other innocents.
Click to expand...
What I meant was, in such a situation the apparent aggressor must be neutralized, lest you have culpability for failing to act in defense of innocence.

One may never seek to cause death. The intent must always be to defend life, not to take it. The action used may be identical in both cases - it is the intent that matters, and which God judges.

I was a street cop for 31 years and something like this never came up. They are always clear-cut. TV drama is based on hypotheticals which, for all practical purposes, never happen.
 
po18guy said:
One may never seek to cause death. The intent must always be to defend life, not to take it. The action used may be identical in both cases - it is the intent that matters, and which God judges.
Click to expand...
Is that really so, though? Because the Catechism says, “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object…The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them…” (1755-1756)
 
mpartyka said:
Is that really so, though? Because the Catechism says, “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object…The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them…” (1755-1756)
Click to expand...
I think you are misunderstanding here. It cannot be immoral to defend human life, as long as the life, even of the offender is not willfully taken in that defense.
 
po18guy said:
I think you are misunderstanding here. It cannot be immoral to defend human life, as long as the life, even of the offender is not willfully taken in that defense.
Click to expand...
How do you define “willfully” in this case, though? If I’m going to shoot an offender in the head in order to defend human life, certainly I must be willing that the death of that offender take place, or else I can’t shoot – generally you don’t take a headshot to wound. In fact, given that the sniper’s credo is, “One shot, one kill,” how does the sniper avoid willing the death of the target? Somehow it seems a little like splitting hairs to say, “I’m not willing your death, I’m just willing this bullet into your cranium in the hopes it will save someone else’s life.”

And since abortion was brought up, what about the doctor whose intent is to “defend” the life of the mother, but whose action is to “take the shot” on the baby?
 
mpartyka said:
How do you define “willfully” in this case, though? If I’m going to shoot an offender in the head in order to defend human life, certainly I must be willing that the death of that offender take place, or else I can’t shoot – generally you don’t take a headshot to wound. In fact, given that the sniper’s credo is, “One shot, one kill,” how does the sniper avoid willing the death of the target? Somehow it seems a little like splitting hairs to say, “I’m not willing your death, I’m just willing this bullet into your cranium in the hopes it will save someone else’s life.”
Click to expand...
Are you confusing police and military snipers? The military has, as its purpose, the killing of the opponent. They are both offensive as well as defensive. After all, it’s war.

The police have no such congressionally authorized power. They are purely defensive.
mpartyka said:
And since abortion was brought up, what about the doctor whose intent is to “defend” the life of the mother, but whose action is to “take the shot” on the baby?
Click to expand...
Can you derail your own thread? :ehh:

IMO, you are over-thinking this and making it complicated. Have you read the catechism sections? You are not culpable if you do not intend to take a life, but accept that a life may be taken in your defense of the innocent life.

Do not make this into a situation where one is paralyzed with concern - over a hypothetical, no less!
  1. An innocent life is in danger and Marty is the cop.
  2. Marty, acting in defense of innocent life, shoots the aggressor.
    3a. The aggressor lives. No problem.
    3b. The aggressor is dealt an unintended mortal blow. Not a sin, or a crime.
Are we being scrupulous here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top