I already addressed this point earlier in the thread.
The question is what is the moral thing to do. Not what is convenient. Not what what keeps you alive. If you would chose to act immorally, what does that say about you?
I don’t believe it is morally justified for an individual to decide to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE without that other person’s consent. One may try to persuade the other person that they would be saving the lives of the nine others by their self-sacrifice, but it is not YOUR right to choose to murder them since they are entitled to the same right to life as everyone else. The issue of abortion that you raise is correct AFAIK but the current issue would not involve indirect killing but instead direct murder. Parenthetically, since I’m Jewish and not Catholic, I abide by the Jewish Law regarding abortion, which mandates saving the mother if her unborn child is an unwitting threat to her life.
Where? Did you redefine murder, too?
The church says that self-defense is morally permissible. Does the church now advocate immoral actions? If you think that it is a morally problematic to intend to stay alive, then start to quarrel with the church.
I said self-defense is permissible. Click the arrow for to find “where”:
Murder is never justified. If someone attempts to murder another passenger, the one attacked would have every right to throw the murderer overboard.
Actually yes, in the plane crash case, just like in the above example, one of them had to “sacrifice” himself to walk all the way from where they were to the bottom of the mountain. When this option was proposed none of them wanted to go and then the “leader of the group” decided that they were either all going to die or he better sacrified himself for the rest and go and he actually decided to take with him another guy who didn’t want to go – that guy pretty much was forced to go. Now we know that they survived but if you don’t know the end of the story, under the conditions they were it was higly unlikely that they were going to survive. On the miners case I don’t remember what was their agreement but they did decided something along the lines that they were going to let the weakest one die, I am not 100% sure but I think part of the deal was they would murder the weakest one and eat him.
If a hypothetical problem cannot possibly arise in real life, it is not a problem that needs a solution. You may as well ask “what if you disciovered you were really an alien from outer space?”
That may be what some people call “rational thinking” but it is not the moral law as revealed by God to all men (though clouded in their minds by the Fall) and fully elucidated by His Church.
completely different scenario. Nobody committed murder or suicide. There may be a strong social taboo against cannibalism, but the Church has never had an absolute prohibition against cannibalism. She directs only that dead bodies be respected. The survivors treated the dead bodies with as much respect as they could under the circumstances. Even the Jewish Law under which cannibalism is an abomination, allows an exception to ANY directive of the Law if it is necessary to break it in order to save a human life.
Of course it is suicide, whether it is pulling the trigger of a gun or deliberately entering a situation which you know will certainly result in your death.
You think Father Kolby the Fraciscan from world war two committed suicide, which is a mortal sin, or was what he did somehow different and not a sin?
If a person sets up a scenario that has other options, then it is only logical to explore those options. The OP clearly said earlier, that the crews statements were not necessarily true, thus expanding the domain of ethical solutions. If someone sets up a problem has has only two options, then those two options must be stated up front.
Such a man would not be obligated to undergo a disproportionately invasive treatment. Allowing oneself to die naturally is not immoral.
Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount:
Gospel of Matthew said:
What St Maximilian Kolbe did was very different. He was in a concentration camp and the Nazis had decided that 10 prisoners would be murdered by starvation (they provided some water). St Maximilian told the commandant that he would be willing to be put in the starvation hut instead of one of the men chosen who had a large young family. The commandant made the decision to do so (no doubt an easy decision since St Maximilian had been a prolific writer and publisher of anti-Nazi magazines and pamphlets and the Nazis would be well pleased to be rid of him). After several weeks the other nine men had died but St Maximilian was still alive, whereupon the Nazis murdered him by a lethal injection.
It must be great to have “omniscience” and know if some scenario “cannot possibly arise”. Does your omniscience extend to the next set of lottery numbers?
If you wish to fall back on this defense, then you must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1) there is a God, 2) there was a “revelation”. Otherwise you only repeat an opinion. Use only rational arguments, please, and no hearsay “evidence”.
Prove that there is an eternal life and it is contingent upon our behavior here. Don’t just repeat your opinion as if it were an argument. And tell us how do you define “murder”.
And what else would morality be then the collection of social rules and taboos?
One certainly sdoes not need to have any special power to see logically that a situation cannot arise. Others here have already pointed out several reasons why this situation could not arise in real life.
All these questions are off-topic. You will find them very fully debated and answered elsewhere on this site. This is a Catholic site and unless specifically stated otherwise, a question about morality implies that answers should be based upon the truth as knowen to the Catholic Church.
There is nothing logically contradictory about the scenario.
Authority based “arguments” are only accepted by those who accept the authority. Undefined words like “murder” do not lend credence to what you say.