D
DianaCC
Guest
Well maybe the Palestinians know that if they throw their children in the paths of Israeli bullets it will make the Israelis look bad.
- Status
D
DianaCC
Guest
So your counter-argument is that I supposedly said “no Israelis kill children” to which you reply with “but some Israelis do kill children”?
Ok I’m out of my league here. Maybe the stats run the way they do because Israelis protect their children instead of using them as human shields.But to get back on topic, the fact that a terrorist deliberately sets up the dilemma in the first place lessens the military’s responsibility for the deaths of the other people on the plane.
S
St_Francis
Guest
There is a difference between the end of an act and the goal, and between those two and the result.
An action is taken to fulfill a goal, to save one or more lives. the result is, one hopes, the saving of the life, but it may not be, as you point out.
The end of the action is what you might call the goal of the action in itself.
You are driving when you see a car hurtling down a hill towards a group of people. You quickly intercept the car with yours, knocking off course into a river. If the car is empty, no one dies. If the car is full of people, they die (in this scenario). You did not, however, intend their deaths, nor was death the end of your action. The end of your action was knocking the car. The goal was to save the lives of the bystanders. The result was some saved lives and some lost if there were people in the car, or just saved lives if it was empty.
In shooting down the planes, if they are empty, you will still want to shoot it down. The end of you actiin is the disablement of the plane, the goal is to save lives the plane might take.
But in abortion, while the goal is the same, to save the life of the mother, the end of the act is different. The act just is the taking of a human life, the end of the act is the death od the baby.
Consider is a doctor performs chemo on a woman with cancer. the end is to eradicate the cancerous cells, but a side effect for a pregnant woman might be that the unborn child dies.
Does that clarify the difference for you?
S
St_Francis
Guest
ExNihilo,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=596167&page=5
Starting on post 65 of that paage, you’ll see a discussion where Contarini makes the same point as yours, and my replies. Maybe that will help you understand the Catholic positiin better.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=596167&page=5
Starting on post 65 of that paage, you’ll see a discussion where Contarini makes the same point as yours, and my replies. Maybe that will help you understand the Catholic positiin better.
A
AndyF
Guest
This is not the experience, since the reciprocal to attempting to obtain peace by force in this way effects tempered resolve in the enemy(?), (proof, ill equipped viet cong) and having primitive weapons is no factor in persuasion. If while shooting a presumed taliban leader from a drone and it kills my three children in proximity, then I wouldn’t need my nation to declare war, I would do it myself. So now we see why we have so many family-less individuals has the ideal role model for these attacks.
cc2309: - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Following your thought process, then I am justified in using a howitzer to rid my home of a burglar regardless if the blast would take out many (colateral)families in my neighborhood. Having in possession a weapon that can do more than needed does not justify it’s use for all cases.
But you miss the point. The government who does it’s duty in protecting peace could
be in a position where prior to ever using the drones, finds itself in severed friendship with God by ignoring the restriction to murdering sentenced offenders in direct defiance of the moral laws (hence my ref “it goes alone”). Jesus warns us to clean our house before we present our good works has gifts to His glory, and nations are not exempt. Not only this, while in this state the decision making process is open to more faults and errors has a compounding effect of sin.
The consequence of dropping capital punishment could result in the added graces to
see a strategy has not appropriate for the effect desired. So we can never tell whilst in this state, only when we obey does our collective conscience turn on the runway lights to see if we are making the right moral landing.
Besides, while 5 tons of Cesium 137 still not accounted for since the end of the cold war, a pound of which could render square miles of rendered useless real estate for decades not to mention elevated cancer cases, I think there isn’t a bat big enough to allow us to stick our chest out in arrogance. And if this isn’t a good enough excuse for you, then you have just rendered my grandchildren’s future life has “collateral damage”.
cc2309: - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Following your thought process, then I am justified in using a howitzer to rid my home of a burglar regardless if the blast would take out many (colateral)families in my neighborhood. Having in possession a weapon that can do more than needed does not justify it’s use for all cases.
But you miss the point. The government who does it’s duty in protecting peace could
be in a position where prior to ever using the drones, finds itself in severed friendship with God by ignoring the restriction to murdering sentenced offenders in direct defiance of the moral laws (hence my ref “it goes alone”). Jesus warns us to clean our house before we present our good works has gifts to His glory, and nations are not exempt. Not only this, while in this state the decision making process is open to more faults and errors has a compounding effect of sin.
The consequence of dropping capital punishment could result in the added graces to
see a strategy has not appropriate for the effect desired. So we can never tell whilst in this state, only when we obey does our collective conscience turn on the runway lights to see if we are making the right moral landing.
Besides, while 5 tons of Cesium 137 still not accounted for since the end of the cold war, a pound of which could render square miles of rendered useless real estate for decades not to mention elevated cancer cases, I think there isn’t a bat big enough to allow us to stick our chest out in arrogance. And if this isn’t a good enough excuse for you, then you have just rendered my grandchildren’s future life has “collateral damage”.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I for one am not talking about any partcular action or nation.
And as to the howitzer, the use of force must not exceed that which is needed to stop the attack or war. If you only need a gun to stop a burglar, you cannot morally use a cannon.
And as to the howitzer, the use of force must not exceed that which is needed to stop the attack or war. If you only need a gun to stop a burglar, you cannot morally use a cannon.
B
Bill_G
Guest
I think one question has to be answered before we can decide if the order was moral or not. We have to determine the intent of the decision/order as if intent was to kill as many people as possible which is the intent of the attack in the first place, but I doubt was the intent of the order that was given out to shoot down any other planes.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The order was given by the US government to the US military to keep the planes from crashing into populated areas where they would kill a lot of people.
The military was doing its job of protectiing our nation and our citizenry.
B
Bill_G
Guest
Yes that is what I was driving at but you said it much better than I did.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Oh, good. i was afraid you might be trying to say someething else!
- Status