How so?But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?
No, it would have been a case of trying to prevent more death and destruction, and making a very difficult decision, no different from the President having to send our troops into war.But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?
No. Throughout history, collateral damages has been a natural by-product of war, though terrible. This is one of the great challenges facing civilian leaders and military officers - how does one conduct violent diplomacy in a way that minimizes the effect to non-combatants?But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?
No, it would be an example of the principle of double effect.But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?
I disagree with this phrase. The ends, or purpose, are always part of what makes something moral. They are not the only factor, but the goal is part of moral judgement. It would never be moral to shoot down a plane for no reason or for your own sick pleasure. It might be moral to shoot down a plane to save lives. The means are the same but the end is different.But would that be an issue of the ends never justifying the means?
I agree and it would seem to me this is the same issue as aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother. Can you kill innocent lives to protect other innocents? This case might be more problematic in that the actual threat to innocent lives was less probable. In this case we can assume the intent of the plane’s pilots was to do something evil. But I think we must consider the likelihood of actual deaths as well. And that we really dont know. The other plane in DC killed 125 people besides those on the plane. I dont think there is really any way to judge the probability of death to others not on the plane. So the question is can we kill people to prevent the deaths of other innocents when the likelihood of death is so uncertain? It seems the answer almost everyone will give is yes. But determining when is not so clear cut.No, it would be an example of the principle of double effect.
It is moral to shoot down a plane (or other vehicle) which is about to crash into, say, a city. The action is not directly targeting the passengers–you would still shoot down the plane if it were remore-controlled and had no people on it–so the deaths of the people are an unintended side-effect.I disagree with this phrase. The ends, or purpose, are always part of what makes something moral. They are not the only factor, but the goal is part of moral judgement. It would never be moral to shoot down a plane for no reason or for your own sick pleasure. It might be moral to shoot down a plane to save lives. The means are the same but the end is different.
This is absolutely not the same as performing an abortion to save the lofe of the mother. Performing an abortion is directly targeting the person; the death of the unborn child is the intention of the act of abortion.I agree and it would seem to me this is the same issue as aborting a fetus to save the life of the mother.
You cannot directly and intentionally kill an innocent person to save the life of another or even many other lives. If someone says to you: “I have my finger on this button which will cause a nuclear bomb to go off in NYC, which I will push if you do not shoot somerandom person on the street down there,” you cannot morally kill that person.Can you kill innocent lives to protect other innocents?
This is a prudential military decision. The only reason so few were killed at the Pentagon was that that section of the building was undergoing renovation. Had that not been the case, or had the plane hit a couple of plane-widths over, many more would have been killed.This case might be more problematic in that the actual threat to innocent lives was less probable. In this case we can assume the intent of the plane’s pilots was to do something evil. But I think we must consider the likelihood of actual deaths as well. And that we really dont know. The other plane in DC killed 125 people besides those on the plane. I dont think there is really any way to judge the probability of death to others not on the plane. So the question is can we kill people to prevent the deaths of other innocents when the likelihood of death is so uncertain? It seems the answer almost everyone will give is yes. But determining when is not so clear cut.
Thou shalt not kill uld be more accurately translated thou shalt not muder, were it not for the fact that murder is a legal term which means that not all immoral killing is included.You can try to twist The Ten Commandments but You shall not kill is pretty clear. To the same logic the commandment You shall not steal is that optional to feed yourself. Can we break others if there is a good reason.
Knowing that there are about a bazillion sources for this, I’m just going to quote the first one that Google gave me:You can try to twist The Ten Commandments but You shall not kill is pretty clear. To the same logic the commandment You shall not steal is that optional to feed yourself. Can we break others if there is a good reason.
You shall not murder or You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo ti-rəṣoḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
LINKThe imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment and self-defense.
Yes, we accept the UNintended deaths of civilians in a just war (remember that a just war is only just on one side or neither side, but cannot be just on both sides), and we use drones to kill individuals who are fighting against us.Choosing the best option that serves the common good could lead to such difficult decisions. But has always, nations will be judged on the consistency of principle and purity of state, and deliberate application of double standards will negate any positive it was intended to solve. A wrong committed elsewhere under the guise of the same principal, or obstinate refusal to adhere to instruction from the Messenger of the Word(Church, such has the death penalty) will not justify the taking of the extra lives on the plane.
Deliberate incursions into other sovereign states by sending drones that will target a single citizen but collaterally accepts multiple deaths does not justify the means. Basically the rule in regards to man in regards to negation of all good whilst he is in a state of mortal sin applies to nations has well. Nations formed by the willing contract of individuals, and who collectively invoke from Deity assistance, forgiveness and recognition for acts done in this form could not reasonably expect graces and the privilege is lost and the nation goes it alone.
So far nothing is being said about the moral responsibility of those who create the situation in the first place. If I hijacked a plane full of people, intending to fly it into a building full of more people, I think I would accept responsibility for the deaths of the passengers because I was the one who basically forced the military to shoot us down. I would not hold the military responsible for their deaths at all. I have heard Palestinians deliberately launch missiles into Israel from the roofs of elementary schools because they know Jews have a problem with killing innocent children. It’s the same idea as when in old movies men fight over a small object and a woman drops it down the front of her dress with a defiant smirk, because she knows no 19th century gentleman would be so crass as to violate a lady’s person. The key to the safe with the stolen gold bullion is one thing, but if it were the key to the nuclear reactor core shutdown switch, that’s another. And the simplest way out of that dilemma is for the *supporting actress *to shove her own fist down that bodice for the greater good. So following this analogy, how could we sidestep the OP’s dilemma altogether?Yes, we accept the UNintended deaths of civilians in a just war…
First please understand I very much against abortion, war and any violence. Having said that I’m not convinced the distinction is one that matters between these two scenarios.It is moral to shoot down a plane (or other vehicle) which is about to crash into, say, a city. The action is not directly targeting the passengers–you would still shoot down the plane if it were remore-controlled and had no people on it–so the deaths of the people are an unintended side-effect.
This is absolutely not the same as performing an abortion to save the lofe of the mother. Performing an abortion is directly targeting the person; the death of the unborn child is the intention of the act of abortion.
I dont doubt that people in many conflicts try to hide behind innocents. But regarding this war the innocent Palestinian children are dying at a much greater rate than Israeli children. Certainly not everyone in the Israeli army is so troubled by the idea of killing children.I have heard Palestinians deliberately launch missiles into Israel from the roofs of elementary schools because they know Jews have a problem with killing innocent children.
It does not follow that the death rate would have anything to do with anyone in the Israeli army.But regarding this war the innocent Palestinian children are dying at a much greater rate than Israeli children. Certainly not everyone in the Israeli army is so troubled by the idea of killing children.
Well that was not a tight logical argument. The point was merely that I do not believe that everyone in the Israeli army is worried about children’s deaths. To believe otherwise is to think that one side is holy and the other not. Of course such thinking is popular, particularly in the US, but very inconsistent with Christian thought.It does not follow that the death rate would have anything to do with anyone in the Israeli army.
There are a number of other factors involved that could readily contribute to this statistic.
Your logic here is flawed.