The morality of a catch-22?

[fakename]

I wonder this: if someone is in a situation where it seems that they have no choice but to sin, (1) is the difficult nature of the choice release from moral responsibility viz. “the impossible is not obligatory?” or (2) is such a situation impossible? (3) or perhaps none of these is the correct answer?

 

[JamesATyler]

I wonder this: if someone is in a situation where it seems that they have no choice but to sin, (1) is the difficult nature of the choice release from moral responsibility viz. “the impossible is not obligatory?” or (2) is such a situation impossible? (3) or perhaps none of these is the correct answer?

Do you mean like, for example, someone puts a gun to your child’s head and says you have to blow up a bus or go on a random killing spree in a supermarket? I don’t know what the Church teaches but I would say that you are not responsible. No matter what you do your heart is going to be broken but I don’t think you are morally responsible because you have lost control of your free will.

 

[mystagogia]

Such situations where sin is unavoidable are indeed quite possible. I was discussing this once with a friend who grew up in the old USSR, and he produced this example:

Once, as a boy, some government men came around asking questions about his mother. The precise matter at hand was innocuous, but I forget what it was exactly. It was on the order of, “Has she ever been critical of the regime?” or something. My friend knew that he had to lie in order to defend his mother, who very well might be taken away and sent someplace very bad depending on the answer. What to do, lie? Or betray your mother, your family, and yourself?

The outcome of our analysis on this was that sin was unavoidable. So we were left playing the game, “Which sin is worse?” Yet, I had to emphasize that this situation was wholly created by man. The government agents had singled out the boy in order to offer him a devilish choice. This was the first sin, which put events on track that would intentionally beget more sin.

These “no way out” tragedies that put innocents in a bind are exactly what Christ intoned against when he spoke of millstones being fit around the necks of those who cause innocents to stumble.

Should you find yourself in one of these situations not of your making, I can only say pray to God for forgiveness, consult a priest if possible, and do what you think best.

 

[Regina_Love]

I wonder this: if someone is in a situation where it seems that they have no choice but to sin, (1) is the difficult nature of the choice release from moral responsibility viz. “the impossible is not obligatory?” or (2) is such a situation impossible? (3) or perhaps none of these is the correct answer?

Can’t say with out the details of the situation. But you always have a choice. Given the one example of being forced to shoot or blow up others, I would refuse, and pretend to faint. Many women claim they had no choice but to get an abortion. When if they are honest they could have chosen adoption! We are not always honest with our selves…

Most of what we are called to do in the Christian life is difficult. So what! Do the right thing anyway. God will help you. He always provides a way!

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Do you mean like, for example, someone puts a gun to your child’s head and says you have to blow up a bus or go on a random killing spree in a supermarket? I don’t know what the Church teaches but I would say that you are not responsible. No matter what you do your heart is going to be broken but I don’t think you are morally responsible because you have lost control of your free will.

This denies the principle of double effect. The Principle of Double Effect is that it is morally wrong to do evil that good may result, like your example. But if you are meaning a good result, and do a non-immoral act, though you know something evil may result as a side effect, such as a death, that’s not wrong.

Like blowing up a bomb to stop a lava flow from reaching a village when an innocent is near the bomb. Someone else’s example, not mine. There is more, but you need to look it up.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Such situations where sin is unavoidable are indeed quite possible. I was discussing this once with a friend who grew up in the old USSR, and he produced this example:

Once, as a boy, some government men came around asking questions about his mother. The precise matter at hand was innocuous, but I forget what it was exactly. It was on the order of, “Has she ever been critical of the regime?” or something. My friend knew that he had to lie in order to defend his mother, who very well might be taken away and sent someplace very bad depending on the answer. What to do, lie? Or betray your mother, your family, and yourself?

The outcome of our analysis on this was that sin was unavoidable. So we were left playing the game, “Which sin is worse?” Yet, I had to emphasize that this situation was wholly created by man. The government agents had singled out the boy in order to offer him a devilish choice. This was the first sin, which put events on track that would intentionally beget more sin.

These “no way out” tragedies that put innocents in a bind are exactly what Christ intoned against when he spoke of millstones being fit around the necks of those who cause innocents to stumble.

Should you find yourself in one of these situations not of your making, I can only say pray to God for forgiveness, consult a priest if possible, and do what you think best.

In this case - someone correct me if I’m wrong - but the unjust oppressors don’t have a right to that information, so to lie to them wouldn’t really be a sin, would it? It’s like, if there were Nazi Gestapo knocking on your door asking if you were hiding any Jews, and you were, you could say “No” to them because you know the reason the Gestapo is asking is so that they can find the Jews to hurt or kill them.

 

[livingwordunity]

Can’t say with out the details of the situation. But you always have a choice. Given the one example of being forced to shoot or blow up others, I would refuse, and pretend to faint. Many women claim they had no choice but to get an abortion. When if they are honest they could have chosen adoption! We are not always honest with our selves…

Most of what we are called to do in the Christian life is difficult. So what! Do the right thing anyway. God will help you. He always provides a way!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In this case - someone correct me if I’m wrong - but the unjust oppressors don’t have a right to that information, so to lie to them wouldn’t really be a sin, would it? It’s like, if there were Nazi Gestapo knocking on your door asking if you were hiding any Jews, and you were, you could say “No” to them because you know the reason the Gestapo is asking is so that they can find the Jews to hurt or kill them.

That’s how I understand it.

 

[JamesATyler]

This denies the principle of double effect. The Principle of Double Effect is that it is morally wrong to do evil that good may result, like your example. But if you are meaning a good result, and do a non-immoral act, though you know something evil may result as a side effect, such as a death, that’s not wrong.

Like blowing up a bomb to stop a lava flow from reaching a village when an innocent is near the bomb. Someone else’s example, not mine. There is more, but you need to look it up.

I thought my example illustrated an situation that no matter what you do evil will occur. What is a better example of a catch 22? I can’t think of one. The nazi example doesn’t apply because people are saying that the nazi’s have no right to the truth so its ok to lie.

Doesn’t the OP want to analyze a situation where there is no morally right decision?

 

[mystagogia]

In this case - someone correct me if I’m wrong - but the unjust oppressors don’t have a right to that information, so to lie to them wouldn’t really be a sin, would it? It’s like, if there were Nazi Gestapo knocking on your door asking if you were hiding any Jews, and you were, you could say “No” to them because you know the reason the Gestapo is asking is so that they can find the Jews to hurt or kill them.

No, the onus upon you when asked a question is to tell the truth. The character of the questioner does not matter. What you are saying is that we can judge who is worthy of the truth, and that’s a fallacy. We are not in a position to judge who is worthy of the truth.

“You can’t handle the truth!” was a takeaway phrase from a big hit movie that illustrated exactly this tricky problem.

We have to tell the truth, or not answer the question. To answer falsely is to lie, and to lie is a sin.

Yes, that makes not lying a very bad and very frequent problem.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Well, I don’t want to derail the thread; as someone pointed out I addressed a side issue. I was meaning to come back and deal with the original question too but I got sidetracked. My bad.

I tend to deal with questions like the OP’s more by praying I’ll be protected from ever facing such a horrific choice than by intellectualizing about it, which makes my brain hurt and my heart ache. Due to man’s fallen nature and Satan’s machinations, there have been people facing those gut-wrenching dilemmas. I’m sure they are quite damaged as a result.

Maybe, too, it’s best not to speculate because there could be psychopathic people who would get ideas of new torments to visit upon their victims.

Guess I’m saying to answer a question such as this isn’t really my pay grade, and I realize that’s a somewhat lame answer, so I’ll bow out now. :sad_bye:

 

[Farien]

It does not have to be a “human induced” dilemma, where you can try to wiggle out by placing the blame on the one who initiated the problem.

The street-car scenario comes to mind. You are at the driver seat of a run-away street car on a slope. There is a fork, and the signal tells you that the car will take the right track, if you do not interfere (by pushing a button). However, there are 5 people on the track, and you will run over them, if you choose inaction. If you press a button, the vehicle will take the left track, and will kill a solitary person.

You are in no way responsible for your predicament, it is an unfortunate interplay of the events. You have no other option, but to press the button, or choose inaction. But you must choose between action and inaction. What will you do?

The rational solution is to press the button. Since your two options both lead to an undesirable result, the rational choice is to minimize the harm. The irrational choice is to do nothing, and try the defense: “it was not my fault, do not blame me”. And we all should remember who was the one who washed his hands? These people try to hide behind the “defense” that inaction somehow carries a lower level of culpability. Of course they are wrong. Action and inaction both have consequences.

This and other dilemmas come up periodically. They are simple thought experiments, which force people to evaluate their moral foundations, and thus they are most useful. Very interesting to observe that so few people are willing to tackle these questions head-on. They try to escape the dilemma by declaring that it is “artificial”, or try to introduce a different solution (like jumping in front of the street car hoping that it will derail, and spare both endangered parties). Anything, but face the problem.

 

[Viki63]

Do you mean like, for example, someone puts a gun to your child’s head and says you have to blow up a bus or go on a random killing spree in a supermarket? I don’t know what the Church teaches but I would say that you are not responsible. No matter what you do your heart is going to be broken but I don’t think you are morally responsible because you have lost control of your free will.

No, you never lose control of your free will. In this case, hard though it would be, you cannot kill innocent bystanders. If an evil person chooses to kill a loved one, that’s on their heads. Of course many a thriller has postulated this problem and showed how the hero solved it – not being passive, but maybe pretending to go along, meanwhile informing the police, etc.
I would always try to look for alternative solutions, such as pressing the button on the street car and meanwhile yelling at the person to move. Someone who stands on a streetcar track bears some responsibility to pay attention.

 

[Farien]

I would always try to look for alternative solutions, such as pressing the button on the street car and meanwhile yelling at the person to move. Someone who stands on a streetcar track bears some responsibility to pay attention.

Very good answer. As a matter of fact the yelling at the person is in perfect harmony with the intent to minimize the harm, so you did not modify the scenario. Good job!

 

[Christianus_Dei]

It does not have to be a “human induced” dilemma, where you can try to wiggle out by placing the blame on the one who initiated the problem.

The street-car scenario comes to mind. You are at the driver seat of a run-away street car on a slope. There is a fork, and the signal tells you that the car will take the right track, if you do not interfere (by pushing a button). However, there are 5 people on the track, and you will run over them, if you choose inaction. If you press a button, the vehicle will take the left track, and will kill a solitary person.

You are in no way responsible for your predicament, it is an unfortunate interplay of the events. You have no other option, but to press the button, or choose inaction. But you must choose between action and inaction. What will you do?

The rational solution is to press the button. Since your two options both lead to an undesirable result, the rational choice is to minimize the harm. The irrational choice is to do nothing, and try the defense: “it was not my fault, do not blame me”. And we all should remember who was the one who washed his hands? These people try to hide behind the “defense” that inaction somehow carries a lower level of culpability. Of course they are wrong. Action and inaction both have consequences.

This and other dilemmas come up periodically. They are simple thought experiments, which force people to evaluate their moral foundations, and thus they are most useful. Very interesting to observe that so few people are willing to tackle these questions head-on. They try to escape the dilemma by declaring that it is “artificial”, or try to introduce a different solution (like jumping in front of the street car hoping that it will derail, and spare both endangered parties). Anything, but face the problem.

You are right, mostly. However, you must remember one thing–intent is everything. If you are choosing to drive over a person, that may be murder, if you are choosing to avoid the five people with the unfortunate consequence of driving over the one, that would be alright. I think. As far as I can tell, it would be in keeping with the law of double-effect.

 

[Farien]

You are right, mostly. However, you must remember one thing–intent is everything. If you are choosing to drive over a person, that may be murder, if you are choosing to avoid the five people with the unfortunate consequence of driving over the one, that would be alright. I think.

I certainly agree. But a huge portion of your fellow believers disagree. This very problem has been discussed several times, and only a handful of the posters advocated your solution.

As far as I can tell, it would be in keeping with the law of double-effect.

Let’s leave the “double effect” out of it. You must choose, you choose the path of minimizing the harm - since harm is unavoidable. That is the only explanation which is needed. If your family is threatened and your only weapon is a gun and you use the gun to aim true and kill the attacker, then you acted in (self)-defense, and therefore your act is justifed. There is no need to say: “well, I did not want to kill him…, it was a foreseen but unintended by-product of pulling the trigger…”. You did what you had to do, and that is all.