T
tafan2
Guest
It would require an analysis of the principle of double effect. I am not enough of a moral theologian to say if it applies or not. I would defer to those more knowledgeable than I.
- Status
O
OKComputer
Guest
Neither am I, that’s for sure (a moral theologian). That said, letting 4,000 people die in a skyscraper when you could maybe stop that them seems slightly “immoral”.
T
tafan2
Guest
Not by intentionally killing 300.
O
OKComputer
Guest
So you’d just let those people in the skyscraper die than? Again, not arguing, seriously trying to understand the reasoning.
F
fhansen
Guest
In considering this as sin, which we are, the would-be defender must in any case meet three important criteria in order for them to be considered culpable. They must have full knowledge and deliberate consent while committing this sin of grave matter. Full knowledge, at least, would be lacking in your scenario.
Also in Catholic moral teaching circumstances can mitigate responsibility:
1754 The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
Also in Catholic moral teaching circumstances can mitigate responsibility:
1754 The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
Last edited:
B
Babaganoush
Guest
That is different than your original question though. Now the killing of the innocent people is an unintended effect. You are shooting the plane down whether there are people on the plane or not. The killing of any individuals is accidental.
It is never permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person. But if they are accidentally killed in the process of preventing some other evil it might be justifiable. It is the principle of double effect.
It is never permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person. But if they are accidentally killed in the process of preventing some other evil it might be justifiable. It is the principle of double effect.
O
OKComputer
Guest
Fascinating. Thank you.
T
tafan2
Guest
Simple reasoning:
[2258] Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."
Now, I would, if I had that authority, get an opinion from the Church on if double effect applies ahead of time.
[2258] Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."
Now, I would, if I had that authority, get an opinion from the Church on if double effect applies ahead of time.
O
OKComputer
Guest
But the people in the skyscraper are innocent too. I get it, the people on the plane are innocent, but I think it would be moral to shoot the plane down in order to save the 3000 people in the tower. At least you save 3000 innocent lives than watch 3300 innocent lives die in horrific agony.
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s quite a straightforward question. And isn’t mine, by the way. The number of scenarios are legion (see any of those that have already been suggested). But you have said that you cannot answer it without someone giving you a hand by giving you an example. That’s not my job.
You’d be better off formulating one yourself as an example of your personal views. Either do that or use one that has already been given. I would recommend the former.
F
Freddy
Guest
Freddy:
B
Beryllos
Guest
It has been asked here at CAF too. Here is a recent attempt:
https://forums.catholic-questions.o...out-self-defense-and-defense-of-others/568146
B
Babaganoush
Guest
No one has any problem with hypothetical questions. The problem is with poorly formed hypothetical questions.
That said, your example doesn’t fit the question. The perpetrator isn’t innocent; he is murdering people whether he is fully cognizant or not. He is an aggressor by definition.
That said, your example doesn’t fit the question. The perpetrator isn’t innocent; he is murdering people whether he is fully cognizant or not. He is an aggressor by definition.
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
I don’t know if shooting the driver is a plausible solution. 
Last edited:
I was reasoning that he is “innocent” because he only has enough brain to fire and reload a gun, and can’t appreciate that what he thinks of as a fun game or a prank is actually killing people who will stay dead and not get back up. It is somewhat similar to a case in Ohio years back when a brain-damaged young man set a fireworks store ablaze, killing several people. When they asked him why he did it, he said “I did it for a ha-ha”.
F
Freddy
Guest
If he is not cognizant of what he is doing then what he’s doing is unlawful killing. Not murder. It was explained that he was mentally incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong. If that was unclear to you, include that fact into the scenario.
We can say that should he survive the incident he would be cleared of any criminal act but institutionalised. That is, innocent but kept under lock and key for the benefit of all. And we can assume that you knew his mental condition before making a decision whether to shoot him and hence you knew that he was incapable of knowing what he was doing. That is, you would be deciding whether to shoot an inoccent man or allow the carnage to continue.
Last edited:
W
Wm777
Guest
First let’s put the problem in perspective.
What is it? It’s an ethical dilemma.
How often does the situation happen? Probably not very often.
And, yet, you say it is a “recurring question without an answer”…
It’s not the same, but it sounds a lot like the Trolley Problem…
Trolley problem - Wikipedia
Some have put the same question to me in business programs on the basis of “Leadership Training”.
My response?
It’s a possible scenario, but it’s so improbable one should not waste their time worrying about it because even in a situation where it might actually occur - the circumstances and contributing factors would more likely mandate decisions be made right there in the moment.
9/11 is a perfectly good example. The attack was a well planned assault by the aggressors, but how to prepare for the aftermath and do disaster recovery could only be a best guess situation because war is Hell and virtually anything can happen. In the end, no one wins…
In a more pragmatic sense, what seems to be a more realistic question is - why are you asking about this particular issue?
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
I can do the math. Ok, say it’s reversed, a 3000 person cruise ship is hijacked and going to destroy a 300 person building. What then?
- Status