The recurring question without an answer

[HomeschoolDad]

In this very special instance, Jewish law steps in and calls the baby an aggressor albeit an unintentional one. Therefore, the mother has the right to defend herself, and, according to Orthodox Jewish belief, even the obligation to do so, by having the pregnancy terminated provided no other means are possible.

All right, then, if Pius XI were alive, and if I could talk to him, I would ask him “I understand, Your Holiness, and whatever you say, I will defer to your teaching, but what, then are we to make of the two men floating at sea, one of whom is a madman who is trying to pull both of us underwater, or the crazed savant gunman in the town square who is shooting people right and left? How are those cases different from the innocent child in utero whose presence, and being attached to the mother, is threatening its mother’s life? Might we, at the very least, try to deliver this child surgically, alive if we can, and give it at least some chance at survival? Assuming the hypothetical child is at least remotely viable, we might even save both lives, and at the worst, we are allowing the just-delivered child to die despite our best efforts to save it, if such efforts are even possible?”

This is why I could work with people who are “opposed to abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother”. Different ethical systems provide different answers to this very difficult question, and all admit that it would be better for the child not to be killed (or allowed to die, depending on the ethical system involved). These people, if this is the only scenario where they would allow abortion, are not exactly “pro-choice”.

 

[Vico]

I think a relevant point from St Thomas is this:

Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end.

For immanent death situation is seems that ERD 48-49 applies. Viability is usually 24-28 weeks.

ERD: Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Health Care Services

48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.
49. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.

 

[macska]

I reject as demented anyone who shoots dead someone carrying a deadly virus just because he feels threatened by it.

If a virus is “deadly”, then one is reasonable to feel to be threatened by it. The scenario is still simple. Someone presents a deadly danger to others (unknowingly and unintentionally) and the only way to stop it is by lethal force. Everything else is “fluff” or an attempt to evade…

If you are interested in analyzing this scenario, be my guest.

 

[o_mlly]

“someone puts others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unintentionally”

If the person is in the act that imminently threatens the lives of innocent others and if you are one of the innocent “others” then you may use force, even lethal force to defend your life. No need to call Dr. Phil in for a sit-down with the aggressor. The aggressor is defined by his/her act, not the intention.

I write in the act as one may not act preemptively against a perceived threat. Nor may one kill an innocent whose threat is real but only so because he/she exists. To wit:

In this very special instance, Jewish law steps in and calls the baby an aggressor albeit an unintentional one.

This idea was specifically condemned by the Magisterium in Casti Connubii 64

And forcefully confirmed in Evangelium Vitae. On this issue, Catholic morality strongly disagrees with what is reported as Jewish law.

The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears (Evangelium Vitae p. 58, St. JPII).

 

[macska]

If the person is in the act that imminently threatens the lives of innocent others and if you are one of the innocent “others” then you may use force, even lethal force to defend your life. No need to call Dr. Phil in for a sit-down with the aggressor. The aggressor is defined by his/her act, not the intention.

I guess you never heard of a delayed effect. The “aggressor” is ignorant of the danger she poses - so she is not rightfully called an aggressor. The language does not provide a simple designation for someone who presents danger to others, unknowingly and unintentionally.

Of course it is very simple to find a real world example. An infected animal. There is no argument against the lethal force in that case. And there is no difference between an animal and a mentally ill, crazy person.

I write in the act as one may not act preemptively against a perceived threat. Nor may one kill an innocent whose threat is real but only so because he/she exists.

Carrying a lethal virus is a “threat” because of the virus carrier’s mere existence.

 

[Inquiry]

Reasonable to be threatened by it, sure. It would also be reasonable to be threatened by someone out there that you thought specifically wanted to kill you. In neither case can you proactively kill them because as long as their danger isn’t imminent you have other options.

 

[o_mlly]

The “aggressor” is ignorant of the danger she poses - so she is not rightfully called an aggressor. The language does not provide a simple designation for someone who presents danger to others, unknowingly and unintentionally.

In Catholic morality the language is quite adequate. She is an aggressor.

Culpability for any particular actor may be mitigated or increased due to circumstances. The ignorance of an aggressor may mitigate her blame. If the innocent one she attacks is her father then the aggressor’s blame is increased. But she remains an aggressor in any circumstance.

Carrying a lethal virus is a “threat” because of the virus carrier’s mere existence.

I don’t know of such a virus. Do you have an example?

 

[neophyte]

Sure it depends on whether conceal/carry laws are Constitutional or not.

I beg to differ. US law specifically says that all males from age 18 to 45 are members of the Militia. One purpose of the Militia is to be ready to repel foreign invaders.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

If the person is in the act that imminently threatens the lives of innocent others and if you are one of the innocent “others” then you may use force, even lethal force to defend your life. No need to call Dr. Phil in for a sit-down with the aggressor. The aggressor is defined by his/her act, not the intention.

I write in the act as one may not act preemptively against a perceived threat. Nor may one kill an innocent whose threat is real but only so because he/she exists. To wit:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) meltzerboy2:

In this very special instance, Jewish law steps in and calls the baby an aggressor albeit an unintentional one.

I came to make this exact distinction. This also provides us with an ethical framework upon which to judge the morality of preemptively killing a person with a fatally communicable disease: it is immoral to do so, even if the fatality rate were 100% because in such a case you aren’t reacting to the reasonably understood lethal threat of the aggressor’s action, instead you’re doing so to their mere existence.

I’d argue this extends even to cases in which the threatening individual engages in some kind of behavior (not mere existence) that only circumstantially causes a lethal threat and that person is not reasonably expected to understand the lethal nature of such circumstances. Using this framework an aggressor is one who is a lethal threat through aggressive behavior, regardless of their individual understanding of the behavior.

In this way otherwise mundane and amoral actions do not warrant a lethal response simply because bizarre or atypical circumstances render such actions indirectly lethal.

 

[macska]

Reasonable to be threatened by it, sure. It would also be reasonable to be threatened by someone out there that you thought specifically wanted to kill you. In neither case can you proactively kill them because as long as their danger isn’t imminent you have other options.

Please analyze the stipulated scenario as it was presented. Or not… your choice. But don’t change it.

Someone presents a deadly danger to others (unknowingly and unintentionally) and the only way to stop it is by lethal force.

 

[o_mlly]

Using this framework an aggressor is one who is a lethal threat through aggressive behavior , regardless of their individual understanding of the behavior.

Yes, I agree. The moral object, the first font of morality, defines the species or nature of the act, not the actor.

 

[Inquiry]

Sure, if you have an example. Your virus one doesn’t work because quarantine is an option. Your generic one doesn’t work because your limitation is arbitrary.

 

[Aquinas11]

In the United States, that clause includes all citizens.

all males from age 18 to 45 are members of the Militia. One purpose of the Militia is to be ready to repel foreign invaders.

I didn’t realize only men age 18 to 45 are citizens

 

[Aquinas11]

I guess you never heard of a delayed effect. The “aggressor” is ignorant of the danger she poses - so she is not rightfully called an aggressor. The language does not provide a simple designation for someone who presents danger to others, unknowingly and unintentionally.

This would mean the African American man Botham Jean who was recently gunned down in his own home had no right to self defense, when a Police OFficer Amber Guyger came into his apartment, mistaking it for her apartment, and shot him, thinking he was a burglar when in fact he was sitting in his own living room.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I reject as demented anyone who shoots dead someone carrying a deadly virus just because he feels threatened by it.

If a virus is “deadly”, then one is reasonable to feel to be threatened by it.

But if that threat is not “imminent” then there is always the possibility of moving away from the infected person to ensure the threat does not become imminent. After the imminent threat has been avoided, one can begin a more reasoned approach as to how to contain the potential of this threat, by quarantine, for example.

I edited a previous posting after you had responded to it, so I will repeat my edit here:

As for the abstract problem posed, I would argue that any abstraction that has no concrete realization cannot be analyzed for ethics with any certainty, for we derive our abstract notions by inference from concrete examples, not the other way around.

At least with the trolley problem the scenario was presented as a concrete realization with as much detail as one might need. And in some cases people have still asked for more when they thought their answer needed to depend on the missing details. This present problem of yours is so abstract that no answer can be given. I don’t buy your argument that this is standard ethics class procedure - to present an abstract problem and ask for a resolution. What they actually do is present abstract problems that are amalgams of a class of concrete realizations with some feature in common, so that the discussion can focus on what these realizations have in common that contribute to the answer and to weed out irrelevant details that don’t affect the answer. So unless you can describe at least one concrete realization of the problem you are trying to abstract, I would say you don’t have a valid question.

 

[neophyte]

I didn’t realize only men age 18 to 45 are citizens

Nice try.
10 chars

 

[Aquinas11]

So you guys join to the ever-growing crowd of evaders.

If “evader” means someone opposed to unarmed black man being killed in his own home by a trespassing police officer, sure

 

[Inquiry]

Not at all, I’m just not going to do your legwork for you. I suspect that in any example you give my answer is going to be no, you can’t kill them. But we will see.

 

[macska]

But if that threat is not “imminent” then there is always the possibility of moving away from the infected person to ensure the threat does not become imminent. After the imminent threat has been avoided, one can begin a more reasoned approach as to how to contain the potential of this threat, by quarantine, for example.

The infected person was just an example. In a thought experiment the only exceptions can be logically impossible states of affairs. I will repeat the scenario.

Someone presents a deadly danger to others (unknowingly and unintentionally) and the only way to stop it is by lethal force.

This is IT. Nothing else.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But if that threat is not “imminent” then there is always the possibility of moving away from the infected person to ensure the threat does not become imminent. After the imminent threat has been avoided, one can begin a more reasoned approach as to how to contain the potential of this threat, by quarantine, for example.

The infected person was just an example. In a thought experiment the only exceptions can be logically impossible states of affairs. I will repeat the scenario.

Someone presents a deadly danger to others (unknowingly and unintentionally) and the only way to stop it is by lethal force.

This is IT. Nothing else.

And I will repeat, if it doesn’t have a concrete realization, it is a worthless question. Honestly, I don’t know why you are so reluctant to propose a concrete realization. You say that all that matters is that there could logically be a concrete realization. Well, one way to prove that is to offer one. Unless, you can’t…