The recurring question without an answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bender

Guest
The church teaches that everyone is entitled to self-defense (and defense of others) against an unjust aggressor. However, there is no official teaching - to the best of my knowledge - in a slightly different scenario. It goes: “someone puts others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unintentionally”. Obviously this person is NOT an “aggressor” in any sense of the word. But he presents a lethal danger to others.

If there is NO other way to neutralize the danger, is it allowed to use lethal force to prevent it? In other words: “kill this person”?

This is the question: “what does the church teach about this scenario”? I asked this question several times of several platforms. Never received an answer.
 
Last edited:
Bender said:
someone puts others into lethal danger,
Click to expand...
Well if you’re not the “other” how do you know they’re in lethal danger? May seem obvious from your vantage point but the third party perspective can cloud what the actual other is seeing
Bender said:
If there is NO other way to neutralize the danger,
Click to expand...
Again another big IF. Have to engage in complete speculation. We’re assuming the other has no means to defend , which we can’t possibly know.

These huge uncertainties don’t exist w self defense
 
Last edited:
Yes, if you must kill them to neutralize them then it is permissible.
 
CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Click to expand...

I’d argue “those who legitimately hold authority” to be police, etc and possibly those that Government authorized to conceal carry
 
Last edited:
Bender said:
The church teaches that everyone is entitled to self-defense (and defense of others) against an unjust aggressor. However, there is no official teaching - to the best of my knowledge - in a slightly different scenario. It goes: “someone puts others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unintentionally”. Obviously this person is NOT an “aggressor” in any sense of the word. But he presents a lethal danger to others.

If there is NO other way to neutralize the danger, is it allowed to use lethal force to prevent it? In other words: “kill this person”?

This is the question: “what does the church teach about this scenario”? I asked this question several times of several platforms. Never received an answer.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that we may resist an unjust aggressor, even to the point of killing that aggressor. The Church doesn’t normally have a “teaching” about individual instances of things (either hypotheticals or real-life scenarios), she just gives us the principles and we must apply them.

I would offer the example, and it may be a fairly lurid one, of a crazed, mentally deficient person who gets hold of a gun and many rounds of ammo. He runs up and down a crowded, busy street, menacing everyone and shooting people at random. He has just enough intelligence to keep reloading and firing, and thinks it’s a funny game. I have a gun too. Merely disabling him (shooting him in the foot or leg) isn’t an option because he doesn’t have the intelligence to know how badly he’s been hurt, and shots to the extremities are more likely to miss. I’m also liable to injure him just enough to make him angry but not to stop him. So, regrettably, I have to go for core body mass, the heart if I can, and kill him. That wouldn’t be a good thing, but if he isn’t stopped, he will just keep killing and killing until he runs out of ammo.

I don’t think this is complicated at all. That is the kind of moral reasoning that good catechesis should enable us to do. And in a nightmare scenario such as this, there’s no time to consult a confessor first.
 
If you can come up with a situation where someone unknowingly and unintentionally puts others in lethal danger which requires lethal force to prevent, I will tell you if it’s moral or not!
 
The recurring question without an answer?

The recurring 'WHAT IF? and WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Speculative highly improbable scenario,
drawn from and solely existing within someone’s imagination
for the oft-common purpose of attempting to stump a Christian question… .

The Church does not need to have endless Teachings on the endless "What If’'s

Answer: Nothing Justifies Murder of a Non Aggessor…

However: It’s Kosher for a non-Aggressor to give his own life for the life of others.
 
Stephen_says said:
If you can come up with a situation where someone unknowingly and unintentionally puts others in lethal danger which requires lethal force to prevent, I will tell you if it’s moral or not!
Click to expand...
I can only think of someone who is say driving a car under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and has people in the car that are unaware…is that the sort of scenario being proposed?
 
After rereading your post I realize I misunderstood it at first. As others have said, this is a completely hypothetical situation. You need to come up with an example of your scenario that gives it substance. Otherwise it is a meaningless question.
 
I do not believe it is permissible to take an innocent life to protect others. Almost positive about this.
 
Babaganoush said:
After rereading your post I realize I misunderstood it at first. As others have said, this is a completely hypothetical situation. You need to come up with an example of your scenario that gives it substance. Otherwise it is a meaningless question.
Click to expand...
Surely it’s not beyond anyone to be able to come up with a reasonable scenario. I am constantly at a loss how difficult it is getting across the concept of hypotheticals to most people.
 
Babaganoush said:
Give us a scenario then.
Click to expand...
No. I’ll pass. If someone cannot think of one themselves then I don’t imagine they’d be able to offer anything worthwhile to the discussion. I’ll leave you to think of one and we’ll take it from there.
 
Last edited:
Which ultimately means that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation since you can’t think of a scenario. You are the one who thinks it is a worthy question. It is your job to propose a meaningful question instead of trying to insult people. We aren’t here to do your thinking for you and propose your questions for you.
 
Last edited:
The typical scenario would be a mother whose life is threatened by a pregnancy.
 
I’m not asking to argue-I honestly don’t know the answer to this. Would it be permissible to shoot down a plane full of civilians if the plane was hijacked and going to hit a skyscraper? Obviously the passengers on the plane are innocent but you’d save thousands of lives by shooting the plane down. Again, I’m not asking to argue. I don’t know the answer.
 
Since you think it is a valid and meaningful question it is your job to explain it. It isn’t my job to give your question meaning and depth, in other words think for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top