The recurring question without an answer

[Bender]

Not necessarily. Real useful principles are stated with enough specificity so that a meaningful answer can be given.

All the necessary information was given, EXACTLY like in the other one, about the justified self-defense against an “unjust aggressor”. It is the same as the right to defend against any viral infection, or against a charging lion. There is no malicious intent on the part of the of the other party, therefore he or she cannot be called and “aggressor” or “attacker”.

When you say “in danger” do you mean it is a certainty that others will die if the “last resort” action is not taken? Or do you mean other might die? It makes a difference to the answer.

Why this nitpicking? If one places a gun at your head and about to pull the trigger, that is not a hundred percent certain death. The same applies here. To your best knowledge the virus, if released will cause a genocide. And due to unfortunate circumstances, the one and only defense against this event to perform an action, which will result in the death of the “attacker”. One does not defend against the “attacker”, but against the “event”!

As I have said many times, it can only be used as the last defense. But in that case the principle of the self-defense is applicable to the “innocent” attacker. Of course someone who is clinically insane, and has no control over his action would have to be treated equally. I chose the other example, because the virus infected and ignorant person cannot be considered an “attacker” (“just” or “unjust”) in any sense of the word.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why this nitpicking? If one places a gun at your head and about to pull the trigger, that is not a hundred percent certain death. The same applies here. To your best knowledge the virus, if released will cause a genocide.

The reason I am careful about this point is that all too often, in real life, this important step is skipped, leading to unethical decisions. Skipping it in a totally hypothetical situation then can lead to forming a bad habit that will carry over into actual practical cases.

One good example of this happening in real life is in the stand-your-ground laws. When private citizens say they felt threatened by a person they though was attacking them they sometimes are too easy to jump between “I might die” to “I certainly will die”. And so they use lethal force without honestly evaluating the probability. There is always a probability. It is not nitpicking to ask what that probability is.

 

[Bender]

The reason I am careful about this point is that all too often, in real life, this important step is skipped, leading to unethical decisions.

Well, the problem - as presented - does not have this ambiguity. There only difference is that the “attacker” is not malicious. (just like an insane person, or a charging animal or the infected person are not malicious either). They are present a lethal danger to others.

It is not nitpicking to ask what that probability is.

It is the same as being shot in the head, except the event is not as instantaneous. The “defender” has time to ponder, evaluate the circumstances, and to his or her best knowledge there is no other option but to use lethal force. Did we dance around this bush long enough?

 

[macska]

It just so happens that this is one of my favorite puzzles, too, which I like to present for consideration. The point is that one can be placed into lethal jeopardy without having a malicious attacker, and the question is: “how far can one go into defending oneself (and others)?” During all these years, no Christian or Catholic had an answer… all I received was evasion. I wonder why?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It just so happens that this is one of my favorite puzzles, too, which I like to present for consideration. The point is that one can be placed into lethal jeopardy without having a malicious attacker, and the question is: “how far can one go into defending oneself (and others)?” During all these years, no Christian or Catholic had an answer… all I received was evasion. I wonder why?

Are you sure you have simply rejected all the answers you’ve gotten for one reason or another? I find it hard to believe that no Christian has attempted to answer this. OK, I’ll give it a try.

How far can you go? The answer is just far enough to save your life, but only if you are reasonably certain your life is in imminent danger.

Perhaps the reluctance to answer this question is because of the ambiguity over how certain one is that one’s life, or someone else’s life, is in imminent danger. A fear that you may die is not sufficient. But if you can specify that you are only asking under circumstances where you are sure you or others will certainly die if you do not act, and that no non-lethal action will save you, then I can remove that last qualification and say simply that one may go just far enough to save your life, or the lives of the ones you are protecting, even if that means using lethal force.

 

[EndTimes]

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

And the answer to this speculative WHAT IF? is:

Thou shalt not Murder…

 

[Vico]

LeafByNiggle:

The reason I am careful about this point is that all too often, in real life, this important step is skipped, leading to unethical decisions.

Well, the problem - as presented - does not have this ambiguity. There only difference is that the “attacker” is not malicious. (just like an insane person, or a charging animal or the infected person are not malicious either). They are present a lethal danger to others.

It is not nitpicking to ask what that probability is.

It is the same as being shot in the head, except the event is not as instantaneous. The “defender” has time to ponder, evaluate the circumstances, and to his or her best knowledge there is no other option but to use lethal force. Did we dance around this bush long enough?

In US law, some states impose a duty on the defendant to retreat in a first attempt to get away from the source of danger before exerting force in self defense.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. 66

66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.

 

[Annie]

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.

I think that the issue of abortion is irrelevant to this situation but that many fear a resolution to this situation could be used to justify abortion (which I think is not the case).

In a case of self-defense, St Thomas says, there are two possible ends or goals of the act: to stop the danger, or to kill the person.

Two other important points are 1) proportionality: whether the side effect of death is proportionate to the danger posed, and 2) imminence of the danger.

So, one’s intention cannot be to kill the other person; the intent must be to stop the danger. The danger must be very serious (fear of death or grave bodily harm), and imminent, just about to happen.

Under this scenario, natural virtue (to do otherwise would be supernatural virtue), would have us able to apply lethal force to any human who posed an imminent and grave threat, no matter their intention.

The issue of innocence does not enter in here.

It is interesting that just yesterday I read about a man called Billy Harris, whose plane was about to crash. He could have ejected, but then the plane would have crashed into a small town. He chose instead to stay in the plane to guide it away from the town, which ensured his death.

And of course we have the example of those on Flight 93 on 9/11, where the passengers crashed the plane to protect those against whom the plane was aimed.

Why does this not apply to abortion, even in cases where the mother’s life is in danger? Because the only aim of the procedure is to obtain the unborn baby’s death when the problem is not that the baby is living or acting, but simply the location of the baby.

I would propose that in case of a mother’s imminent death, a C-section could be performed, under the same principle as the removal of a baby in an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[macska]

How far can you go? The answer is just far enough to save your life, but only if you are reasonably certain your life is in imminent danger.

This is the first time I received an actual response. If you had stopped right here, I would have been satisfied. Except the “imminent” part, of course.

Perhaps the reluctance to answer this question is because of the ambiguity over how certain one is that one’s life, or someone else’s life, is in imminent danger.

What about “non-imminent” but foreseeable danger? When you foresee the impending lethal outcome, but are unable to do anything about it, except apply lethal force? The imminence is not relevant.

What about a lethal infection by some disease carrying organism? Or an attacking animal? No problem, right? The only difference is that the lethal danger is caused by by an unknowing human, who does not intend to “threaten” the life of others, but due some unfortunate circumstances happens to be in the position to do it - unknowingly and unintentionally?

This was the usual point when the others start to demand “concrete” and plausible examples. It is not necessary. The problem is just as abstract as the trolley problem, or any of lifeboat situations. An abstract ethical problem to find the possible “weak” points of a proposed ethical system. In a hypothetical thought experiment there is just one prohibiting factor: “the experiment cannot contain a logical contradiction”. Highly unlikely, ALMOST impossible scenarios are allowed. Logically impossible scenarios are not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your objection is best answered by an example. If one allows lethal self-defense against foreseeable future harm that is not imminent, then what is to keep Patrick Crusius, the El Paso shooter, from using as his defense that he needed to kill those Mexicans at the Walmart in order to wake up the country to the dangers of immigrants taking over and bringing in their drug cartels and threatening his life? In his eyes, the danger was foreseeable, and in his eyes there was no lesser means of ensuring his safety. Is this the kind of ethical thinking you want to encourage?

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.

 

[macska]

In his eyes, the danger was foreseeable, and in his eyes there was no lesser means of ensuring his safety.

The subjective feeling of a deranged shooter is not the standard to base the ethical system upon.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

In his eyes, the danger was foreseeable, and in his eyes there was no lesser means of ensuring his safety.

The subjective feeling of a deranged shooter is not the standard to base the ethical system upon.

You are making a subjective judgement right there by calling him deranged. You cannot take from him the right to use the same ethical argument you want to use.

 

[macska]

You are making a subjective judgement right there by calling him deranged. You cannot take from him the right to use the same ethical argument you want to use.

So shall we open the insane asylums? I don’t think so. All the supremacists (of any pigmentation) are deranged to a certain extent. Their opinion is not the basis of an ethical system. Let’s stick with the rational people.

Our exchange was quite successful for a short time. Then you started to talk about the question of “imminent”, and it went out of whack. Too bad.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You are making a subjective judgement right there by calling him deranged. You cannot take from him the right to use the same ethical argument you want to use.

So shall we open the insane asylums? I don’t think so. All the supremacists (of any pigmentation) are deranged to a certain extent. Their opinion is not the basis of an ethical system. Let’s stick with the rational people.

Our exchange was quite successful for a short time. Then you started to talk about the question of “imminent”, and it went out of whack. Too bad.

As I expected, you simply reject answers you don’t like. And now I suppose after some time you will post again that you have a recurring question that no Christian has ever attempted to answer. Oh, well. I tried.

 

[macska]

As I expected, you simply reject answers you don’t like.

I always reject the demented people. (You are not demented, of course, only mistaken if you suggest that the opinion of demented people should be given equal consideration.) You did just fine, until the question of “imminent”. I appreciate your effort.

 

[neophyte]

I’d argue “those who legitimately hold authority” to be police, etc and possibly those that Government authorized to conceal carry

In the United States, that clause includes all citizens.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As I expected, you simply reject answers you don’t like.

I always reject the demented people. (You are not demented, of course, only mistaken if you suggest that the opinion of demented people should be given equal consideration.) You did just fine, until the question of “imminent”. I appreciate your effort.

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

 

[neophyte]

In my example, the crazed, mentally defective killer is “innocent” — he knows enough to lock and load, but not enough to realize that he is killing people, or rather, that killing people is wrong and he shouldn’t do it. There could be an extreme form of mentally retarded autistic savant that would be capable of something like this. Do we say “the boy’s not right, leave him alone, if he’s killing everyone in sight, and if killing him is the only way to stop him, that’s too bad, we can’t kill him, those people are just going to have to die until he runs out of ammo”?

No. We say “the only way to stop him is to shoot him, so we shoot him. Yes, he might die, but our intent is not to kill him, but rather to stop the aggression.”

 

[Inquiry]

Imminent is an important word in both morality and law and it cannot be dismissed as pointless. It is the difference between having reasonable time to explore other possibilities or having to make a quick decision.

 

[Aquinas11]

Sure it depends on whether conceal/carry laws are Constitutional or not. There is a good argument they violate the 2nd amendment.