The recurring question without an answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
That isn’t a “contradiction”, it’s a “conflict”. And conflicts can be resolved.
Click to expand...
So how come that no one could offer a resolution? The question is: “which ethical principle is PRIMARY, the one allowing self-defense (and defense of others) or the one against killing some “innocent” person?” Because these two principles contradict each other.
 
macska said:
So how come that no one could offer a resolution?
Click to expand...
I can’t agree that no one offered a resolution. Maybe no one offered a resolution with which you agreed, but that’s a completely different problem. 😉
macska said:
The question is: “which ethical principle is PRIMARY, the one allowing self-defense (and defense of others) or the one against killing some “innocent” person?” Because these two principles contradict each other.
Click to expand...
No they don’t. They appear to conflict with each other, but that conflict is easily enough resolved. See my post, above.
 
The problem with morals and ethics is that their application varies by situation.

For example, one might feel morally bound to rescue someone who is drowning, but realize that one might also drown in the process.

Someone who has been trained as a lifeguard might have more moral binding to try to rescue the person drowning than someone who is a poor swimmer. A lifeguard who has been hired to rescue people might be even more morally bound while on duty.

But there may also be other issues which would affect the morality of attempting the rescue.

So we can’t really just say, what should any old person do if he or she sees someone drowning?

And quite a few people would feel terribly guilty even if they were in no way morally bound to rescue the person.

(BTW, Catholic ethics would say one is not morally bound to attempt a rescue if there were considerable danger to oneself.)
 
OKComputer said:
So you’d just let those people in the skyscraper die than? Again, not arguing, seriously trying to understand the reasoning.
Click to expand...
A) it is not a mere numbers game where the quantity of lives saved or lost is the main consideration. The means as well as the end matter.
B) Any and all lives lost are.the fault of.those.who.choose.to.take.them.in the case of the 4000 that fault lies squarely with the terrorists.
C) Real life.doesn’t work so neatly. You may lie to the Nazis about the Jews in your attic, and they may search anyways, meaning you and your family lose your lives as well as the Jews. The pilot of that hijacked plane may have a change of heart and surrender. These things are rarely certain enough that you can be sure of achieving the good you hope for.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
No they don’t. They appear to conflict with each other, but that conflict is easily enough resolved. See my post, above.
Click to expand...
Your post is an empty declaration that there is a way to resolve the conflict. Of course you are unable to actually resolve it. So let’s see. Which one of the two “competing” primary ethical principles is REALLY primary? The one of self-defense or the other one against killing? There can only be ONE primary ethical principle.
 
Annie said:
The problem with morals and ethics is that their application varies by situation.
Click to expand...
Wonderful. That is called situational ethics. Obviously I agree with you. Gorgias is unable / unwilling to admit that there can only be ONE PRIMARY ethical command. Which one is the PRIMARY?
  1. One is the ability to self-defense.
  2. The other one is the command against killing.
These two contradict each other in certain situations.
 
macska said:
So how come that no one could offer a resolution? The question is: “which ethical principle is PRIMARY, the one allowing self-defense (and defense of others) or the one against killing some “innocent” person?” Because these two principles contradict each other.
Click to expand...
They do not contradict, they balance each other.

For example, if someone is coming after me with a knife and I have a pistol, I can act to stop them. If in the course of doing so, they die, that is the unintended result: the intended result was that the attack stop.

If, however, the attacker was some person I really really hated so I took this opportunity to kill him, then the act I commit looks the same from the outside, but my intention of killing the attacker makes me morally culpable.

We cannot directly and intentionally kill someone who is “innocent,” ie, not directly and imminently threatening us with death or grievous bodily harm.

On the other hand, if there is a man who has committed horrendous crimes who gets beat up in prison and is therefore close to death and he is a perfect match for me and I desperately need a heart transplant, I cannot remove his heart just a little bit early to save my life.

Altho he is not “innocent” in general, having committed horrendous crimes, he is innocent with respect to me at this particular moment, because, even tho I am in imminent danger of death, he is not the one putting me into that danger.

The question is one of definitions and understanding the principles.
 
macska said:
That is called situational ethics.
Click to expand...
Situation ethics is where people figure out the ethics according to the situation. What I described is knowing when to apply which principle, which is determined by various aspects of the situation.

Situation ethics is like using a knife to unscrew something and then to hammer a (small) nail into the wall, and then to pull another nail out of the wall; Catholic moral theology is like knowing and using the proper tools for each of those tasks.
 
Annie said:
Situation ethics is where people figure out the ethics according to the situation.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
Annie said:
What I described is knowing when to apply which principle, which is determined by various aspects of the situation.
Click to expand...
Same thing. Situational ethics means that under these conditions, “this” principle is to be used, and in those conditions “that” principle is to used. I agree with this approach.
 
macska said:
Your post is an empty declaration that there is a way to resolve the conflict. Of course you are unable to actually resolve it.
Click to expand...
I already have. Your post is an empty declaration that, apparently, you have not read the resolution.
macska said:
Which one of the two “competing” primary ethical principles is REALLY primary? The one of self-defense or the other one against killing ? There can only be ONE primary ethical principle.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should state it more simply, to help us proceed in this discussion:
  • one may defend oneself or a person unjustly aggressed against
  • one who aggresses, whether he is culpable of it or not, aggresses.
  • one who defends, may do so only to the extend to which defense requires. He may not pursue his defense beyond what is necessary to repel the aggressor’s actions
  • therefore, one may defend against any aggressor, albeit only sufficiently to repel the aggression, whether the aggressor is culpable of the aggression or not
See? Simple analysis.
 
Last edited:
I think you do not understand what situational ethics is about.

One point is that an immoral act is permitted under the “right” circumstances. Ultimately, that means anyone can do anything under the “right” circumstances.

For example, under SE, a married man out of town on a business trip runs into a woman who for some reason or another, such as feeling ugly because that is what she has been told all her life, or who has recently suffered a great loss and needs comforting, and both conclude that the man’s sleeping with her will ease her pain.

SE says this would be all right as the wife wouldn’t know about it, and it would do the woman some good.

Catholic morality would say no way.
 
It has been a bit of time since I followed what was going on in the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. And so I may be mistaken; but my understanding is that the plane which never reached its target may well have had an order - given to the interceptors being launched - to take it down.

And the order would be similar to the moral issue of am embryo planting in a Fallopian tube; the objective of any shoot-down order would not be to kill the three hundred civilians on the plane, but to stop the plane from its projected attack - this apparently on the Capitol.
 
Last edited:
The recurring question without an answer

This thread sure has gotten a lot of hits for a Catholic site… It keeps showing up in the topics list…

How do I turrn it off without closing my account entirely? 😱
 
It is late and I need to get on about some other matters; but my take on the 3 bullet points is

culpable and guilty

not culpable and not guilty by reason of insanity - they did the act but have no legal (and possibly no moral) guilt; but they may be institutionalized until such time as they are no longer insane

culpable and not guilty - because the case could not be proved in its entirety (e.g. search and seizure fault)

not culpable and not guilty (“innocent”, but there is not verdict noting such).
 
Yes, perhaps the principle of double effect applies. If so, it may be morally permissible. I am glad I don’t have to make such a decision.
 
Freddy said:
But of course, it all depended on exactly what ‘connection’ means.
Click to expand...
What does connection mean to you? I missed your reply on the “connection” a consequentialist has with his/her mother.
o_mlly said:
The consequentialist argues that the moral quality (species) of the act does not matter, only outcomes in determining the morality of the act. If the bystander’s mother were the one tied to the sidetrack then the moral act would be matricide (for the true consequentialist).
Click to expand...
Fred, did you, like a true consequentialist, throw the switch on dear old mom?
 
Last edited:
macska said:
Situational ethics means that under these conditions, “this” principle is to be used, and in those conditions “that” principle is to used. I agree with this approach.
Click to expand...
What principles? There is but one principle in situation ethics: Do what you think is best. Which, of course, is no principle at all.

Situation ethics can be defined as an individualistic and subjective assessment of the concrete circumstances to justify acts that oppose the natural law.
 
I pray I’m never in that situation and should it happen I know the Lord will not leave me. I wouldn’t dwell on it. That can lead you to worry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top