Three moral dilemmas

[Economist]

Dilemma #1:

Someone knowingly endangers your life (and others) because she is infected by a deadly disease. She is aware of the problem, but is intent to infect you (and others). How far can you go in protecting yourself (and others)? Can you use lethal force, if there is no other solution?

Dilemma #2:

Someone endangers your life (and others) because she is infected by a deadly disease. The person does not “threaten” you because she is unaware of the problem. How far can you go in protecting yourself (and others)? There is no conscious threat to your life, merely a deadly situation. The “attacker” is “innocent” of malice. Can you use lethal force, if there is no other solution?

Dilemma #3:

You are forced (by the circumstances) to choose between two options, both of which lead to the death of “innocents”, but one group has more people in it than the other one. Which group will survive and which one will die? This is alike to the trolley problem, except there is no “default” option. You cannot try to wiggle out by saying “I will not do anything and thus wash my hands".

 

[Zaccheus]

Dilemma #1:

Someone knowingly endangers your life (and others) because she is infected by a deadly disease. She is aware of the problem, but is intent to infect you (and others). How far can you go in protecting yourself (and others)? Can you use lethal force, if there is no other solution?

If she intends to infect us, knowing that we will die if infected, then she is trying to kill us. The normal standards of morality for self-defence apply here. Maybe complicated by the lack of any visible weapons.

Dilemma #2:

Someone endangers your life (and others) because she is infected by a deadly disease. The person does not “threaten” you because she is unaware of the problem. How far can you go in protecting yourself (and others)? There is no conscious threat to your life, merely a deadly situation. The “attacker” is “innocent” of malice. Can you use lethal force, if there is no other solution?

If she does not know, she does not intend harm. No, you may not use lethal defense against her.

Dilemma #3:

You are forced (by the circumstances) to choose between two options, both of which lead to the death of “innocents”, but one group has more people in it than the other one. Which group will survive and which one will die? This is alike to the trolley problem, except there is no “default” option. You cannot try to wiggle out by saying “I will not do anything and thus wash my hands".

If both options kill innocents then neither option is morally allowable. Even if inaction also leads to the death of innocents, it is forbidden to kill innocents.

 

[Economist]

If she intends to infect us, knowing that we will die if infected, then she is trying to kill us. The normal standards of morality for self-defence apply here. Maybe complicated by the lack of any visible weapons.

Yes, this is a rational answer.

If she does not know, she does not intend harm. No, you may not use lethal defense against her.

So what are you allowed to do? Roll over and let her commit a genocide?

If both options kill innocents then neither option is morally allowable. Even if inaction also leads to the death of innocents, it is forbidden to kill innocents.

So what will you do? Not what you are “allowed” to do, but what “would” you do under these circumstances? The point is that not all sins are equal. Not even all mortal sins are equal. Sometimes you must choose between two evils. Would you choose the lesser of two evils?

 

[Zaccheus]

If she does not know, she does not intend harm. No, you may not use lethal defense against her.

So what are you allowed to do? Roll over and let her commit a genocide?

False dilemma. There are other choices.
Tell her what’s happening. Give her evidence.
If she won’t believe you, restrain her and find a way to convince her.
If she still refuses to believe, keep her imprisoned to prevent her from infecting people.

If both options kill innocents then neither option is morally allowable. Even if inaction also leads to the death of innocents, it is forbidden to kill innocents.

So what will you do? Not what you are “allowed” to do, but what “would” you do under these circumstances? The point is that not all sins are equal. Not even all mortal sins are equal. Sometimes you must choose between two evils. Would you choose the lesser of two evils?

Mortal sin is mortal sin. We are not permitted to do evil in hopes of doing good.
Sometimes the only moral choice is to refrain from doing anything.

 

[chercheur]

I think this goes back to your other thread about the definition of “innocent”.

I don’t think the Catholic view on self defence would answer affirmatively only in the cases where there is malice or intent on the part of the one doing harm…but I’m not sure.

 

[MPat]

So what are you allowed to do? Roll over and let her commit a genocide ?

It is not “genocide” if it is not intentional.

Now, seriously.

You used moral dilemmas and you found out that there are people who find consequences less important and intentions more important for judging morality of actions, than you do.

Not that there was much need for that - it was not a great secret, you could have just asked directly, if you need an explicit acknowledgement of that fact.

But now you have to accept that fact and deal with it instead of just acting as if that was completely unexpected.

For example, repeating that bad consequences might happen in some highly contrived artificial scenarios is not going to be very impressive to someone who thinks that importance of consequences is rather limited anyway.

Did you seriously think that was going to work?

Do you have some other arguments, that do not already presuppose that consequences are all that matter?

 

[Zaccheus]

I think this goes back to your other thread about the definition of “innocent”.

I don’t think the Catholic view on self defence would answer affirmatively only in the cases where there is malice or intent on the part of the one doing harm…but I’m not sure.

The principles are simple enough, but circumstances can make a moral decision very complicated.

 

[vz71]

Someone endangers your life (and others) because she is infected by a deadly disease. The person does not “threaten” you because she is unaware of the problem.

She doesn’t know, but you do?
Sounds like a HIPPA violation in progress.

 

[chercheur]

The principles may be simple but I still think it’s unclear. If “innocent” just means that the person has no guilt imputed to them for their actions, then are we prohibited from using lethal force to defend someone from a deranged killer? It seems like a controversial answer to say that we are.

On the other hand, it seems like action (even if not done with actual deliberation?) plays more of a part in this than just causing harm. I don’t really know where the line is drawn there, or if it even is drawn at all.

 

[Zaccheus]

If “innocent” just means that the person has no guilt imputed to them for their actions, then are we prohibited from using lethal force to defend someone from a deranged killer?

We are morally permitted to defend ourselves when somebody tries to kill us, even if ‘somebody’ is mentally ill. (Or drunk or high on drugs or in a blind rage).

This is not the same situation as the person whose presence endangers us through no action of her own.

Also bear in mind that in a self-defence situation we are still responsible to do what we can to minimize violence.
If possible, wound rather than kill.
Bruise rather than wound.
Evade rather than bruise.

We are still permitted to use lethal force against lethal assault, if that’s what it takes.

 

[Economist]

We are still permitted to use lethal force against lethal assault, if that’s what it takes.

If you would say “against lethal DANGER”, you would be correct.

 

[Economist]

OK. I guess I will have to simplify it. You have two courses of action. Both of them will lead to taking innocent lives, though not in equal numbers. Action “A” will cause the death of one innocent person. Action “B” will cause the death of two innocent persons. Which one will you choose? There are no other options. Does the principle of “choose the LESSER of two evils” mean anything?

 

[Wozza]

You used moral dilemmas and you found out that there are people who find consequences less important and intentions more important for judging morality of actions, than you do.

A reasonable point. And it does seem that this horse has been beaten to death. I enjoy hypotheticals as much as the next guy but I’m begining to flag a little. So can we change it slightly and ask what the consequences of one’s actions are?

It seems that some (not all) Catholics would abide by church teaching and in some cases allow very many people to die rather than take a life. But what would the consequences be of ‘breaking the rules’? Is your soul in danger? I would imagine so. But confession is good for the soul. Surely absolution would follow.

Is it valid to say that said Catholic is more concerned about the possibility of personal repurcusions than she would be about the deaths of what could be very many people? Isn’t there a point where one says: ‘I don’t care of the personal implications. I’m going to save these people’.

 

[Economist]

You used moral dilemmas and you found out that there are people who find consequences less important and intentions more important for judging morality of actions, than you do.

That is simply incorrect. They just value one set of consequences (not committing an arguably mortal sin) more to their liking than selecting the option of “choosing the lesser evil”. So they are willing to choose a much greater evil (allowing a lot of INNOCENT people to perish) rather than causing the death of ONE innocent person.

 

[Economist]

It seems that some (not all) Catholics would abide by church teaching and in some cases allow very many people to die rather than take a life.

I would suggest to be more precise: “allow very many INNOCENT people to die rather than take ONE INNOCENT life”. Not every mortal sin is equal, some are “more equal” than others. And to choose the “lesser of two evil” seems like a very reasonable principle.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Zaccheus:

We are still permitted to use lethal force against lethal assault, if that’s what it takes.

If you would say “against lethal DANGER”, you would be correct.

Only if that danger is sufficiently imminent. We are not permitted to use lethal force against the mere possibility of harm. That is why these theoretical thought experiments with insufficient detail are so meaningless. The moral decision involves the details that one would know in the actual situation, but which you have not provided in an effort to keep your premise “pure”. As Yesss says in WIR2, “What can I say, kid? Life’s complicated.” You’re trying to find simple answers to questions that are necessarily more complicated than you are willing to specify.

 

[Economist]

Only if that danger is sufficiently imminent.

Of course! That is part of the thought experiment, even if it is not explicitly enumerated. You said that I keep the experiment “pure”, and you are correct. When we deal with principles, the details are necessarily left out - because they are supposed to be applicable in every scenario. I will have to repeat, in a thought experiment only the logically impossible scenarios are disallowed. Everything else, no matter how outlandish is permissible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are forced (by the circumstances) to choose between two options, both of which lead to the death of “innocents”, but one group has more people in it than the other one.

There is no circumstances that forces one to make a choice of doing one thing or the other. If the choice is between doing something or not doing it, then one may morally exercise their reason to determine the which choice to make. That choice would necessarily involve details not presented in the scenario. So the question cannot be answered.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Only if that danger is sufficiently imminent.

Of course! That is part of the thought experiment, even if it is not explicitly enumerated. You said that I keep the experiment “pure”, and you are correct. When we deal with principles, the details are necessarily left out - because they are supposed to be applicable in every scenario. I will have to repeat, in a thought experiment only the logically impossible scenarios are disallowed. Everything else, no matter how outlandish is permissible.

Well, then the only answer is “it depends.” If you were looking for a more explicit answer, you would have to describe a more explicit scenario.

 

[runningdude]

There is not really a moral dilemma. You have the positive moral right to use proportional self defense. Lethal means of defense are proportional to a mortal danger. The nature of the mortal danger (disease, aggression, etc) is not directly relevant.

Regarding number 3, this is also not true dilemma, as there is no moral relevance to ones actions. You are forced to do something, so there is no use of ones volition. The duty to minimize harm may apply to the extent that one can reasonably chose an outcome.