What choice ought the Catholic make regarding these moral dilemmas?

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

**The Overcrowded Lifeboat **
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

**A Father’s Agonizing Choice **
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

The Costly Underwater Tunnel
An underwater tunnel is being constructed despite an almost certain loss of several lives [actually, all but certain]. Presumably the expected loss is a calculated cost that society is prepared to pay for having the tunnel “society” doesn’t make any such calculation]. At a critical moment when a fitting must be lowered into place, a workman is trapped in a section of the partly laid tunnel. If it is lowered, it will surely crush the trapped workman to death. Yet, if it is not and a time consuming rescue of the workman is attempted, the tunnel will have to be abandoned and the whole project begun anew. Two workmen have already died in the project as a result of anticipated and unavoidable conditions in the building of the tunnel. What should be done? Was it a mistake to begin the tunnel in the first place? But don’t we take such risks all the time?
We can get some clarity about this example by asking what the police would do if they are informed that the work foreman has authorized the deliberate crushing of a worker. I suspect that he would immediately be arrested for murder.

Compare: 112 men were killed during the construction of Hoover Dam on the Nevada-Arizona border (the “official” number was 98, but others had died from causes more difficult to identify – or easier to ignore – like by carbon monoxide poisoning):…The working conditions in the summer down in the canyon involved temperatures hitting highs of 119o, with lows of no less than 95o.

Jean Valjean’s Conscience
In Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, the hero, Jean Valjean, is an ex-convict, living illegally under an assumed name and wanted for a robbery he committed many years ago. [Actually, no – he is only wanted for breaking parole.] Although he will be returned to the galleys – probably [in fact, actually] for life – if he is caught, he is a good man who does not deserve to be punished. He has established himself in a town, becoming mayor and a public benefactor. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. Perhaps this man’s false identification, Jean reflects, is “an act of Providence meant to save me.” Upon reflection, however, Jean judges such reasoning “monstrous and hypocritical.” He now feels certain that it is his duty to reveal his identity, regardless of the disastrous personal consequences. His resolve is disturbed, however, as he reflects on the irreparable harm his return to the galleys will mean to so many people who depend upon him for their livelihood – especially troubling in the case of a helpless woman and her small child to whom he feels a special obligation. He now reproaches himself for being too selfish, for thinking only of his own conscience and not of others. The right thing to do, he now claims to himself, is to remain quiet, to continue making money and using it to help others. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses. Did he do the right thing?

The Torture of the Mad Bomber
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Source:
friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

 

[carn]

The Torture of the Mad Bomber
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree?

Yes. The Mad Bomber is an attacker. Use of force against him, if it conceivably allows to stop or lessen the effects of the attack is justified.

If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

No, she is not an attacker. But maybe giving her a police order to help (which is possible in some countries and might carry a jail sentence if she refuses) by questioning her husband or pretending that she is visiting some undefined busy place, which might make him think she is in danger and therefore reveal his information.

 

[Big_Dummy]

**The Overcrowded Lifeboat **
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat

This is absurb since 30 can not fit into a space for 7. The people can simply take turns swimming. I would vote guilty.

**A Father’s Agonizing Choice **
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son

rush and try to kill the guard.

The Costly Underwater Tunnel

Accidental deaths do not equate to deliberate deaths, forget about the project until a better plan can be used.

Jean Valjean’s Conscience
Did he do the right thing?

Tell the truth, present a case for being alive to protect, help others. Even if he is put to death, then others will be aware of the needs to step in to help.

The Torture of the Mad Bomber
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Thank God for the Patroit Act. Use drugs and torture, have first responders search for something out of place and use the media to tell people to walk out into open fields or go home until the danger has passed.

Source:
friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

 

[Godfollower]

What choice ought the Catholic make regarding these moral dilemmas?

None of these is a moral dilemma in Catholic theology.

**The Overcrowded Lifeboat **
{Snip} Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

You can never do evil in order that good may prevail. That means you can’t commit murder – and that includes committing murder of an innocent person in defense against nature. If everyone dies, so be it; them’s the breaks of living in a broken world. But you cannot affirmatively cause the death of a person who is innocent of attempting to harm you.

A Father’s Agonizing Choice
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Nothing. Your son is dead either way; whether an innocent inmate dies as well is the act of the guard, not of you. You cannot kill your son in order to save the life of the other inmate. In fact, the opposite is also true: you cannot kill an innocent inmate, even to save the life of your son.

The Costly Underwater Tunnel
An underwater tunnel is being constructed despite an almost certain loss of several lives [actually, all but certain]. Presumably the expected loss is a calculated cost that society is prepared to pay for having the tunnel “society” doesn’t make any such calculation]. At a critical moment when a fitting must be lowered into place, a workman is trapped in a section of the partly laid tunnel. If it is lowered, it will surely crush the trapped workman to death. Yet, if it is not and a time consuming rescue of the workman is attempted, the tunnel will have to be abandoned and the whole project begun anew. Two workmen have already died in the project as a result of anticipated and unavoidable conditions in the building of the tunnel. What should be done? Was it a mistake to begin the tunnel in the first place? But don’t we take such risks all the time?
{Snip}.

You have to try to save the trapped worker. Even if that means scrapping the entire project. You can’t deliberately kill an innocent person just to save money.

As for the issue of lives lost through accident, there is nothing immoral about engaging in meritorious work that happens to involve some risk of accidental deaths. Morally, one must do one’s best to avoid such deaths; but there is no moral imperative to avoid all projects that potentially (or almost certainly) involve someone losing a life through accident. If that were the moral law, we’d have to outlaw cars. And stairs. And cholesterol.

Jean Valjean’s Conscience
{Snip}. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. {Snip}. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses. Did he do the right thing?

Yes. He can’t use the innocent vagabond as a scapegoat to escape the punishment due to him. He’s right; such reasoning would be “monstrous and hypocritical.”

And you can’t take into account the “value” of Valjean’s place in the community. All human beings are equal before God; no one gets to say “I’m more important / more generous / more charitable / etc., so I get to flout the moral law for the good of the community.”

The Torture of the Mad Bomber
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. {Snip}. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Is torture evil or not? If it’s evil, it’s evil. There is no way to allow using evil to accomplish good. If it isn’t evil, then it’s a tool that can be used legitimately by any person who has custody of a prisoner – including terrorists and totalitarian regimes that have captured “good guys.”

Torture is evil; you can’t do it. Initiate the mass evacuation and continue to try to find the bombs.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

…You can never do evil in order that good may prevail…If everyone dies, so be it; them’s the breaks of living in a broken world. But you cannot affirmatively cause the death of a person who is innocent of attempting to harm you.

It appears you are advocating the allowance of a greater evil to prevail by not allowing for a lesser evil to be chosen.

Let’s say you were the president of the United States in 1945 and you knew that by dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, the war would end quickly and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would be spared. However, by dropping the atomic bomb, thousands of innocent lives would be lost from that bomb. Was Harry Truman and the United States government wrong to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagosaki?

 

[ardis3958]

• **The Overcrowded Lifeboat. **Ha! False dilemma. Guilty, murder 1.
• **A Father’s Agonizing Choice. **Do nothing. Guard can and probably will kill my son and another innocent inmate anyway regardless of what I do.
• **The Costly Underwater Tunnel. **Abandon the project to save the life of the trapped workman.
• **Jean Valjean’s Conscience. **False dilemma, Jean can identify himself to the vagabond’s lawyer and the lawyer can argue reasonable doubt and get the vagabond acquitted.
• **The Torture of the Mad Bomber. **People lie under torture too, so there is no need to torture him or his wife.

 

[promethius]

**The Overcrowded Lifeboat **

The captain is guilty of murder. He had no way of knowing whether or not anyone would drown with certainty, and even if he had, he had no right to murder people to avoid the consequence of a storm.

**

A Father’s Agonizing Choice

**
I would say, precisely: “I weep for your soul, that you think no one is above your depravity”… and then I would launch myself into an attack if at all possible.

**

The Costly Underwater Tunnel

**
No questions asked, you must stop the process to save the person. To lower the cover would be murder.

It is one thing for a person to risk their life and lose it in an accident during some great endeavor. It is another entirely for the foreman to murder someone who could be saved.

**

Jean Valjean’s Conscience

**
Jean Valjean’s moral action is to do exactly as he did: to confess and then to flee the courthouse. The prison system of the pre-revolution france was immorally harsh, Valjean having served 19 years in hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread, and the parole system was designed to entrap prisoners in a specific location where they were unemployable and basically consigned to starvation in the streets. In this system, a man has no obligation to follow these unjust laws… but he does have an obligation not to allow false witness to be borne against another to allow himself to go free.

**

The Torture of the Mad Bomber

**
This is impossible to answer without considering your definition of what torture is. However, if it matches mine, then no, we would not torture the man.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

This is impossible to answer without considering your definition of what torture is. However, if it matches mine, then no, we would not torture the man.

Here is the fuller scenario from the website I referenced. This will give you context of what the definition is intended as:

**The Torture of the Mad Bomber **
cf. the use of torture in Clint Eastwood’s movie, Dirty Harry (1971), somewhat comically in Sin City (2005), and then in extended, serious, and graffic fashion, conducted by Denzel Washington, in Man on Fire (2004). In 2009, there is also Liam Neeson, Qui-gon Jinn of Star Wars, who uses torture to rescue his kidnapped daughter in Taken – he even shoots the “innocent wife” of his former French spy friend to get information from him. Definitely a different kind of Jedi. After 9/11/01, we have the case of terrorist suspects who may know of planned operations that could cost the lives of thousands. The otherwise four-square civil libertarian and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz actually suggested legalized torture to deal with such people. This early complacency about torture seems to have been followed mostly by objections that some kind of torture was used by U.S. forces in Iraq and by U.S. allies (Egypt, Pakistan, etc.). Indeed, there is a saying, that if you want information from someone, send them to Jordan, if you want them hurt, send them to Syria, and if you want them killed, send them to Egypt.

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

In the judicial system of Imperial China, torture was technically illegal but tolerated because no one could be convicted without a confession. Torture could then be used with these provisions: (1) Questioning could only be done in open court. Since torture would then be administered in public, the public should agree, from the evidence, that the suspect is probably guilty. If it appeared that an innocent person was being tortured, a riot might result. The Judge, who was also the Magistrate of his administrative District, would be held responsible for the civil disturbance. (2) Punishment would be mitigated in proportion to any suffering inflicted by torture. And, most importantly, (3) if it turned out that an innocent person was convicted, the punishment he suffered could be imposed on the Judge. This was called , “reversed judgment.” I think that this is a fine legal principle – where with us misbehavior by judges, prosecutors, or police is generally not liable to criminal sanction. A person not even under oath lying to a federal agent is guilty of a crime, but prosecutors can lie in court and the police can lie to suspects with impunity. The Chinese legal system is discussed and illustrated by the Dutch diplomat and scholar Robert van Gulik in his Judge Dee books.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;8503153:

…You can never do evil in order that good may prevail…If everyone dies, so be it; them’s the breaks of living in a broken world. But you cannot affirmatively cause the death of a person who is innocent of attempting to harm you.

It appears you are advocating the allowance of a greater evil to prevail by not allowing for a lesser evil to be chosen.

Let’s say you were the president of the United States in 1945 and you knew that by dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, the war would end quickly and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would be spared. However, by dropping the atomic bomb, thousands of innocent lives would be lost from that bomb. Was Harry Truman and the United States government wrong to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagosaki?

Actually, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I used to agree with you about Hiroshima, but then I started participating in this thread, which caused me to research the issue more thoroughly.

As the Catholic Church has always taught:

***Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;***
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 1789 (emphasis added).

But it isn’t “advocating the allowance of a greater evil to prevail by not allowing for a lesser evil to be chosen.” That’s a false dichotomy, no different than saying that you must kill your son in order to save the life of the other inmate (the Father’s Agonizing Choice scenario). In fact, under the kill-your-son choice, what if the guard says “Kill your son, or I’ll kill two other inmates”? Or five? Or ten? If you’re right about choosing the lesser evil, you’re morally obligated to kill your own son to save two (or five or ten) human lives. Catholic theology demands a different answer.

In WWII, the Nazi concentration camp guards were known to say things like “Each of you who tried to escape, choose one other inmate in the camp to die with you, or we’ll kill everyone.” If you believe in committing evil (choosing an innocent person to be murdered) in order to achieve a greater good (allowing at least some of the other innocent people in the camp to survive, at least until tomorrow), then I understand why you’re advocating that choice. But it’s immoral under Catholic theology.

The Commandment does not say “That shalt not murder unless thy opponent threatens to commit greater murder and the numbers appeareth to come out in thy favor.” It just says “Thou shalt not murder.”

If someone else is going to commit murder, that’s an act for which that person will have to answer. But that doesn’t let you do it.

Mind you, I’m not necessarily saying that I would have the moral fiber to do the right thing if I were in one of these situations. Some of these questions depict scenarios in which it’s extremely difficult as a human being to do the right thing.

But there’s no question about what the right thing is.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

Actually, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I used to agree with you about Hiroshima, but then I started participating in this thread, which caused me to research the issue more thoroughly.

For the record, I never said I agreed with the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagosaki.

Godfollower:

Mind you, I’m not necessarily saying that I would have the moral fiber to do the right thing if I were in one of these situations. Some of these questions depict scenarios in which it’s extremely difficult as a human being to do the right thing.

But there’s no question about what the right thing is.

I appreciate your honesty here. This may come under the Catholic Church’s teachings on culpability as to the degree someone has sinned (venial, grave, mortal).

Here’s a follow up question if you happen to know: Did the Cahtolic Church ever condemn the atomic bombings of Japan around the time they occurred?

 

[Godfollower]

For the record, I never said I agreed with the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagosaki.

I appreciate your honesty here. This may come under the Catholic Church’s teachings on culpability as to the degree someone has sinned (venial, grave, mortal).

Here’s a follow up question if you happen to know: Did the Cahtolic Church ever condemn the atomic bombings of Japan around the time they occurred?

Here’s one such protest:

There were names of places in Europe which from the early days of the war were associated with a German idea that by disregarding the rights of civilians you could shorten a war. These names of places—Rotterdam, Coventry—were associated, and seemed likely to be associated in men’s minds for a great number of years, with a judgment of German guilt and German shame. There was a port in the Pacific which sheltered American naval power. It was attacked by air without warning and the name Pearl Harbor was associated, and seemed likely to be associated for many years, with a Japanese idea that you could win a war by attacking the enemy before declaring war on the enemy. The name Pearl Harbor was a name for Japanese guilt and shame.

The name Hiroshima, the name Nagasaki are names for American guilt and shame.

The war against Japan was nearly won. Our fleet and Britain’s fleet stood off Japan’s coast and shelled Japan’s cities. There was no opposition. Our planes, the greatest bombers in the world flew from hard won, gallantly won bases and bombed Japanese shipping, Japanese industry and, already, Japanese women and children. Each day they announced to the Japanese where the blows would fall, and the Japanese were unable to prevent anything they chose to do.

Then, without warning an American plane dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

Russia entered the war. There was no doubt before or after Russia entered the war that the war against Japan was won. An American plane dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

We had to invent the bomb because the Germans were going to invent the bomb. It was a matter of avoiding our own possible destruction. We had to test the bomb and we tested it in a desert. If we were to threaten the use of it against the Japanese, we could have told them to pick a desert and then go look at the hole. Without warning we dropped it into the middle of a city and then without warning we dropped it into the middle of another city.

Editorial, Commonweal Magazine (Aug. 24, 1945).

Several Catholic authorities protested against the use of the bomb. And they weren’t alone; other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders spoke out against it at the same time.

 

[Warrenton]

The Overcrowded Lifeboat

The captain cannot order anyone out of the boat. To order out the weak is monstrous. Everyone in the boat has an equal right to a chance at survival. The most the captain can do is explain the facts, and ask for volunteers to take their chances by clinging to the gunwhales. Since he is responsible for the wreck as captain, he should be the first one over the side.

**A Father’s Agonizing Choice **

The father must not act complicitly with the executioner.

The Costly Underwater Tunnel

No project can be undertaken if there is a certainty of death. If the possibility of danger is recognized, all efforts to remove the possibility must be taken. If an accident occurs, all efforts must be made to save the worker, even at the cost of beginning anew.

Jean Valjean’s Conscience

The vagabond was put in danger by Jean’s act of escape, and of course, the underlying crime Jean committed. Put differently, if Jean had not committed the robbery, and if he had not skipped parole, then the vagabond would not be in danger of the galleys. Thus, Jean is obligated to save the vagabond.

Jean cannot weigh the benefits of his own crime, because he cannot evaluate the future. For all Jean knows, the vagabond may be inspired to become a good citizen and perform even greater deeds of mercy.

Jean must confess.

The Torture of the Mad Bomber

Yes, the bomber may be tortured. Although it is illegal, the law against torture exists for the protection of the innocent. The government’s highest duty is to protect the innocent, and it must take the steps required to do this, sometimes at the expense of violating its own laws.

The government may not torture the bomber’s innocent wife, however. She is innocent, and is entitled to the protection of the government.

 

[Ghosty]

Regarding the Mad Bomber: The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism that torture is absolutely forbidden.

2297 *Kidnapping *and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. *Terrorism *threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. *Torture *which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and *sterilizations *performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.91

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

Torture, whether legal or illegal, is wrong and can’t be utilized to extract information even in the case described. It would fall under the same category as torturing an innocent, or murdering on person to save thousands: you can’t commit evil for a good result. There is also the fact that torture is not a reliable method for gathering information, especially in the circumstances described. After all, the bomber knows the torture will end when the bombs go off, so much of the coercive power of the torture is lost from the word go.

The deaths of the innocents is on the soul of the bomber, not the people trying to save them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Warrenton]

**Torture, whether legal or illegal, is wrong and can’t be utilized to extract information even in the case described. It would fall under the same category as torturing an innocent, or murdering on person to save thousands: you can’t commit evil for a good result. There is also the fact that torture is not a reliable method for gathering information, especially in the circumstances described. After all, the bomber knows the torture will end when the bombs go off, so much of the coercive power of the torture is lost from the word go.
**

Torture is not absolutely forbidden in the same way as murder. That is because it is not the same as murder. Under the scenario given, the bomber is not killed, therefore his torture is not a homicide, and is not of the identical gravity as a murder.

Second, you say that torture is not reliable. That is debatable. We do not know how impervious to threat or torture the bomber is - the information is not given.

The statements in the catechism you cite relate to a disrespect for life, and rely on certain historical facts. It is by no means certain that the historical facts relate to the facts in the hypothetical.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

Torture is not absolutely forbidden in the same way as murder…

Ghosty's quote of CCC 2297:

…Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty…is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity…

Ghosty's quote of CCC 2298:

…In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person…It is necessary to work for their abolition…

Warrenton, the catechism is clear that torture used to extract confessions from the guilty is contrary to respect for the human person and that it is not in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. Furthermore, it is necessary to work for this practice to be abolished. It is difficult for me to see how this practice isn’t absolutely forbidden. Is there somewhere else within the catechism which states that a lesser evil (i.e. torture) may be performed to prevent a greater evil (i.e. murder)?

 

[Ghosty]

Torture is not absolutely forbidden in the same way as murder. That is because it is not the same as murder. Under the scenario given, the bomber is not killed, therefore his torture is not a homicide, and is not of the identical gravity as a murder.

Second, you say that torture is not reliable. That is debatable. We do not know how impervious to threat or torture the bomber is - the information is not given.

The statements in the catechism you cite relate to a disrespect for life, and rely on certain historical facts. It is by no means certain that the historical facts relate to the facts in the hypothetical.

There is only one way for something to be absolutely forbidden, and both murder and torture are absolutely forbidden. There is no way to justify torture, and American Catholics are just going to have to accept this fact.

There are no hypothetical situations in which evil can be committed for a good end.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Warrenton]

There is only one way for something to be absolutely forbidden, and both murder and torture are absolutely forbidden.

We will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

There is no way to justify torture, and American Catholics are just going to have to accept this fact.

Here is the thing: the duty of the government is to protect the innocent. Other than that, government has very little function. This is another way of saying that much of what government does in practice is beyond its legitimate sphere.

But it absolutely must endeavor to protect the innocent.

In the hypothetical posed, the city cannot be evacuated and the bomber will not reveal the location of the bombs. It is given that the bomber did in fact place bombs. There is a law against torture. Implicit in the hypothetical is that the potential victims are innocent.

The against torture serves the function of protecting the innocent. We refrain from torture primarilly to avoid harming the innocent. Your citation to the CCC makes that quite plain. There are other considerations, but this appears to be the foremost.

In the hypothetical, the purpose of the law cannot be served by obeying the law, therefore it is not wrong to disobey it.

Moreover, if it is illegal, it is not illegal in the same manner that murder is illegal. The consequences are also different, because the bomber remains alive.

 

[Ghosty]

We will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

No, you’ll need to back up your assertion that torture is ever permissible. I cited the Catechism, what do you have? We’re not talking about the relative gravity of the sin, but whether or not it is absolutely forbidden.

Here is the thing: the duty of the government is to protect the innocent. Other than that, government has very little function. This is another way of saying that much of what government does in practice is beyond its legitimate sphere.

But it absolutely must endeavor to protect the innocent.

It can only do so using moral means, and it loses its legitimacy if it doesn’t; see below.

In the hypothetical posed, the city cannot be evacuated and the bomber will not reveal the location of the bombs. It is given that the bomber did in fact place bombs. There is a law against torture. Implicit in the hypothetical is that the potential victims are innocent.

The against torture serves the function of protecting the innocent. We refrain from torture primarilly to avoid harming the innocent. Your citation to the CCC makes that quite plain. There are other considerations, but this appears to be the foremost.

Actually, the prohibition against torture in the Catechism specifically mentions the guilty; it says nothing about the accidental torture of the innocent. If you can’t use torture against the guilty, or to extract confessions of guilt, you can’t use it for any purposes whatsoever.

In the hypothetical, the purpose of the law cannot be served by obeying the law, therefore it is not wrong to disobey it.

Moreover, if it is illegal, it is not illegal in the same manner that murder is illegal. The consequences are also different, because the bomber remains alive.

The state only has authority when it acts in accord with God, since all authority is from God. If the state goes against God in serving its function then it loses its authority. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22 1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. (emphasis mine) If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

So if the government uses immoral means to “protect the innocent” it no longer operates with the authority of a government. It is literally illegitimate authority at that point, and no longer rightful government. The fact that the government’s role is to protect and serve does not give free reign for the government to break moral and natural law to do so. The Catholic Church makes this very clear.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mgoforth]

We will just need to agree to disagree on this point.

Here is the thing: the duty of the government is to protect the innocent. Other than that, government has very little function. This is another way of saying that much of what government does in practice is beyond its legitimate sphere.

But it absolutely must endeavor to protect the innocent.

In the hypothetical posed, the city cannot be evacuated and the bomber will not reveal the location of the bombs. It is given that the bomber did in fact place bombs. There is a law against torture. Implicit in the hypothetical is that the potential victims are innocent.

The against torture serves the function of protecting the innocent. We refrain from torture primarilly to avoid harming the innocent. Your citation to the CCC makes that quite plain. There are other considerations, but this appears to be the foremost.

In the hypothetical, the purpose of the law cannot be served by obeying the law, therefore it is not wrong to disobey it.

Moreover, if it is illegal, it is not illegal in the same manner that murder is illegal. The consequences are also different, because the bomber remains alive.

Wow, Warrenton. Your logic is twisted. The laws of man are not equal to the commandments of God and his Church. Torture is wrong, plain and simple. People who torture probably tell themselves that they’re stronger than the rest of us because they’re willing to “make the tough decisions”. Well…that’s also twisted. They’re WEAKER because they have no faith in God.

 

[Warrenton]

I cited the Catechism, what do you have?

I have the words you cited. It does not say what you say it says. The catechism,which is a teaching tool, not scripture, does not contain an absolute prohibition. Even if it did, the catechism is not the last word on what is moral or not. The word “absolute” nowhere appears in the text. You are glossing your own desire onto the text.

Actually, the prohibition against torture in the Catechism specifically mentions the guilty

The passage you quote mentions “victims.” The passage also discusses disproportionality. The catechism passage you cite does not address proportionate torture.

If the state goes against God in serving its function then it loses its authority.

We are not talking about authority. The hypothetical specifically says that the torture lacks authority.

We are talking about morality. A state that elevates its own laws over the health of the people ceases to be moral. That is why the modern state acts immorally when it permits abortion. It is elevating its own authority above the health of the people, which as I said before, is the very purpose of government.

You have not challenged the premise that the well being of the people is the purpose of government. You may cite the CCC all day long, but until you prove that this statement is false, the argument you are trying to construct will not succeed.