What would be the morally correct thing to do

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
alright im reading this book for my ethics class and they are going through ethical split issues.

this is a true story (from the book justice what is the right thing to do by Michael J. Sandle)

alright 4 navy seals where on a reconnaissance mission to look over an area they thought to be a place where bin ladin may have been hiding.

But on the mission on the way to the villege they run into a pack of afghan goatherds 4 of them and a 16 year old boy.

They debate if they should kill them or not becuase they are worried if they let them free they will tell them that they are coming and they mission would be a failure and thier lives lost more then likely.

keep in mind they have no idea what is about to happen so the ethical decision would be made before this part.

But they let them go then a while later 80 Taliban solider sounded them killed 3 of the seals and one survived also they shot down a chopper killing 16 seals.

the simple question is what would have been the morally correct thing to do. Or what would have been the ethical thing to do.

I don’t think this is a simple issue becuase either way lives could be lost.

but they don’t know that for cretin would killing them have saved their lives would letting them go kill them?

keep in mind if you where place in this situation you have no idea the outcome of the scenario.

Im leaning towards letting them live and letting them go but more lives are lost in this situation but again you don’t know that.

BTW i love philosophy so this kinda stuff really intrest me.

i thought i go ahead and discuss this with some people on here see what your thoughts are.
 
The question is not about how many lives are lost but is it ever right to murder an innocent person - even if you believe this will lead to saving more lives?

The correct answer to this is a person should never murder another individual for any reason at all; even if by failing to do so the whole universe were to perish. There is no excuse for violating the moral law against murder; and anything less than total recognition of the intrinsic value of human life is relativistic and barbaric.

It is better that one dies with principles than defaces their own humanity.

It is also better that one lives with principles even if a million die.
 
catholictiger said:
alright im reading this book for my ethics class and they are going through ethical split issues.

this is a true story (from the book justice what is the right thing to do by Michael J. Sandle)

alright 4 navy seals where on a reconnaissance mission to look over an area they thought to be a place where bin ladin may have been hiding.

But on the mission on the way to the villege they run into a pack of afghan goatherds 4 of them and a 16 year old boy.

They debate if they should kill them or not becuase they are worried if they let them free they will tell them that they are coming and they mission would be a failure and thier lives lost more then likely.

keep in mind they have no idea what is about to happen so the ethical decision would be made before this part.

But they let them go then a while later 80 Taliban solider sounded them killed 3 of the seals and one survived also they shot down a chopper killing 16 seals.

the simple question is what would have been the morally correct thing to do. Or what would have been the ethical thing to do.

I don’t think this is a simple issue becuase either way lives could be lost.

but they don’t know that for cretin would killing them have saved their lives would letting them go kill them?

keep in mind if you where place in this situation you have no idea the outcome of the scenario.

Im leaning towards letting them live and letting them go but more lives are lost in this situation but again you don’t know that.

BTW i love philosophy so this kinda stuff really intrest me.

i thought i go ahead and discuss this with some people on here see what your thoughts are.
Click to expand...
The only way i see to save all lives in question is for the 4 seals to renounce their military status and head back the way they came.
 
It seems an exact parallel to abortion. It is intrinsically evil to take an innocent life. Nothing will justify it.
 
tie up the goatherders and be on your way =) If only the seals were smart enough. But really, there are ways i’m sure to silence a few goatherders for a couple hours, days, whatever in order to continue with a mission.

There is no justification for killing an innocent life.
 
only two options kill them or let them leave

they didn’t have enough rope
 
colmcille1 said:
Sorry, catholictiger, I must be slow on the uptake. Can you explain this post please?
God Bless,
Colmcille1.🙂
Click to expand...
in the story they two opinons they either kill them or let them go they don’t have enough rope to tie them up

im pretty set on my view on this thing

but i just want to see what people think
 
This isn’t a difficult question in the least, at least it shouldn’t be for a Catholic. You are never permitted to commit an objectively evil act even with sure knowledge that good will come of it.

John Damian’s post is well-stated.
 
catholictiger said:
alright im reading this book for my ethics class and they are going through ethical split issues.

this is a true story (from the book justice what is the right thing to do by Michael J. Sandle)

alright 4 navy seals where on a reconnaissance mission to look over an area they thought to be a place where bin ladin may have been hiding.

But on the mission on the way to the villege they run into a pack of afghan goatherds 4 of them and a 16 year old boy.

They debate if they should kill them or not becuase they are worried if they let them free they will tell them that they are coming and they mission would be a failure and thier lives lost more then likely.

keep in mind they have no idea what is about to happen so the ethical decision would be made before this part.

But they let them go then a while later 80 Taliban solider sounded them killed 3 of the seals and one survived also they shot down a chopper killing 16 seals.

the simple question is what would have been the morally correct thing to do. Or what would have been the ethical thing to do.

I don’t think this is a simple issue becuase either way lives could be lost.

but they don’t know that for cretin would killing them have saved their lives would letting them go kill them?

keep in mind if you where place in this situation you have no idea the outcome of the scenario.

Im leaning towards letting them live and letting them go but more lives are lost in this situation but again you don’t know that.

BTW i love philosophy so this kinda stuff really intrest me.

i thought i go ahead and discuss this with some people on here see what your thoughts are.
Click to expand...
Even if you take the pragmatic approach (Should I kill in this case?) rather than the dogmatic approach (I shall not kill in any case!) there is an important thing to consider:
What would happen if you killed the herders and it turned out their were innocent people not connected to Taliban in any way? History shows us that this thing can turn the opinion of the public against your case. By killing 4 innocent herders you may create 8 Taliban members and 50 Taliban supporters - their friends, families and people from the village.
 
catholictiger said:
alright im reading this book for my ethics class and they are going through ethical split issues.

this is a true story (from the book justice what is the right thing to do by Michael J. Sandle)

alright 4 navy seals where on a reconnaissance mission to look over an area they thought to be a place where bin ladin may have been hiding.

But on the mission on the way to the villege they run into a pack of afghan goatherds 4 of them and a 16 year old boy.

They debate if they should kill them or not.
Click to expand...
Further information from the point I cut off is speculation and really of no use then to try to muddy the waters.
The decision is to kill or not to kill, and it is a very easy answer.
 
just to let you guys know i know the answer for sure now at first. You don’t kill no matter what at-least in this situation they are innocent and you can’t tell if they are spys so you don’t kill them.

Im guessing we catholics are what most philosophers would consider as deontologist. which pretty much is your ethics or your moral standards are based on a set of rules, our rules obviously fit under the ten commandments and the other minor rules that the bible told us.

If you are intrested to know there are two other philosophical ideologies

there is Consequentialism which pretty much means that your morals are based on the consequences hence hint the word consequence in the word Consequentialism.

This is kinda the theory that says the ends justify the means.

Then you have the virtue theorist pretty much your morals are based on virtue.

now im sure some catholic philosophers may fit in the other categories but it is very clear that most catholics are probably going to be considered in the philosophical category of deontology

well actually i think many cahtolics would probably be a mix of virtue theory and deontology but i don’t know im still only slightly on this stuff
 
catholictiger said:
alright im reading this book for my ethics class and they are going through ethical split issues.

this is a true story (from the book justice what is the right thing to do by Michael J. Sandle)

alright 4 navy seals where on a reconnaissance mission to look over an area they thought to be a place where bin ladin may have been hiding.

But on the mission on the way to the villege they run into a pack of afghan goatherds 4 of them and a 16 year old boy.

They debate if they should kill them or not becuase they are worried if they let them free they will tell them that they are coming and they mission would be a failure and thier lives lost more then likely.

keep in mind they have no idea what is about to happen so the ethical decision would be made before this part.

But they let them go then a while later 80 Taliban solider sounded them killed 3 of the seals and one survived also they shot down a chopper killing 16 seals.

the simple question is what would have been the morally correct thing to do. Or what would have been the ethical thing to do.

I don’t think this is a simple issue becuase either way lives could be lost.

but they don’t know that for cretin would killing them have saved their lives would letting them go kill them?

keep in mind if you where place in this situation you have no idea the outcome of the scenario.

Im leaning towards letting them live and letting them go but more lives are lost in this situation but again you don’t know that.

BTW i love philosophy so this kinda stuff really intrest me.

i thought i go ahead and discuss this with some people on here see what your thoughts are.
Click to expand...
The decision to kill them seems to lean to a more utilitarian approach. The question itself is rather limited as with all hypothetical questions, and they can rarely represent realism.

The sacrifice of ones own morals for a greater goal often tend to be earthly, as such much regard for the heavenly is often put aside. The question is then divided to the Heavenly and Earthly and is brought to the individual who is questioning, which is more important? While our Earthly life is important, it isn’t important as that of the goal of reaching Heaven.

Also when one looks at the book of Maccabees, we can see how the battles are always dictated by God, and even when Judas Maccabeus and his army are either vastly outnumbered or ill-equipped, victory follows Judas’ prayers.

On my judgement of the situation, I’d say it would be morally correct to let them live.

God Bless,

Christopher.
 
Catholictiger,

Catholic moral theory is derived from the Natural Law. While information from Revelation like the 10 Commandments serve as an objective standard to compare our conclusions, nevertheless, if Catholic morality were based on Revelation, it could not be said to be universal. It wouldn’t be wrong for someone to murder if they haven’t heard of the 5th Commandment? The Natural Law, on the other hand is universal because it is “written in the hearts of man” meaning that they are moral principles derived from our very nature, i.e. what it means to be human. As such, it is based on the natural virtues.
 
catholictiger said:
alright im reading this book for my ethics class and they are going through ethical split issues.

this is a true story (from the book justice what is the right thing to do by Michael J. Sandle)

alright 4 navy seals where on a reconnaissance mission to look over an area they thought to be a place where bin ladin may have been hiding.

But on the mission on the way to the villege they run into a pack of afghan goatherds 4 of them and a 16 year old boy.

They debate if they should kill them or not becuase they are worried if they let them free they will tell them that they are coming and they mission would be a failure and thier lives lost more then likely.

keep in mind they have no idea what is about to happen so the ethical decision would be made before this part.

But they let them go then a while later 80 Taliban solider sounded them killed 3 of the seals and one survived also they shot down a chopper killing 16 seals.

the simple question is what would have been the morally correct thing to do. Or what would have been the ethical thing to do.

I don’t think this is a simple issue becuase either way lives could be lost.

but they don’t know that for cretin would killing them have saved their lives would letting them go kill them?

keep in mind if you where place in this situation you have no idea the outcome of the scenario.

Im leaning towards letting them live and letting them go but more lives are lost in this situation but again you don’t know that.

BTW i love philosophy so this kinda stuff really intrest me.

i thought i go ahead and discuss this with some people on here see what your thoughts are.
Click to expand...
The answer is not to kill them. It’s just that simple. It is very likely that the people are innocents without any evidence to the contrary. If the SEALs feel that they have been placed in a large amount of danger as a result, they can abort the mission.

Submitting to a utilitarian philosophy is a weakness. If every life truly holds onto a special dignity and is, as a result, invaluable you cannot say that the loss of (infinity x 1) is less than the loss of (infinity x 5). Invaluable means invaluable.

-Prophecy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top