When is it NOT a sin to kill onself?

[dje101]

Hi,

I’ve had this question rattling around for a while.

When the planes hit the towers on 9/11, there were people who were jumping out of windows 80 floors up because they didn’t want to die by fire.

In any situation like that, would it be a sin to kill oneself to avoid a worse death?

 

[PerfectTiming]

That’s still suicide. Suicide is a sin. I don’t see how that situation gives any excusability. Especially since it achieves nothing - you meant your end either way.

 

[Trishie]

It wasn’t their focus to kill themselves, they were panicked, they were trying to escape. Fire is terrifying…and they were responding to the basic human impulse to flee imminent and and unexpected catastrophe. Plane coming towards your building, yes, it actually is, terrifying explosions, building shaking, dreadful sounds, cries of terror, smoke, fire, every part of the body and brain reacting in fear and confusion…they wanted to live, but it wasn’t going to happen in those buildings. Of course it doesn’t make sense to jump if you’re an armchair observer, but these people were IN the terror and confusion and simply sought to escape. You’re okay until you hit the ground but they weren’t thinking that far ahead, and probably not even thinking, just reacting. How sad that anyone would judge these poor terrified people.

They had been quietly working as on every ordinary day they had gone to work. Suddenly their reality was insanely terrifying. How many of us could rationally cope? Our basic instinct is self preservation, in fight or flight. They couldn’t fight it, and their brains were overwhelmed with terror, so they tried flight. It’s easy to judge when a person isn’t in the situation. Terror isn’t a rational state of mind.

 

[manualman]

The objective sinfulness of an action is not dependent on circumstances. The culpability a person has for sin, IS dependent on circumstances.

It’s pointless to try to figure out how culpable somebody else is for their sins. You aren’t qualified to do so (requires divinity!).

 

[CountrySteve]

it all depends on your mind set

 

[runningdude]

It wasn’t their focus to kill themselves, they were panicked, they were trying to escape. Fire is terrifying…and they were responding to the basic human impulse to flee imminent and and unexpected catastrophe. Plane coming towards your building, yes, it actually is, terrifying explosions, building shaking, dreadful sounds, cries of terror, smoke, fire, every part of the body and brain reacting in fear and confusion…they wanted to live, but it wasn’t going to happen in those buildings. Of course it doesn’t make sense to jump if you’re an armchair observer, but these people were IN the terror and confusion and simply sought to escape. You’re okay until you hit the ground but they weren’t thinking that far ahead, and probably not even thinking, just reacting. How sad that anyone would judge these poor terrified people.

They had been quietly working as on every ordinary day they had gone to work. Suddenly their reality was insanely terrifying. How many of us could rationally cope? Our basic instinct is self preservation, in fight or flight. They couldn’t fight it, and their brains were overwhelmed with terror, so they tried flight. It’s easy to judge when a person isn’t in the situation. Terror isn’t a rational state of mind.

Manualman’s quote is true here:

The objective sinfulness of an action is not dependent on circumstances. The culpability a person has for sin, IS dependent on circumstances.

The panic you described could possibly reduce the jumper’s culpability for taking his own life, but the suicide is still itself a grave sin.

It’s pointless to try to figure out how culpable somebody else is for their sins. You aren’t qualified to do so (requires divinity!).

Indeed, although Trishi’s description of the panic one might have gone through gives does give hope for the salvation of the jumpers.

Brings to might the story of the man who jumped from a bridge, falling to his death, but repenting before he hit.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hi,

I’ve had this question rattling around for a while.

When the planes hit the towers on 9/11, there were people who were jumping out of windows 80 floors up because they didn’t want to die by fire.

In any situation like that, would it be a sin to kill oneself to avoid a worse death?

It is always sinful to kill yourself, but the people who jumped from the windows on 9/11 are not guilty of killing themselves.

That’s right, they didn’t kill themselves. Death was an unwilled consequence of their morally neutral action - getting away from agonizing flames.

Of course, even if their action weren’t morally licit, it’s almost certain that they did not have full consent. Everyone instinctively flees from painful heat. Try holding your hand on a stove that’s on and see how long you can do it. (Please don’t really do that)

But my point is this: even if it were true that those poor people had been entirely in control of their faculties, their action was morally licit. The principle of double effect exonerates them. See this link for a decent overview.

That’s still suicide. Suicide is a sin. I don’t see how that situation gives any excusability. Especially since it achieves nothing - you meant your end either way.

You’re mistaken about this particular situation. We must never perform an objectively immoral act, but we’re not obligated to do all in our power to prevent every evil effect we foresee (that’s impossible anyway).

The action of those who jumped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 was entirely morally licit, because the object of their act - jumping from a window and/or away from fire - is morally neutral, and they did not will their deaths either as an end (obviously) or as a means (i.e. it wasn’t death that saved them from the flames, but rather physical distance from them).

So as long as the good effect desired is proportionate to the bad effect permitted, their action was okay, and the two were definitely proportionate, as they couldn’t have survived anyway.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi,

In any situation like that, would it be a sin to kill oneself to avoid a worse death?

of course it would be a sin to deliberately kill oneself regardless of what you were trying to avoid, but can we please–and this is about the last of a dozen threads asking the same question–give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they were trying to escape death rather than leaping to their death? They were choosing a slim possible chance of life against a certainty of death. I simply cannot understand why, everytime this question is asked about 9-11, the automatic assumption about anyone who jumped is that they were committing suicide. Where does that knowledge come from I have to wonder.

 

[PerfectTiming]

You’re mistaken about this particular situation. We must never perform an objectively immoral act, but we’re not obligated to do all in our power to prevent every evil effect we foresee (that’s impossible anyway).

The action of those who jumped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 was entirely morally licit, because the object of their act - jumping from a window and/or away from fire - is morally neutral, and they did not will their deaths either as an end (obviously) or as a means (i.e. it wasn’t death that saved them from the flames, but rather physical distance from them).

So as long as the good effect desired is proportionate to the bad effect permitted, their action was okay, and the two were definitely proportionate, as they couldn’t have survived anyway.

The way I interpreted it was that the individuals were intending death, using death by one means to avoid death by another - as the OP said “would it be a sin to kill oneself to avoid a worse death?” The question does not refer to death as an unintended consequence of another act but to actively committing suicide. So in that understanding of the question, i stand by what I said.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

These people were murdered, I don’t care by fire, out the window or what. They did not come to work that morning with the intention of ending their lives, and just hadn’t decided yet on a method.

Suicide is not a moral issue here. It was not self-murder. They were killed by terrorists, whether forced by flames or panic out the window or not.

A more interesting theoretical question which probably did occur in those towers of hell: is it a sin to kill another?

You have a handgun. Your friend says, “There’s no escape. Please! Kill me and then take your own life to avoid the fire.”

Your friend says, “I want to jump, the fire is coming! I can’t jump, I’m too scared. Push me, I beg you.”

Or did you see some of the people jumped out the windows together, holding hands? Are you going to tell me one is culpable in the others death?

Suicide, piffle, that’s nothing in a case like 9/11. Most suicides are not really culpable on a daily basis simply due to psychiatric disturbance and drugs (legal or illegal). But at the WTC!?! Again, I say it’s simply murder by the terrorists, they bear all responsibility.

 

[utah_rose]

of course it would be a sin to deliberately kill oneself regardless of what you were trying to avoid, but can we please–and this is about the last of a dozen threads asking the same question–give these people the benefit of the doubt and assume they were trying to escape death rather than leaping to their death? They were choosing a slim possible chance of life against a certainty of death. I simply cannot understand why, everytime this question is asked about 9-11, the automatic assumption about anyone who jumped is that they were committing suicide. Where does that knowledge come from I have to wonder.

Yes, and besides that, how do you know a person’s mind? Perhaps some of them jumped in panic to get away from the fire, perhaps thinking irrationally there may have been something down there to break their fall. Firemen were there, so there was a possibility.

They may have even thought (again irrationally) that even though they fell they might have lived. To think it’s suicide, you would have to say that everyone, a mother with a child for example who jumped from a burning house to escape the fire was really going to commit suicide.

There have been incidents when for some reason a person did live, and I believe that maybe that was their motive. You couldn’t get out any other way!!!

 

[SonCatcher]

The singular example I recall (there may be others) deals with the principle of double effect. Say a person is dying of a terminal illness that causes excruciating pain. That person is prescribed morphine to deal with the pain. Over time, the drug becomes less effective so the patient needs to use ever-increasing amounts. Eventually, he will die either of the disease or of an overdose. if death turns out to be by overdose, the person killed himself. However, his life was likely shortened only slightly over natural death and he was only taking enough of the drug to deal with the pain.

Reading as I type, it is indeed iffy. However, it stands as the example that was given me.

As posed in the OP, however, it is clearly not the case.

 

[jsaldar]

Only God can judge and knows what these victims were feeling at that instant.

They didn’t wake up thinking of jumping off the twin towers to kill themselves. I can’t even imagine the suffering that these people went through. Imagine having nowhere to go, a blazing fire behind you and window at an incredible height. What would you do? Do you wait for the fire to consume you or do you jump and close your eyes? Either way is a horrible death.

A death that they weren’t expecting or planning for.

My prayers to all the victims of 9/11.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The way I interpreted it was that the individuals were intending death, using death by one means to avoid death by another - as the OP said “would it be a sin to kill oneself to avoid a worse death?”

Death by impact with the ground was not a means to their end of escaping painful fire in that situation.

Distance from the flames was the means. If by some miracle they had survived - fallen into a huge net or something - they still would have achieved their end of escaping the pain of fire. They didn’t need to die first in order to stop feeling pain. So death by impact with the ground was not a means to their end in this case.

The question does not refer to death as an unintended consequence of another act but to actively committing suicide. So in that understanding of the question, i stand by what I said.

And because of that, the question mischaracterized the situation.

Yes, and besides that, how do you know a person’s mind? Perhaps some of them jumped in panic to get away from the fire, perhaps thinking irrationally there may have been something down there to break their fall. Firemen were there, so there was a possibility.

Exactly.

Lady Marchmain’s reply above is spot-on, but even if we treat this action as the responsibility of the victims who jumped, it still remains that double effect shows that their action was not suicide. What they did was blameless.

 

[dje101]

Ok, some are saying that I was asking the wrong question.

Say, for the sake of argument, that a person were in a similar situation, faced with the end of their life and multiple ways that it could end.

How could they be in the wrong for choosing to have their life ended by a less painful way?

I hope this doesn’t get me banned, but I’ll say it anyways as this is a question that I’ve had for a long time. If I were faced with being burned alive, drowned, or shot in the head, I’m inclined to want the shot in the head.

Your thoughts?

Edit: Please bare with me as this whole “moral culpability” thing is a new topic for me.

 

[Warrior1979]

That’s still suicide.

Nope.

As others have noted, it’s instinct. Not only that, it’s the proper course of action. I can’t think of anyone in all of history that has survived several hours in a roaring fire. And that is without consideration of the subsequent building collapse. OTOH, people have actually survived falls of several miles.

So exactly how is choosing the scenario of a very slim chance of survival over the scenario of imminent death considered suicide?

 

[mcteague]

“Tis a far far better thing I do than I have ever done before…”

 

[Trishie]

A reminder of Church teaching regarding suicide:
Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding suicide, in response to God’s fifth Commandment.

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.
It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.
We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.
We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.
It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.
It is gravely contrary to the just love of self.
It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations.
Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

---

 

[Trishie]

Your second question comes close to asking if ‘mercy killing’ is okay.

From the** Catechism of the Catholic Church**:

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons.
It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment.
Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted.
The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.
The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable
Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity.
As such it should be encouraged.

 

[mcteague]

Just to be provocative, I have to ask. As he knew his actions would lead to his death, did Jesus commit suicide?