When is it NOT a sin to kill onself?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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

Sorry for the confusion: it’s not that you were “asking the wrong question.” The situation you bring up is a perfectly valid one to discuss, so I don’t think it was the question or the scenario that was invalid, but rather characterizing it as “killing oneself to avoid a worse death,” which in the example of 9/11, the people who leapt from the windows were actually not guilty of according to all competent moral theology.

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.

Without a concrete hypothetical, it’s a little difficult to address your question. Basically, it depends: permitting your death to occur through your own otherwise morally neutral action - or through inaction - for proportionately grave reasons (i.e. avoiding a more painful death) is morally acceptable.

But actually killing oneself - in other words, committing an act whose very object is self-destruction - is never acceptable.

I will take two examples. They’re going to be over-the-top, because I’m not good at doing realistic scenarios. They’ll be clear, though:

(1) Let’s say you have access to two rooms only - no way out. In thirty seconds the door between them will shut, trapping you in whatever room you’re currently in. Once that happens, one room will be flooded with water completely. The other will explode.

If you stay in the one that will explode because that is a less painful death, that is morally acceptable. You haven’t killed yourself, you’ve merely permitted your own death to occur for proportionately grave reasons.

(2) This one’s from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Major spoilers from the last novel follow.

Albus Dumbledore, knowing he is dying a slow death because of an evil curse, desiring to cement his spy Severus Snape’s position of privilege inside the bad guy’s camp, desiring to avoid a more painful death at the hands of the real bad guys, and desiring to save a boy from being forced to murder him, secretly asks Severus Snape to murder him when he’s captured.

This will cement Voldemort’s trust of Snape, save Draco from having to kill Albus himself, and save Albus himself from a more painful death by slow curse, torture, or werewolf savaging.

Despite how pragmatically effective this plan is, it was immoral and essentially constituted assisted suicide, since he asked Snape to commit an act whose object itself was direct killing/murder, and since he willed his own death as a means to the above ends.

Does that make sense?

 

[SonCatcher]

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

ignored

 

[runningdude]

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

Jesus did nothing to actually cause His death. He was guilty of neither crime nor sin. He was betrayed by a Disciple, and wrongly executed for blasphemy (claiming to be God, which in fact, He was). He was murdered, and you really can’t be guilty of your own murder.

Had Jesus actually conspired with Judas to bring about His own execution, as some people of a “Da Vince Code” mindset sometimes suggest, that would be a different story. It would be “suicide by manipulation”, and Jesus would be guilty of His own life.

However, Our Father used His Son’s unjust death to redeem Humanity as a perfect Sacrifice, fulfilling the Old Testament Covenant. He sent His Son to die for us, but the Father is the master of Life and Death, so that is, was, and always will be, His prerogative.

 

[dje101]

Sorry for the confusion: it’s not that you were “asking the wrong question.” The situation you bring up is a perfectly valid one to discuss, so I don’t think it was the question or the scenario that was invalid, but rather characterizing it as “killing oneself to avoid a worse death,” which in the example of 9/11, the people who leapt from the windows were actually not guilty of according to all competent moral theology.

Without a concrete hypothetical, it’s a little difficult to address your question. Basically, it depends: permitting your death to occur through your own otherwise morally neutral action - or through inaction - for proportionately grave reasons (i.e. avoiding a more painful death) is morally acceptable.

But actually killing oneself - in other words, committing an act whose very object is self-destruction - is never acceptable.

I will take two examples. They’re going to be over-the-top, because I’m not good at doing realistic scenarios. They’ll be clear, though:

(1) Let’s say you have access to two rooms only - no way out. In thirty seconds the door between them will shut, trapping you in whatever room you’re currently in. Once that happens, one room will be flooded with water completely. The other will explode.

If you stay in the one that will explode because that is a less painful death, that is morally acceptable. You haven’t killed yourself, you’ve merely permitted your own death to occur for proportionately grave reasons.

(2) This one’s from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Major spoilers from the last novel follow.

Albus Dumbledore, knowing he is dying a slow death because of an evil curse, desiring to cement his spy Severus Snape’s position of privilege inside the bad guy’s camp, desiring to avoid a more painful death at the hands of the real bad guys, and desiring to save a boy from being forced to murder him, secretly asks Severus Snape to murder him when he’s captured.

This will cement Voldemort’s trust of Snape, save Draco from having to kill Albus himself, and save Albus himself from a more painful death by slow curse, torture, or werewolf savaging.

Despite how pragmatically effective this plan is, it was immoral and essentially constituted assisted suicide, since he asked Snape to commit an act whose object itself was direct killing/murder, and since he willed his own death as a means to the above ends.

Does that make sense?

Its making more sense now. Thank you for the clarification and really excellent examples.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Its making more sense now. Thank you for the clarification and really excellent examples.

You’re welcome. I suggest you learn the principle of double effect so you can assess tricky moral scenarios for yourself. If you want, I’ll explain it briefly:

This principle shows how to analyze the morality of an action that you know will have some bad effect. To use it you must know the three components of a moral act:

(1) object - what most people think of as “the act itself.” It’s the “objective” part, hence why it’s called the act’s “object.”
(2) intention - the motive or reason for doing the act
(3) circumstances - any relevant circumstances that affect the morality of the act.

For an act to be moral all three components must be good or at least neutral. If even one component is bad, that makes the act itself morally wrong. For instance, a husband and wife make love… but in the middle of the street. The act may (and in this case does) have a good object (the sex act) and intention (let’s say neither is using the other as a mere means to pleasure), but one itty bitty little *circumstance *is enough to make their action wrong.

Double Effect shows how you can use these to assess a tricky moral scenario:

(1) The object of the act committed must be morally good or at least neutral.

If the act is objectively immoral, you’re done. No need to assess further; the action is wrong.

(2)The moral agent, even though he foresees an evil effect, must not will the evil effect himself, either as an end or as a means.

This is the trickiest part. The act will either cause both effects (the good one and the bad one), or the good effect will cause the bad effect, or the bad effect will cause the good effect:

Action —> good effect and bad effect
Action —> good effect —> bad effect
Action —> bad effect -----> good effect

If it’s the third case - the bad effect causes the good effect - then the action is morally wrong, because the moral agent has willed something evil (as a means).

(3) The circumstances must be grave enough to justify permitting the foreseen evil.

On this one you just have to take each case as it comes and use common sense.

I’ll illustrate double effect’s application with a non-death related scenario:

You really need some more money. You have property to rent, but the interested party has communicated to you that he plans on renting it in order to open a strip club. Is it morally right to rent this property to him?

(1) The object of the act - renting property - is fine. It meets the first criterion.

(2a) You really wish it weren’t going to be a strip club. So you therefore don’t will the evil effect as an end. (If you are secretly glad that it will be a strip club, you do will the evil effect as an end and renting the property fails double effect because your intention is morally corrupt)

(2b) The evil effect is not a means to the good effect - if this person changed his mind and opened a bookstore or something instead, you’d still get your money. So you’re not willing the evil effect as a means.

(3) Are the circumstances grave enough to rent this property to this man?

It depends. How badly do you need money? Will you use it merely for extra comforts? Do you have dependents like children? Is your family starving? Would this be the only strip club in your community, and therefore a new lightning rod for immoral activity? Or would it be, unfortunately, merely one more among many and not make a real difference? Would your action go unnoticed or give scandal? Do you have any other offers for the property, even though they may be willing to pay less?

---

You get the point. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be morally licit to rent property to a man planning on building a strip club.

Please note that just because an action meets the first two criteria, that doesn’t ensure it can be justified. Sometimes the circumstances just cannot be grave enough.

For instance, what if this man wanting to rent the property intends to build not a strip club but rather an abortion mill? Technically the action of renting it to him still meets the first two criteria, but I seriously doubt any realistic scenario could ever include circumstances grave enough to allow the action to pass double effect.

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to do my best to address them as well.

 

[Prophesy]

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?

The thing here is that the victims of 9/11 didn’t want to kill themselves, they wanted to flee the fire.

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.

Now this is interesting, not only are you condemning them, you’re condemning them based on their “intent” to kill themselves. I’d argue that their intent wasn’t to kill themselves.

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.

Thank you for your post Trishie, this is a great response!

Now, for something to be a sin, there are three components:
Object, Intent and Circumstances.

The object here isn’t to kill themselves, otherwise they could have stabbed themselves or choked themselves, etc.
The object here is fleeing the fire. They wanted to escape, fire is nasty, it was amazingly hot, massive amounts of particulates in the smoke, a horrendous thing to face, let alone being confined to the such a high building.
How easy is it to think “It’s a high jump, but something, just something, might break my fall.”

I doubt these people committing suicide for hatred of the creation of God, or for a hatred to exist in this world under God.

As I’ve come to understand, the sin in suicide is pride.

So tell me, was running from the fire in an 80 story building, and jumping as your means of escape, was that a prideful action?

-Prophesy

 

[copperblade]

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!).

Another great response…

 

[StevenFrancis]

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?

I think this would have to fall under God’s realm. I don’t believe anyone here, or anywhere else could answer this question. All I can say with certainty is that God’s judgement is just. We have no way of knowing what each of these individuals goes through in their time of judgement. Suicide, like any other man made decision about ending life, is unnatural and disordered. I think the gray areas must by their very nature be trusted to God’s perfect judgement and mercy. If you believe in God, you must believe that he is capable of discerning the motives of a person, and whether or not they conform to His very own creation.

 

[dje101]

You’re welcome. I suggest you learn the principle of double effect so you can assess tricky moral scenarios for yourself. If you want, I’ll explain it briefly:

This principle shows how to analyze the morality of an action that you know will have some bad effect. To use it you must know the three components of a moral act:

(1) object - what most people think of as “the act itself.” It’s the “objective” part, hence why it’s called the act’s “object.”
(2) intention - the motive or reason for doing the act
(3) circumstances - any relevant circumstances that affect the morality of the act.

For an act to be moral all three components must be good or at least neutral. If even one component is bad, that makes the act itself morally wrong. For instance, a husband and wife make love… but in the middle of the street. The act may (and in this case does) have a good object (the sex act) and intention (let’s say neither is using the other as a mere means to pleasure), but one itty bitty little *circumstance *is enough to make their action wrong.

Double Effect shows how you can use these to assess a tricky moral scenario:

(1) The object of the act committed must be morally good or at least neutral.

If the act is objectively immoral, you’re done. No need to assess further; the action is wrong.

(2)The moral agent, even though he foresees an evil effect, must not will the evil effect himself, either as an end or as a means.

This is the trickiest part. The act will either cause both effects (the good one and the bad one), or the good effect will cause the bad effect, or the bad effect will cause the good effect:

Action —> good effect and bad effect
Action —> good effect —> bad effect
Action —> bad effect -----> good effect

If it’s the third case - the bad effect causes the good effect - then the action is morally wrong, because the moral agent has willed something evil (as a means).

(3) The circumstances must be grave enough to justify permitting the foreseen evil.

On this one you just have to take each case as it comes and use common sense.

I’ll illustrate double effect’s application with a non-death related scenario:

You really need some more money. You have property to rent, but the interested party has communicated to you that he plans on renting it in order to open a strip club. Is it morally right to rent this property to him?

(1) The object of the act - renting property - is fine. It meets the first criterion.

(2a) You really wish it weren’t going to be a strip club. So you therefore don’t will the evil effect as an end. (If you are secretly glad that it will be a strip club, you do will the evil effect as an end and renting the property fails double effect because your intention is morally corrupt)

(2b) The evil effect is not a means to the good effect - if this person changed his mind and opened a bookstore or something instead, you’d still get your money. So you’re not willing the evil effect as a means.

(3) Are the circumstances grave enough to rent this property to this man?

It depends. How badly do you need money? Will you use it merely for extra comforts? Do you have dependents like children? Is your family starving? Would this be the only strip club in your community, and therefore a new lightning rod for immoral activity? Or would it be, unfortunately, merely one more among many and not make a real difference? Would your action go unnoticed or give scandal? Do you have any other offers for the property, even though they may be willing to pay less?

---

You get the point. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be morally licit to rent property to a man planning on building a strip club.

Please note that just because an action meets the first two criteria, that doesn’t ensure it can be justified. Sometimes the circumstances just cannot be grave enough.

For instance, what if this man wanting to rent the property intends to build not a strip club but rather an abortion mill? Technically the action of renting it to him still meets the first two criteria, but I seriously doubt any realistic scenario could ever include circumstances grave enough to allow the action to pass double effect.

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to do my best to address them as well.

Thanks for that explanation. Then how does the death penalty pass this? You said that for an act to be moral, all three components must be good or at least neutral. The very act of the death penalty is killing a person, which is wrong, right?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thanks for that explanation. Then how does the death penalty pass this? You said that for an act to be moral, all three components must be good or at least neutral. The very act of the death penalty is killing a person, which is wrong, right?

You know, I’m not sure. The Catechism explains that “Church teaching does not exclude recourse to the death penalty” if the circumstances are grave enough to justify it (I’m paraphrasing), but I’m not sure how that works.

I used to assume that it simply doesn’t count as murder if it’s done by a proper authority in a lawful manner, but I could be wrong since you’re right - the object of the act does include direct killing, doesn’t it?

I will defer to others more familiar than I with older Church teaching on the death penalty. How is this not a violation of the commandment that we not kill?