Why is killing not always considered evil?

[fhansen]

That is well and good, and does not seem to be in conflict with anything I said. Further, the conclusion you sought to draw from it earlier - that acts causing death (“killing”) ought to be all be intrinsically evil - is incorrect on the facts. Even CCC2258 which you quote qualifies the objectionable act - to directly kill innocent lives.

I understand that-and I’m working on it. I just believe its critically important that in all we think and do we uphold and maintain the sanctity of human life, in the same way that we must continously strive to hold truth at the highest level.

And at the same time I acknowledge that, in actual practice, I would most likely feel little pangs of guilt for taking a life in defending innocent life and, probably, for lying to defend innocent life as well, compared to wantonly doing either. But I am at least seeing the differences better now.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Church does not teach error. It identifies acts iccasioning death wihich are not intrinsically evil. I’m open to any resolution within those facts. I see at least a couple.

I see nothing erroneous in holding that killing is the direct slaying of any any human life, innocent or guilty, and is always evil.

This position may be in advance of what the Church explicitly teaches but it is implicitly there even in cases of Capital Punishment … which on this basis may no longer be justified in modern times.

Direct slaying of the guilty (ie killing) is always wrong.
CP can only be truly justified by the principle of double effect … just like self defence … rendering the action only indirectly purposed.

 

[Rau]

I see nothing erroneous in holding that killing is the direct slaying of any any human life, innocent or guilty, and is always evil.

I think that statement may be inadequate. Eg. With the intention [as an End] of protecting myself, I may deliberately choose as a means to kill the assailant. The physical evil in the 2nd font is permitted as a means. Of course the Intention in the first font - the intended end - must not be the death of the attacker - and the balance of consequences must be good. So, I think you may have to modify your definition slightly. Aquinas addressed this, though I don’t have a reference for it.

This position may be in advance of what the Church explicitly teaches but it is implicitly there even in cases of Capital Punishment … which on this basis may no longer be justified in modern times.

It’s cool to be in advance, so long as what has gone before does not need to change! The Church’s changing attitude to CP is properly viewed as a change in prudential judgement (pertaining to circumstances - ie. what is needed for protection of society, and to achieve the other purposes of CP, in current times) and a heightened focus on the value of every life. However, CP has not been nor can ever become intrinsically evil.

…CP can only be truly justified by the principle of double effect … just like self defence … rendering the action only indirectly purposed.

Analysing self-defence and CP analogously is reasonable.

 

[Rau]

…Analysing self-defence and CP analogously is reasonable.

Mind you, that statement sits well enough these days, but I’m not sure if that would always have been apparent. In times past, the doctrine of CP seemed to focus more on the objective of redressing the disorder, the “just punishment” purpose, rather than defence of the community.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think that statement may be inadequate. Eg. With the intention [as an End] of protecting myself, I may deliberately choose as a means to kill the assailant. The physical evil in the 2nd font is permitted as a means. Of course the Intention in the first font - the intended end - must not be the death of the attacker - and the balance of consequences must be good. So, I think you may have to modify your definition slightly. Aquinas addressed this, though I don’t have a reference for it.
It’s cool to be in advance, so long as what has gone before does not need to change! The Church’s changing attitude to CP is properly viewed as a change in prudential judgement (pertaining to circumstances - ie. what is needed for protection of society, and to achieve the other purposes of CP, in current times) and a heightened focus on the value of every life. However, CP has not been nor can ever become intrinsically evil.

Analysing self-defence and CP analogously is reasonable.

Re the first point you essentially agreed with me that self defence is justified by not directly purposing the death of the attacker. Yet you began by somehow disagreeing. So I am somewhat confused re the point you make…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mind you, that statement sits well enough these days, but I’m not sure if that would always have been apparent. In times past, the doctrine of CP seemed to focus more on the objective of redressing the disorder, the “just punishment” purpose, rather than defence of the community.

I agree. Aquinas is often wheeled out to support this view.
In fact a close reading of Aquinas shows his view is more nuanced and ambivalent on balancing just Punishment versus the good of the commonweal when it comes to the ultimate Punishment of death.
A massive closed thread with Ender took place on this very point some months back if you are interested in all the incatricies.

 

[Rau]

I agree. Aquinas is often wheeled out to support this view.
In fact a close reading of Aquinas shows his view is more nuanced and ambivalent on balancing just Punishment versus the good of the commonweal when it comes to the ultimate Punishment of death.
A massive closed thread with Ender took place on this very point some months back if you are interested in all the incatricies.

I am familiar with it.

 

[Rau]

Re the first point you essentially agreed with me that self defence is justified by **not directly purposing **the death of the attacker. Yet you began by somehow disagreeing. So I am somewhat confused re the point you make…

I am a little unsure what you mean by “not directly purposing”. If you use the word “direct”, then the expression would ordinarily be a reference to the 2nd font. But in the example I gave you, the chosen act is ordered to the death of the assailant [NB: Not an innocent!], for that is what is chosen - thus the act is directly intending death (as a Means). This (physical evil) is allowed, in a moral act. So contrary to your statement, there is no need to rely on “not directly purposing” the death of the assailant - I may in fact do so while acting morally.

Your statement that began this line of discussion was: " …the direct slaying of any human life, innocent or guilty, …is always evil".

If by “evil”, you mean “an immoral act” or “intrinsically evil act” - then I think I have shown this to be incorrect in the scenario I presented. [You’d be correct if the person killed were an innocent.] If on the other hand you simply meant that there is evil present, then I would simplify your statement to say that there is evil in every (unnatural) death. But this does not necessarily condemn a relevant “human act” as immoral.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am a little unsure what you mean by “not directly purposing”. If you use the word “direct”, then the expression would ordinarily be a reference to the 2nd font. But in the example I gave you, the chosen act is ordered to the death of the assailant [NB: Not an innocent!], for that is what is chosen - thus the act is directly intending death (as a Means). This (physical evil) is allowed, in a moral act. So contrary to your statement, there is no need to rely on “not directly purposing” the death of the assailant - I may in fact do so while acting morally.

Your statement that began this line of discussion was: " …the direct slaying of any human life, innocent or guilty, …is always evil".

If by “evil”, you mean “an immoral act” or “intrinsically evil act” - then I think I have shown this to be incorrect in the scenario I presented. [You’d be correct if the person killed were an innocent.] If on the other hand you simply meant that there is evil present, then I would simplify your statement to say that there is evil in every (unnatural) death. But this does not necessarily condemn a relevant “human act” as immoral.

If your example is self defence…then even the CCC appears to confirm my position doesn’t it? You may not purpose the death of your assailant even if you likely know the force you must use to defend will do that.

Yes English is not a good language for distinguishing the different acts of will involved in this scenario.

 

[Rau]

If your example is self defence…then even the CCC appears to confirm my position doesn’t it? You may not purpose the death of your assailant even if you likely know the force you must use to defend will do that.

Your position is as per your statement " …the direct slaying of any human life, innocent or guilty, …is always evil".

Assuming you are using the word “direct” as it is used in theological discussions, and on the understanding that you intend no moral meaning in the word “slaying” (ie. purely physical act), then this is not a position taught by the Church - neither explicitly nor implicitly.

Acts in a just war, and the act of self defence or defence of others may involve a direct slaying of aggressors, and this can be permissible. Capital Punishment involves a direct slaying of the guilty, and this is allowed. [See also my last post.]

Perhaps you have misused language slightly, and by “direct” you meant to refer to the Intention (1st font). But we already know an evil Intention (Death as an End) makes an act immoral - even the death of the “guilty”. Nothing new there. As the CCC says:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. (Intentional here is a reference to the 1st font.)

If we remove the “intentional” from the description of the act, then we are left with an act described as a “direct killing” - which is certainly wrong if the killed is an “innocent”, but not necessarily otherwise.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your position is as per your statement " …the direct slaying of any human life, innocent or guilty, …is always evil".

Assuming you are using the word “direct” as it is used in theological discussions, and on the understanding that you intend no moral meaning in the word “slaying” (ie. purely physical act), then this is not a position taught by the Church - neither explicitly nor implicitly.

Acts in a just war, and the act of self defence or defence of others may involve a direct slaying of aggressors, and this can be permissible. Capital Punishment involves a direct slaying of the guilty, and this is allowed. [See also my last post.]

Perhaps you have misused language slightly, and by “direct” you meant to refer to the Intention (1st font). But we already know an evil Intention (Death as an End) makes an act immoral - even the death of the “guilty”. Nothing new there. As the CCC says:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. (Intentional here is a reference to the 1st font.)

If we remove the “intentional” from the description of the act, then we are left with an act described as a “direct killing” - which is certainly wrong if the killed is an “innocent”, but not necessarily otherwise.

Yet the CCC clearly states, re your self-defence case, we may not directly purpose the death of our assailant even if we must deliberately kill him. We purpose the preservation of our own life or that of our family.

Obviously there is a subtle moral distinction to be made between “deliberate” and “direct”.

The moral interior act of the will and those acts of lesser human faculties are to be distinguished when it comes to commanding the exterior bodily action of slaying when it comes to self-defence.

 

[Rau]

Yet the CCC clearly states, re your self-defence case, we may not directly purpose the death of our assailant even if we must deliberately kill him. We purpose the preservation of our own life or that of our family.

Of course, if you refer to font 1 - we can’t pursue death (or any physical harm) as an End. Nothing new here.

Obviously there is a subtle moral distinction to be made between “deliberate” and “direct”.

The moral interior act of the will and those acts of lesser human faculties are to be distinguished when it comes to commanding the exterior bodily action of slaying when it comes to self-defence.

I think I’ll stand by my last two posts. You’ve not directly addressed, or raised any objection to, the statements therein.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Of course, if you refer to font 1 - we can’t pursue death (or any physical harm) as an End. Nothing new here.

I think I’ll stand by my last two posts. You’ve not directly addressed, or raised any objection to, the statements therein.

I really have no idea what your opposition is to my statement that directly intending the death even of the guilty is immoral?

The CCC clearly states this in the case of self-defense and its an implicit principle in more recent Magisterial formulations re Capital Punishment.

If you somehow see the CCCs summary 3 font model as contradicting this I suggest the issue is the highly simplified model which easily gets misunderstood on the finer points. It is of course from Aquinas who devotes many pages of his Summa to this deep understanding of the moral act. One cannot expect to comprend it fully from an English translation of the CCC or without understanding his philosophy of the different powers of the soul at work in human deliberation and action.

 

[Rau]

I really have no idea what your opposition is to my statement that directly intending the death even of the guilty is immoral?

I have NO opposition to THAT statement Blue! It is always immoral to Intend (as an end, first font) harm to anyone. That should be clear from my recent posts. The difficulty was with your previous statements, which I treated in my recent posts, and to which you have raised no objection.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have NO opposition to THAT statement Blue! It is always immoral to Intend (as an end, first font) harm to anyone. That should be clear from my recent posts. The difficulty was with your previous statements, which I treated in my recent posts, and to which you have raised no objection.

OK.
But what does the following mean?

Assuming you are using the word “direct” as it is used in theological discussions, and on the understanding that you intend no moral meaning in the word “slaying” (ie. purely physical act), then this isnota position taught by the Church.

 

[Rau]

Blue, you asserted:

*“the direct slaying of any human life, innocent or guilty, … is always evil”. [Post #220]*By these words (which you suggested were “in advance of the Church”) you surely were not meaning to say that an act “Intending” (as an End, first font) the above outcome is always evil, since that would be an elementary and obvious assertion - not at all “in advance of the Church”. [It is clearly understood that moral acts require 3 good fonts and Intending (first font) harm to anyone, including the “guilty”, immediately condemns the act as immoral.]

The alternative interpretation is that you were wanting to say that choosing to take a life “as a means”, is always evil. However, we know that such an assertion is simply false, as I explained in post #221, #226 and others. My remarks about the meaning of “slaying” were to confirm that your use of that word incorporated no moral content. For a slaying to constitute only physical evil and not moral evil (in the 2nd font), we needed to be clear that “slaying” referred to a pre-moral act - purely physical.

Therefore, in regard to your statement first quoted above, it is either:

• an elementary observation that an evil intention makes the act immoral, in accord with Church teaching, certainly not in advance of same;
  OR
• an erroneous statement.