Not analogous at all, unless someone is likely to shoot or intern you for not being a firefighter.
If you choose to be a firefighter entirely of your free will, you must do it to the best of your ability regardless of the building. Schindler had far fewer choices. In addition, a firefighter is reducing distruction, whereas an armaments manufacturer is increasing it. Really, I don’t think the situations are even similar.
–Jen
Thanks for responding Jen! Per your:
Paragraph 1: Yes. Schindler was amazing in risking that. And an American firefighter who similarly decided that his “duties per his contract” did not extend unto – “doing one’s utmost to insure a life-taking enterprise ran at top speed” – would not be shot. Interned? Hmm. Not a Nazi concentration camp, but jail would be a possible risk for a scrupling firefighter (if caught).
Sentence 2: Yes. The buildings have done nothing wrong. Firefighters are not drafted, they apply. Doing one’s best to fight fires is generally the right thing to do.
A firefighter is “reducing destruction”
- In
this theoretical case that is not so clear. Reducing the destruction to a place “dedicated to destruction” - could be saving a PLACE where harm to PEOPLE (created by God, in His image, with souls etc., etc.) would take place (again) but
this time due to one’s own contributions.
That could be a crisis of conscience for a good person. Render unto Caesar or to God?
Generally BOTH if it can be done. Occasionally a choice is inescapable. Then:
Go with the first commandment (because God is perfect and Caesar might be wrong)?
Go with Caesar because you are here and not in heaven (whatever ungodly side effects ensue)?
Do neither? Quit? Pretend to be in a catatonic state?
There seems to be a lot of support for Caesar (worldly duties prevailing) on this thread so far. And Jesus does say “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars”. Are all worldly priorities Caesar’s (the state, one’s boss, one’s contract?) or is there a point at which, like Peter teaching in the Temple in violation of Caiaphas’ orders, one decides:
“It is better to follow God than man!”?
http://dir.coolclips.com/Services/F.../fireman_saving_a_baby_CoolClips_vc027703.jpg
Caption: When a burning building has LIFE inside of it - even a pet - a firefighter’s ethical priority is …
“Save the LIFE before the building” – both if possible (But IN that order)
!
What IS similar in the Schindler/firefighter analogy would be:
A technical breaking of a law or (in the case of the firefighter) its spirit. For a higher purpose.
Using ones power of the moment to prevent future **evils **- that will surely resume more quickly or continue “more efficiently” - to the best of one’s abilities vs. (replace “prevent” with “promote” or “enable” - for that is the almost sure consequence).
Schindler did SOME of his job, and looked good doing it (THAT part wasn’t contributive to the evil). Delivering deliberately defective parts
on time (well – dishonest on the less important level). A firefighter in charge who decided to make every close call in favor of neighboring properties versus the burning one - might even be LESS dishonest than Schindler shipping bad parts as he would be protecting SOME properties better while passively ruling that saving a baby killing factory was not as important as saving a neighboring home or better business.
Triage: Where Ethical Priorities Collide.
At hospitals the triage department decides who gets emergency help FIRST. This should be done with the highest ethics - but if one patient is FIRST another is LATER. Sometimes BOTH can’t be saved. Sometimes NEITHER can. The one with power to decide must do THAT to the best of their ability.
And one need not use “help the worst person first” as the tiebreaker. e.g. A drug lord is wounded in a shootout and is in WORSE danger of dying than … a woman in labor with a breached baby. As a Catholic (if it’s me) try to save them both. Who first? Considerations:
**The mother and child - ** per the number of people helped, a better claim upon the state’s services per being non-criminals, and their innocence regarding a
natural need for medical care.
OR
The drug lord - per his danger of going to hell imminently if he loses his life whereas the mother and child if lost will more likely go to heaven? *< As a state employee this *shouldn’t **enter into triage - but a spiritual person might consider it.
The Question proposed by
Wild Catholic in post 1 is an interesting ethical one:
Is it better to save innocent babies than a “bad building” if you have the power?
Might cause some to answer differently than if the question is put …
Can a firefighter decide not to do his/her job if a conscience qualm is involved?
I MUST say that it’s not often I see a “situation ethics” puzzle proposed – that is not proposed in a way leading toward “justifying that an evil can be done” in opposition to a Catholic Church teaching. Wild Catholic’s example rather wonders if someone might support a Church teaching (oppose abortion) more than a civic duty if the two come into conflict.
