Would it have been sinful to have assassinated Hitler/Stalin?

[blaskoman]

I believe that assassination is murder plain and simple. However, let’s imagine that someone actually was able to have successfully assassinated a Hitler, a Stalin or some other ruthless dictator in his early years in power. Countless thousands if not millions of lives may have been spared. Would assassination have been justified then?

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Opening quote from official source

"2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65 "

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Introducing the subject
I take no viewpoint here.

I will show the different degrees apparent, so as to show where the killing of others is permissable in general, by authority, also, self defense also is ligitimate reason to kill another within correct context, but I assume you understand that, and so, I will try to explain the answer.

The writings of Thomas Aquinas on “Murder” SSP Q 64

State his views on the destruction of what he terms a “Sinner” as regards the theology of his period, for the “betterment”, or preservation of a culture, or society.

"I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6). "

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

However, he further states

"I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. "

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article3

Further, even the clerics cannot do such

"I answer that, It is unlawful for clerics to kill, for two reasons. First, because they are chosen for the ministry of the altar, whereon is represented the Passion of Christ slain “Who, when He was struck did not strike [Vulgate: ‘When He suffered, He threatened not’]” (1 Peter 2:23). Therefore it becomes not clerics to strike or kill: for ministers should imitate their master, according to Sirach 10:2, “As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers.” The other reason is because clerics are entrusted with the ministry of the New Law, wherein no punishment of death or of bodily maiming is appointed: wherefore they should abstain from such things in order that they may be fitting ministers of the New Testament. "
(same site-newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article6)

So, finally, it could be considered legitimate within context, or a foreign agent could perhaps legitimately do so, if there is danger to souls or lives, however, this is never left up to the individual, or only in some circumstances, whereby the church demands certain actions not usually be done, but as to these cases, when these persons become enemies of the systems they entered, e.g. democracy should protect people, Stalin got in by force, then there may be a case for force.

In either case, I by no means encourage such action, but from the top quote, it may be justified, given correct circumstance as far as the church stands, but this may differ in regards other views.

E.g. If such a person where to kill your friends, or persons, this may be exception to the rule, as seen above, but I will allow others to build on my research.

Of course, there could be other ways to achieve good results, but doubtful with these cases.

Conclusion

This is theoretical of course, and I am not in a position to freely comment on this matter, use the sources and others to decide on this theoretical moral dillema, as to “some ruthless” dictator, we must remember our our fallable state, and see that diplomacy is first attempted unless unachievable, then sanctions and other things, I still do not think this is for individuals to decide, according to doctrine, but I have not got the answer, I asked the same about the IRA, and was not answered, it is hard to determine the correct action.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Of course the church says it condemns the acts of IRA, so it is more applicable to resistance forces against Nazis, still, it is a hard question, and should be asked of apologists, keep me in the loop.

 

[als10062008]

It would be sinful to kill him/them. Only God should be able to determine when a person’s time is. Jesus calls us to be peacemakers, and to not rely on violence.

 

[KingAlfred]

I believe that assassination is murder plain and simple. However, let’s imagine that someone actually was able to have successfully assassinated a Hitler, a Stalin or some other ruthless dictator in his early years in power. Countless thousands if not millions of lives may have been spared. Would assassination have been justified then?

Yes…I think killing them would have fallen in the ‘Just War’ category. They were demons.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, Catholic Social Teaching allows for the direct targeting of an enemy combatant during time of war. It is acceptable to aim at an ememy and to kill him.

Both Hitler and Stalin, as Commanders in Chief, were military targets and thus it is moral to specifically target them and to kill.

Here is the Council of Trent ( on the 5th Commandment)

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I believe that assassination is murder plain and simple. However, let’s imagine that someone actually was able to have successfully assassinated a Hitler, a Stalin or some other ruthless dictator in his early years in power. Countless thousands if not millions of lives may have been spared. Would assassination have been justified then?

It depends on what you’re asking.

On one hand, given that none of us can travel in time or have supernatural knowledge of future events, then there would be no way we could justify killing anyone because of what we believe they may do in the future. Nobody knew at the early point of Hitler’s career that he would be able to successfully accomplish any part of the atrocities he had planned-not even Hitler (he hoped he would, but didn’t know he’d be able to do what he did).

On the other hand, if you’re asking if it would have been morally acceptable to assassinate Hitler, or some other such figure, after he began the actual process that would inevitably result in the commission of those acts, then that may be a morally acceptable act, if your primary intention in killing him was to stop the process that would result in the deaths of all those people, according to the principle of double effect someone detailed earlier.

I think another way to pose the question is to ask whether anyone alive today is able to filter through all the present day political rhetoric we are hearing from political and religious leaders promising harm against large groups of people, and determine, with 100% accuracy, which one of those leaders is going to follow through with those threats.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Oscar has it right when he points out the question is about killing Hitler with knowledge of his future actions. Such a thing can not happen inn any real situation.

As a sort of “what if” this question seems harmless enough. The danger in this discussion is, once having decided that it would have been just to kill hitler, to apply it to any leader that we consider Hitler-like or Stalin-like.

I am not accusing the OP of having this development as the hidden agenda of the post, but I do think that there are those that would exploit mere conjecture and use it as a premise to further their arguments in support of killing leaders that are alive today.

 

[Shredderbeam]

blaskoman:

I believe that assassination is murder plain and simple. However, let’s imagine that someone actually was able to have successfully assassinated a Hitler, a Stalin or some other ruthless dictator in his early years in power. Countless thousands if not millions of lives may have been spared. Would assassination have been justified then?

Assassination presumes that the end justifies the means. Speaking in strictly logical terms, I would say that assassination would be unjustified, but personally, I would have no problem with the person who volunteered to kill them. I might even volunteer myself (were it possible).

 

[po18guy]

I believe that assassination is murder plain and simple. However, let’s imagine that someone actually was able to have successfully assassinated a Hitler, a Stalin or some other ruthless dictator in his early years in power. Countless thousands if not millions of lives may have been spared. Would assassination have been justified then?

Just as much as any abortion would be justified. Once you start down the slippery slope, you become a Hitler or Stalin. One murder or a million gets you eternal damnation. We can’t go there. We have to trust God, who is in charge of all things.

 

[Shredderbeam]

po18guy:

Just as much as any abortion would be justified. Once you start down the slippery slope, you become a Hitler or Stalin. One murder or a million gets you eternal damnation. We can’t go there. We have to trust God, who is in charge of all things.

Slippery slope logical fallacy.

Certainly, we can find cases which are sticky and awkward, where the moral action is not clearly defined, but here at the extreme, I would not find it immoral to take two lives to prevent them from taking tens of millions (at the very least, I’d have the gratitude of those masses I saved).

 

[po18guy]

Slippery slope logical fallacy.

Certainly, we can find cases which are sticky and awkward, where the moral action is not clearly defined, but here at the extreme, I would not find it immoral to take two lives to prevent them from taking tens of millions (at the very least, I’d have the gratitude of those masses I saved).

Well, you are riding in the same boat with Hitler and Stalin then. They killed, you killed. A difference only of degree. Murderers, all.

If there was no God, sure, kill them. However, in a Godless world, you would likely be killed long before you got to them. You must be absolutely correct in your denial of God. If you are wrong, you condemn yourself.

 

[Shredderbeam]

po18guy:

Well, you are riding in the same boat with Hitler and Stalin then. They killed, you killed. A difference only of degree. Murderers, all.

Although the intention would probably be a bit different.

 

[tm30]

Just as much as any abortion would be justified. Once you start down the slippery slope, you become a Hitler or Stalin. One murder or a million gets you eternal damnation. We can’t go there. We have to trust God, who is in charge of all things.

Very tough question…

I would question whether their murderous actions forfeit entitlement to their God-given power. As a threat to humanity en masse, I would argue that they’ve relinquished any moral authority to hold a position of power, and removal by force would be appropriate. That said… no one ever called for a hit on Nero…

 

[childofmary1143]

Just as much as any abortion would be justified. Once you start down the slippery slope, you become a Hitler or Stalin. One murder or a million gets you eternal damnation. We can’t go there. We have to trust God, who is in charge of all things.

If killing Hitler would have been wrong, then shouldn’t it also apply to his soldiers too? Why would it be okay to kill his soldiers and not him?

If it would have been murder to kill his soldiers, then the Allied troops were committing murder?

I think you have assumed facts not in evidence. There is a just war and I would certainly think that it was a just war for World War 2.

 

[po18guy]

If killing Hitler would have been wrong, then shouldn’t it also apply to his soldiers too? Why would it be okay to kill his soldiers and not him?

If it would have been murder to kill his soldiers, then the Allied troops were committing murder?

I think you have assumed facts not in evidence. There is a just war and I would certainly think that it was a just war for World War 2.

I was operating on the assumption that this was a pre-emptive strike, applying today’s knowledge to yesterday’s facts, and intended to keep Hitler from ascending to power in the first place. Once war begins, the right of self defense certainly applies.

 

[Nino]

Stalin and Hitler …and their buddies ,combined to murder some 60 million fellow humans…they had a job to do for their god…satan and they did it!.They were a cancer on the face of humanity and thus had to be eliiminated…cut out…gone! To destroy them would have done much to bring health back to the world…so it hardly would have been a ‘sin’.Jesus complimented the Centurion.( a military company commaner) saying " You have more faith them most anyone I have ever met" We are all soldiers of Christ and its time to leave that couch and take a stand…at least a verbal one for our Faith which is under the most diabolical sustained attack since world war 2. of course that means we will have to be un-PC…that will take courage…being called a ‘hater’ and ‘medival’ and ‘square’ well…remember that last part of the French revolution was just that…fraternity…meant one could NOT be un-pc…and thus that revolution ended up rather bloody and self-defeating and a dictatorship resulted…of course it cant happen here cant it?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Very tough question…

I would question whether their murderous actions forfeit entitlement to their God-given power. As a threat to humanity en masse, I would argue that they’ve relinquished any moral authority to hold a position of power, and removal by force would be appropriate. That said… no one ever called for a hit on Nero…

I think that one of the things to consider, and I don’t know if this is more of a tactical issue than a moral issue, is that assassinating the leader might not achieve the desired affect. When you use deadly force as a last resort to protect yourself or others, there should be a degree of certainty that your actions will actually eliminate the threat.

Presumably, when assassinating a leader in wartime, the morally acceptable objective would be to disorganize and demoralize your enemy such that hostilities end faster and with less death on both sides.

But there is also the possiblity that assassinating the leader would not only fail to achieve these goals, but might actually make things worse by enlivening the enemy’s war effort.

For example:

You might make that person an ideological martyr who people would continue to fight for.

The person assuming the leadership role may not be the one in charge, like the leader of Iran for example, but is simply the public face of the government. In this case, assassinating him wouldn’t disorganize the country, and would probably result in them claiming to have moral highground, and thus may enliven their war effort.

You might open the door for an even worse person to step into power- for example, Himmler, for example, is considered to have been even more of a monster than Hitler.

You might fail to do assassinate them, and end up enlivening the enemy war effort and leave them in power anyway.

I think the bottom line is that hindsight is 20/20, so it is easier to be confident about killing Hitler now, but I think it would be much more complicated if we were attempting to make that determination about a person in the present day, or even to make that same decision about Hitler if we were alive at that time without the benefit of our historical perspective.

 

[sidonius]

I dunno. Look at Pastor Bonhoeffer, and the Kreisau Circle, which included two Jesuit Priests and two Lutheran pastors. I am not a situational ethicist, but I think some things have to be lived before they are pontificated on.