Ends Justify The Means

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='24 January 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1264361088' post='2043560']
If something is truly capable of destroying all human life utterly throughout the world...I am sure it would merit the attention of God. As I doubt God would desire any of us to violate ourselves by committing an evil act (even if supposedly for a positive end), He and He alone would have to provide the solution. Perhaps all we could do is pray.
[/quote]

Good thing its purely hypothetical

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='24 January 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1264360319' post='2043550']
[url="http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:principle-of-double-effect&Itemid=171"]The Principle of Double Effect[/url]

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


Shutting down the key, would have the intended effect of removing the problem. However, removing the problem would have the unintended effect of leading to temporary chaos and possible deaths, as the problem is also the solution to food/water, healthcare, emergency services, education, research, basically everything except for many aspects of the Arts.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='24 January 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1264361398' post='2043567']
not necessarily. I probably didn't make myself clear, especially in my attempt to remain vague . The enemy's plan requires that all people currently alive need to die, even himself (a sort of combination of the great flood, and re-creation of Adam and Eve). So killing him won't do any good, he intends to die anyway as it is central to his plan. Which makes this whole thing even more difficult to solve as he has no intentions of cooperating with shutting the plan down, no matter what you threaten him with.

But yes I understand, it would be wrong to murder this one guy, even if it would have prevented this big of an event.
[/quote]

It's wrong to murder. What is murder? Is it simply killing a human being? No.

Is it wrong to attempt to take the maniac's key, and then use whatever violence is necessary to stop him from stopping you?


~Sternhauser

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='24 January 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1264365323' post='2043635']
It's wrong to murder. What is murder? Is it simply killing a human being? No. [/quote]

agreed

[quote]Is it wrong to attempt to take the maniac's key, and then use whatever violence is necessary to stop him from stopping you?
[/quote]

That is the question. Kind of like is it okay to remove a diseased uterus, despite there being a living being inside of it and the intention being not to harm the person, but obviously the outcome would do just that.

[havok579257]

The answer is a simple one, you destroy the key, thus as your theory says, sends everyone into the dark ages. In the end humanity lives and you did not kill anyone. Here me out:

Just by halting human progress or eliminating technology does not make you a killer. Its not your fault if an unintended consequence of destroying this key would result in deaths, since that wasn't your goal. I mean is it the scientists fault that people die because he did not rush out his new cancer medication that could have saved lives. I mean had he rushed it out, he could have saved lives. Is he resonpsible for the death that happened before his medication hit the market? Or is the US government responsible for some deaths over in Iraq because they did not send enough troops over there fast enough. I mean had they sent more troops over their to begin with, maybe some people would not have died. So are they responsible for those deaths?

Anyone can turn something done for the good of mankind into something evil just by twisting the words. As long as you do not kill this man (unless in the process it becomes self defense because he tries to kill you to stop you), then your choice is to destroy the key. Yes it would set mankind back into the dark ages and without all the technology that we have today, more people would die, but that would not be your fault. That would be an unitended consequence of mankinds extreme relience on technology.

Edited January 26, 2010 by havok579257

[havok579257]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='24 January 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1264365724' post='2043640']
agreed



That is the question. Kind of like is it okay to remove a diseased uterus, despite there being a living being inside of it and the intention being not to harm the person, but obviously the outcome would do just that.
[/quote]


those 2 scenerio's are not similiar. In one people inderectly die because of what you did, but you did not directly kill anyone. In the uterus scenerio you directly kill someone.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='havok579257' date='26 January 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1264490446' post='2044830']
those 2 scenerio's are not similiar. In one people inderectly die because of what you did, but you did not directly kill anyone. In the uterus scenerio you directly kill someone.
[/quote]

"Lawful Procedures:

. . .

Hysterectomy in the presence of pregnancy, provided the uterus is so seriously diseased as to endanger the life of the mother." (Jone "Moral Theology" 213.)

The act is not killing the baby, the act is removing the diseased uterus. I think its quite comparable actually, as in my scenario, the device which is (essentially) keeping these people alive, becomes evil (diseased) and thus must be removed.

If the act and intent was to deliberately kill the baby then it would not be lawful, but since that is not the case, it can be permitted in extreme circumstances, which is basically what I am recreating in the example.

Edited January 26, 2010 by goldenchild17

[havok579257]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='26 January 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1264492293' post='2044835']
"Lawful Procedures:

. . .

Hysterectomy in the presence of pregnancy, provided the uterus is so seriously diseased as to endanger the life of the mother." (Jone "Moral Theology" 213.)

The act is not killing the baby, the act is removing the diseased uterus. I think its quite comparable actually, as in my scenario, the device which is (essentially) keeping these people alive, becomes evil (diseased) and thus must be removed.

If the act and intent was to deliberately kill the baby then it would not be lawful, but since that is not the case, it can be permitted in extreme circumstances, which is basically what I am recreating in the example.
[/quote]


in one scenerio your the baby is dying. in the other scenerio people are possiblly going to die. that's a big difference.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='havok579257' date='26 January 2010 - 03:29 AM' timestamp='1264498167' post='2044838']
in one scenerio your the baby is dying. in the other scenerio people are possiblly going to die. that's a big difference.
[/quote]

It is inevitable that many people will die. That is how dependent on this thing they are. I never said it was a perfect match, but its not bad.

[Resurrexi]

I'm not an expert on the principle of double effect, but I think that the hypothetical scenario described in the original post would feet the necessary conditions for said principle.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='26 January 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1264510981' post='2044844']
It is inevitable that many people will die. That is how dependent on this thing they are. I never said it was a perfect match, but its not bad.
[/quote]

In comparing your original post to the surgical hysterectomy example, does it matter at all that in the latter case it is a natural process gone awry while the former it is a human construction altogether?


Hmmm....maybe you can morally turn off the machine but NOT kill the man who has the key. That provides an even MORE interesting conundrum... After all, I don't know that you are morally allowed to kill one physician to get the tools to perform the emergency hysterectomy(assuming he is holding the tools and won't let you have them because he disagrees with your decision)...

Edited February 5, 2010 by Veridicus

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 February 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1265343327' post='2051497']
In comparing your original post to the surgical hysterectomy example, does it matter at all that in the latter case it is a natural process gone awry while the former it is a human construction altogether?
[/quote]

perhaps. I'm not sure I get your meaning.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='04 February 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1265343510' post='2051499']
perhaps. I'm not sure I get your meaning.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I had one. Just brainstorming potential distinction points. In one case, God's process for implantation went awry...in the other case some mad scientist played God. In one case you are trying to return an individual's body to a sustainable homeostatic setpoint where the imminent alternative is the death of both the mother and the fetus. You are removing a defective, yet natural, organ from the body. In the scenario you posited...the 'defective uterus' is more a Tower of Babel than anything. It seems somehow there might be a difference.

REPEAT:
Hmmm....maybe you can morally turn off the machine but NOT kill the man who has the key. That provides an even MORE interesting conundrum... After all, I don't know that you are morally allowed to kill one physician to get the tools to perform the emergency hysterectomy(assuming he is holding the tools and won't let you have them because he disagrees with your decision)...

Edited February 5, 2010 by Veridicus

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1265344115' post='2051504']
I'm not sure I had one. Just brainstorming potential distinction points. In one case, God's process for implantation went awry...in the other case some mad scientist played God. In one case you are trying to return an individual's body to a sustainable homeostatic setpoint where the imminent alternative is the death of both the mother and the fetus. You are removing a defective, yet natural, organ from the body. In the scenario you posited...the 'defective uterus' is more a Tower of Babel than anything. It seems somehow there might be a difference.

REPEAT:
Hmmm....maybe you can morally turn off the machine but NOT kill the man who has the key. That provides an even MORE interesting conundrum... After all, I don't know that you are morally allowed to kill one physician to get the tools to perform the emergency hysterectomy(assuming he is holding the tools and won't let you have them because he disagrees with your decision)...
[/quote]


good stuff to think about... Not sure what I'm thinking yet.

[Veridicus]

I'm not convince you can kill the guy for the key. Once you have the key it could maybe possibly be permissible to turn the machine off (a la hysterectomy type moral scenario).

So do the Ends justify the [i][b]means to the[/b][/i] means?