Bobby Sands & Mortal Sin

[Krush2k2]

Was the action of Bobby Sands to starve himself to death during the infamous hunger strike a mortal sin? Or are such sacrifices not considered so, and in some ways martyrism?

[Cow of Shame]

I don't think you get to be a martyr if you effectively commit suicide.

[Aloysius]

This was not the mortal sin of suicide.

I think the principal of double effect comes in here. The man's intention was not to kill himself, his intended effect was to have him and his fellow cell mates declared political prisoners and given proper treatment in the prison. it was the unintended double effect, and he did it first in the hopes that if he had to take it all the way to his own death, then hopefully the other five wouldn't have to die.

his action of refusing to eat the food offered by the prison was not a suicidal action. the refusing of food was actually a refusal to accept their definition of him as a criminal. the double effect of his death was not actively intended by him.

Anyway, even if you consider him sinning with grave matter here (which I do not accept), he certainly did not have full knowledge that it was wrong. He informed his conscience as well as he was able and his conscience told him it was right. He was neither culpable for negligence to his conscience, or for the actions if they were grave sins.

anyway, I say not only was it not a sin, but it was a noble act.

[Cow of Shame]

I'm not taggin 'mortal sin' on him. I'm just removing 'martyr'. He [i]effectively[/i] committed suicide. He refused to feed his body. *shrug*

Edited February 6, 2006 by Cow of Shame

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 6 2006, 02:22 PM']I think the principal of double effect comes in here.  [/quote]Ah yes, but one of the conditions of using double effect is that the good outcome is commensurate of the resulting evil. You would have to prove that his death was of lesser value than the outcome. I am unfamiliar with this topic so I cannot answer that.

[Aloysius]

I think calling attention to the suffering in the prison, trying to preserve his friends from that suffering and trying to preserve them from having to complete the hunger strike in death, and fighting for the overall political cause he was obviously in prison for anyway (Irish Republicanism) fits the criteria there.

his refusal to eat food from the British Prison was really a refusal to admit their definition of him as a criminal, and ultimately a refusal to admit their definition of his movement as a criminal movement. the cause he was doing this for was bigger than his own life.

You have to remember that back then during the height of the struggles the situation was more dire than it is now. Nowadays it's just kinda wantin to be united to the Republic and all then, but back then the British government in Northern Ireland was actively persecuting the Irish Catholics and Irish Republicans. His protest was part of his fight for the cause of ending persecution.

[Krush2k2]

so refusal of food in certain circumstances, with full knowledge that such action will lead to death, is excusable in circumstance in such a case that bobby sands was in? If thats the case, would it still be venial sin if not mortal?

[Aloysius]

not if death is not his intended effect. I don't think it was a sin at all, much less a mortal one.

on the purer stage of religion (since Bobby Sands' example is more of a political than religious example), it can be compared to a situation in which you are in prison for being a Christian, and the authorities of the prison say, this section is for criminal christians-- being in this section of the prison defines your christianity and the whole christian movement itself as a criminal enemy of the state. you would be well within your moral rights and duties to say no-- i will not accept this classification, i will not accept room and board under this classification, if it kills me so be it.

that's what Bobby Sands was basically asked to do: get food if he would accept the definition of himself and his cause as "criminal". it wasn't refusing to accept food, it was refusing to accept the status "criminal". his death was an unintended effect. he was not committing suicide, he was refusing to be fed under the title "criminal".

[Krush2k2]

so self starvation is justified if your doing it so you wont be titled something your against?

[Aloysius]

it's not self-starvation. the starvation is an unintended side-effect. and it's not merely being 'titled' something, it's being fully classified and treated in unjust ways... you're a movement trying to stop the persecution of Catholics/Republicans in Northern Ireland of the time-- you cannot merely accept the British Government treating everyone in that movement as criminals. If you did, then the persecution will continue.

The cause was to end the persecution and suffering of not only that group of political prisoners that were not being treated fairly as such, but to end the persecution and suffering of all the Catholics in northern ireland.

That's a high goal as your intended effect. the unintended effect of giving up your life for your friends (there is no greater love...) is thus justified.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:22 AM']The cause was to end the persecution and suffering of not only that group of political prisoners that were not being treated fairly as such, but to end the persecution and suffering of all the Catholics in northern ireland.[right][snapback]878568[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Slightly simplified and not everyone ascribes to the view that they were political prisoners.

[Aloysius]

I understand, and we could debate that 'till we're blue in the face and get nowhere... but even if you don't view them as political prisoners you know that's how they viewed themselves, and all that I have described here is what they were convicted by their consciences to be doing, these were their aims, they saw a persecution of catholics in northern ireland as existing, and they did not have any culpability for mis-informing their consciences in this manner. as such, I don't think you can hold, even if you disagree that they were political prisoners, that his hunger strike was culpably a mortal sin. I think no matter what you view how their status should have been and whether their cause was just, the fact that they thought the cause so just and highly important does speak to them acting with great conviction on an informed conscience. this was no mere sin of suicide, this was the noble act of a man standing by what he believed was right.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:41 AM']I think no matter what you view how their status should have been and whether their cause was just, the fact that they thought the cause so just and highly important does speak to them acting with great conviction on an informed conscience.  this was no mere sin of suicide, this was the noble act of a man standing by what he believed was right.
[right][snapback]878573[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course, but:
* with foreknowledge that such an act may end in your life, should said act be encouraged or discouraged.

* Does sincere conviction of a belief make it correct?

[gonzaga]

God Bess those who died on hunger strike.

[Aloysius]

no it doesn't make it correct. I personally believe it was correct regardless of whether bobby sands held it as a sincere conviction. its correctness or wrongness exists completely apart from whether sands believed it to be correct. all it means that sands believed it to be correct is that sands was following his conscience. so long as he is not culpable in some way for misinforming or neglecting his conscience, then even [b]if[/b] the persecution he so strongly believes is happening that is his intended effect to stop is not happening, he wouldn't be culpable for "killing himself in vain"

simply foreknowing that the act might end in death doesn't in and of itself have any effect on whether it should be encouraged or discouraged. it should be encouraged if it is for an intended effect which is far greater than your life, thus you can virtuously lay down your life for it. it should be discouraged if it is for an intended effect which is not greater than your life. so it just boils down to how you view the intended effect as to whether you should encourage or discourage such action.