Assassination

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='04 January 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1262653243' post='2029764']
My take is "Double Effect". The proximal effect is always to stop further evil from occurring. The distal effect is the death of the target. I'm not certain, but I would imagine that the same criteria that apply to just war and capital punishment would also apply here, with preference to "bloodless means" if they are satisfactory to protect society from the aggressor (cf. CCC 2267).
[/quote]
Sorry, maybe I'm still foggy from my vacation. How would you want to apply the principle of the double effect to a case of assassination?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 January 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1262660781' post='2029907']
Sorry, maybe I'm still foggy from my vacation. How would you want to apply the principle of the double effect to a case of assassination?
[/quote]

Perhaps I'm not using the right word when I say, "double effect". But, what I mean is this: in the case of the assassination of a tyrant, their death is not truly desired (or at least, wouldn't be desired by a hypothetical state attempting to live out Christian mores ... I know, "if only!" right?). This "Christian State" would desire only to [b]stop injustices[/b] inflicted upon its citizens. They would have tried (or otherwise ruled out) every other conceivable action before resorting to bloody means. Thus, when bloodless means have proven themselves to be insufficient in protecting society, the Christian State would have no recourse but to enter war, and potentially, to assassinate, if that is deemed to be an efficient mechanism at halting further death.

I apply the principle of double effect to this because the primary intent is not to kill. It is to stop aggression. The secondary effect, when bloodless means have been shown to be insufficient, is the death of the aggressor.

How's that?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='04 January 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1262667049' post='2030021']
Perhaps I'm not using the right word when I say, "double effect". But, what I mean is this: in the case of the assassination of a tyrant, their death is not truly desired (or at least, wouldn't be desired by a hypothetical state attempting to live out Christian mores ... I know, "if only!" right?). This "Christian State" would desire only to [b]stop injustices[/b] inflicted upon its citizens. They would have tried (or otherwise ruled out) every other conceivable action before resorting to bloody means. Thus, when bloodless means have proven themselves to be insufficient in protecting society, the Christian State would have no recourse but to enter war, and potentially, to assassinate, if that is deemed to be an efficient mechanism at halting further death.

I apply the principle of double effect to this because the primary intent is not to kill. It is to stop aggression. The secondary effect, when bloodless means have been shown to be insufficient, is the death of the aggressor.

How's that?
[/quote]
Yes, then I think we're getting at the same thing. Same ideas.

[Fidei Defensor]

I've always been under the impression that in Catholic theology, the end never justify the means.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='05 January 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1262721729' post='2030302']
I've always been under the impression that in Catholic theology, the end never justify the means.
[/quote]
It doesn't. We're talking about defense... addressing whether or not it makes a difference if you're defending someone in danger right that second, or someone in danger tomorrow.

[Nunsense]

Would Jesus do it?