Ends Justify The Means

[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?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 February 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1265346812' post='2051525']
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?
[/quote]

Yeah I don't think its justifiable to kill him for the key, even if he is the cause of it (although I'm leaning towards incorporating an innocent third-party victim as the host of the key.) However, there is no other way to get to the key. The key is inherently linked with the life of the victim (whether it be the guilty party, or an innocent party). So its either (1) kill him (or the innocent victim, I haven't decided yet) and save all of humanity. (2) Let him live and fulfill his plan and kill all of humanity. (3) Let him live, but shut down the whole system which will prevent the weapon from detonating, but also shut down the technology which is making our world run (and will result in the unintentional deaths of many many people if shut down).


I'm rambling, probably doesn't make any sense thanks though.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='04 February 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1265347371' post='2051528']
Yeah I don't think its justifiable to kill him for the key, even if he is the cause of it (although I'm leaning towards incorporating an innocent third-party victim as the host of the key.) However, there is no other way to get to the key. The key is inherently linked with the life of the victim (whether it be the guilty party, or an innocent party). So its either (1) kill him (or the innocent victim, I haven't decided yet) and save all of humanity. (2) Let him live and fulfill his plan and kill all of humanity. (3) Let him live, but shut down the whole system which will prevent the weapon from detonating, but also shut down the technology which is making our world run (and will result in the unintentional deaths of many many people if shut down).


I'm rambling, probably doesn't make any sense thanks though.
[/quote]


Its okay. Its an interesting query. I think option 3 has potential for being a moral outlet. I would use the Vulcan Nerve Pinch to render unconscious the Guilty Party/Innocent 3rd-Party person. You should work that in somehow.m

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1265347816' post='2051532']
Its okay. Its an interesting query. I think option 3 has potential for being a moral outlet. I would use the Vulcan Nerve Pinch to render unconscious the Guilty Party/Innocent 3rd-Party person. You should work that in somehow.m
[/quote]

yes option 3 is where I'm going with all of it. I was just exploring the other possibilities.

[Slappo]

It would be morally permissible to destroy the key to prevent the destruction of the entire human race even if some die in consequence to this action.


It would not be morally permissible to kill someone to destroy the key, but it would be morally permissible to restrain/detain them.