Extent Of Complying

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes it's an 'ends justify the means' situation.
comments on which if any are justifiable, and why and why not's, are welcome

Edited March 6, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[aalpha1989]

The question is simpler than you make it. Do the ends ever justify the means? The answer is no.

[Nunsense]

You didn't give an option for not complying with the terrorist at all. Death of the body is not as bad as death of the soul. Stay firm in the faith, stay close to God and pray, pray, pray, that's what I would do.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i should have said 'none of the above' so i could at least get a sense of who was attempting to pick
feel free to edit it in, whoever has the editing power

[goldenchild17]

I'm writing up a short story about something very similar. In essence, good ends don't justify evil means, no matter how extreme. I won't speculate on bruising or tapping some one's leg annoyingly as I can't imagine any situation in which a terrorist would stop his plans in exchange for this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='06 March 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1267928464' post='2067739']
I'm writing up a short story about something very similar. In essence, good ends don't justify evil means, no matter how extreme. I won't speculate on bruising or tapping some one's leg annoyingly as I can't imagine any situation in which a terrorist would stop his plans in exchange for this.
[/quote]

i dont see why ya cant speculate on it. it's something that can actually happen. in principal, it's true. it'd be sinful, and it could be requested. it's not like im asking something that couldnt happen at all, in principal.

[Nunsense]

dairygirl - you can speculate on anything, but if we go too far into fantasy then we start wondering why we can give ourselves super powers and other things. In reality however, if I were faced with a terrorist, I would not negotiate, end of story. But then my view is that heaven is more important than this earth, so people being killed is not as bad as people falling from grace. Just my take on it though. If you like this kind of speculation, the maybe you should start writing too - you might have a storytellers mind!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='06 March 2010 - 09:42 PM' timestamp='1267933324' post='2067779']
i dont see why ya cant speculate on it. it's something that can actually happen. in principal, it's true. it'd be sinful, and it could be requested. it's not like im asking something that couldnt happen at all, in principal.
[/quote]

I could speculate on it. Its just not something I would like to speculate about. Possibly an interesting concept, but not so much to me as I don't see it as a viable possibility. I don't really think anybody who would terrorize on a large-scale would be open to the suggestion that he/she stop if I slap an innocent on the hand.

Edited March 7, 2010 by goldenchild17

[Deb]

The poll made no sense to me so I did not vote in it.

It is nice to see that you are still here though, Dairygirl. I have missed you. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smokey.gif[/img]

[Ed Normile]

The thing is a terrorist is not about gains, he is about destruction. The term terrorist implies he is not out for a million dollars, he would detonate a bomb whatever you did as this would be his end game.

ed

[dairygirl4u2c]

no one must have had the editing powers, or didn't want to do it, for "do not comply at all"

[Aloysius]

this poll = ethics class on LSD. LOL I enjoy it though.

in theory I'd rather the whole world blow up than to do one evil act, even if it is a venial sin. assuming in none of the scenarios can you get an innocent person's permission ("Hey, do you mind if I break your leg so that the city doesn't get blown up?") then I don't see any scenario I'd be okay with other than non-torturous interrogation I guess.

that's in theory, and I do believe in that theory. IRL, (though most of these scenarios aren't exactly real lol), I could see myself agreeing to do something low level sinful to stop a city from being destroyed. I'm sure God would consider some mitigating circumstance to lessen my culpability, but I'd still need to confess and maybe spend some time in purgatory (otherwise God can't be sure I won't open the gates of Heaven to the devil when he holds a pitchfork to St. Peter's head threatening to drive it through him). it'd be wrong, but it takes a very great faith to be willing to let a whole city blow up because you believe firmly in God and ultimate justice. it's the kind of faith that we should have, of course.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

seen this before on a quiz determining a person's moral consistency (the test was not on whether or not your morality was true, but whether you were consistent in it) In it came up the terrorist torture question, (previously I had abided by the 'ends do not justify the means' for most of my morality) the terrorist had planted a bomb in a city and millions would die (it was probably a nuke). At this point I would, had the option been given, given the terrorist pyschological torture rather then physical torture to get the information on the bomb. My problem with this scenario is that I knew what I was doing was wrong, but it had to be done. A conundrum nearly everyone in authority over prisoners of war, terrorists or even criminals and serial killers are forced to constantly deal with. I barely passed the moral consistency test because of this scenario. But then again, being put into the position of a police interrogator when previously in the test I was the operator of a train having to deal with choosing between killing 1 man or three men if I did not change the tracks of the train because the breaks were tampered with is a bit of a whiplash to be mentally prepared for.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it dont make sense why so many people would do full torture or 'enhanced interrogation' but wouldn't do all those lesser things, like a venial sin, or stealing a loaf of bread for a starving man.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303659836' post='2231813']
it dont make sense why so many people would do full torture or 'enhanced interrogation' but wouldn't do all those lesser things, like a venial sin, or stealing a loaf of bread for a starving man.
[/quote]
It probably has to do with the farce of consequentialist thinking. For example, imagine you are a nurse caring for the children of jewish couples in a hospital, the nazis come knocking. The children are going to die anyway, so you kill them yourself. As an apparent act of Mercy.

This does not change that fact that You killed them. [u][i][b]Killed[/b][/i][/u] them. In the vast majority of these scenarios you may not do evil that good may results because 90% of these scenarios good does not result. Is it really better for a person controlling an unstoppable train to switch tracks and kill one person trapped on the rails rather then do nothing and let three other people trapped on his current course get killed? Objectively, no. It is not. With torture the same is true. I said I would torture the terrorist for information but stated that I knew fully that it was wrong, I will regret making such a decision in my life. Because it is inexcusably a sin. Sin is sin, no matter how small, or what the reason is.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303659836' post='2231813']
it dont make sense why so many people would do full torture or 'enhanced interrogation' but wouldn't do all those lesser things, like a venial sin, or stealing a loaf of bread for a starving man.
[/quote]
In my opinion people are willing to let anger and vengence motivate their answer somewhat. Torturing the terrorist would harm someone who is doing evil. You're angry at him for trying to blow up millions, so you don't mind beating him senseless. But if a terrorist said "I will blow up this city if you don't go hurt this completely innocent person", it's a different story. Even with the seemingly inconsequential thefts described, because you don't have any anger against the people you're stealing from, but instead are helping the person you're angry at, you don't want to do it.

[Papist]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]Let me get this straight. A terrorist has a bomb hidden in NY and LA and I trust him. This does not compute. [/size][/font]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]You needed one more option. [/size][/font][font="Tahoma"][size="2"]Put bullet in terrorist head. [/size][/font]

Edited April 25, 2011 by Papist

[dairygirl4u2c]

it is always strange when it's par for course to kill terrorist, just not do even 'enhanced interrogation'.
it is strange so many voted torture, i thought most here were adamantly opposed to all that

[Papist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303832674' post='2233381']
it is strange so many voted torture, i thought most here were adamantly opposed to all that
[/quote]


Where you get that impression? Don't we read your posts? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif[/img]

Edited April 26, 2011 by Papist

[dairygirl4u2c]

seems like people won't argue on my side, when i say enhanced interrogation or torture might in limited situations, be okay. they probably are out in hiding, cause it's aganst catholic teaching to support those things, and dont want to be rockin the boat

Edited April 26, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c