- This topic has 46 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We’ve not had a tough topic on here for awhile, so I decided to start another one. That, and I was thinking up potentially tragic moments for one of my WIPs and considered a scene with a mercy killing, where a friend is forced to kill another friend because the latter friend is mortally wounded and/or can’t be moved, enemies are approaching, everyone will die if they stay there, and if they leave the wounded man behind he’ll be tortured and then killed.
So, I’ve two questions.
1. Is a mercy killing ever right? If the person is dying anyway, and in great pain, and you can stop it… especially if more people will die if you don’t.
2. What about mercy killings in books? Whether they are right or wrong, there may be a time a character is placed in a situation with such a choice. Whichever he chooses will stay with him the rest of his lift and will be tragic. I think a mercy killing could be written without justifying it or condemning it, but simply showing the consequences. Thoughts?
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Thoughts:
For one, 1 Samuel 1:1-16 would lean me against mercy killings since David seems to regard them as no different in consequence. I know this is in the context of “the Lord’s anointed”, but I think the important thing is that David does not make an exception because of the circumstances.
For two, I think that could be fascinating. Moral dilemmas can create really deep stories.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
Oh yes, tag. @hope You’re it.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
*stares at topic in horror* *whispers* One of my favorite characters of all time died this way. *crawls into dark corner* I cried for weeks… I’m still broken inside from it.
Anyway, Mercy killing::::
1. Mercy killing is just really nice way of saying assisted suicide. I make it no secret among anyone that I am very much against suicide, assisted or not. It is not for us to take away life, ours or others.
But you insist on throwing in the idea that more people will die if you don’t. I’ve never been a fan of the “Which do you save the one or the many” questions. Mainly because the people you decide to kill depends on situation in the entire thing. Are you the One? The Many? Or a Bystanders looking in through a window? Who is the one person who would die? Is he criminal? Or is he innocent and all the Many vicious villains? If you’re a bystander what gives you the right to decide? If you’re one of the Many why should you kill One in order to save yourself?2. That said, I don’t think using them in books is necessarily wrong. We live in a fallen world and things like this happen, whether we are writing from a Christian viewpoint or not. However, to glorify it would be wrong. If you make it come across as okay, or for the best, or *clears throat* merciful it’s no longer an example of the evil which we must overcome. (At the same time, don’t go give an in book lecture about the evils of suicide, please.) So like you said, show the consequences. The real, hard, down-to-earth consequences.
lol. sorry but you were kind of asking for a lecture @hope
@adry_grace I’ve never been a fan of the “Which do you save the one or the many” questions.
Ah, but this is such a hard question…one you can use to torment characters no matter what your stand on it. The same with mercy killings. I can’t really argue for them because I don’t believe killing is right. And yet, because everyone agreeing doesn’t really go anywhere, I’m going to present some hypothetical arguments…please note that this doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.
Firstly, I’m not a supporter of peace time mercy killings; helping someone who is old die quicker or things like that. But what I want to focus on here is war.
Death is a part of war. Soldiers sacrifice themselves; they risk their lives. One soldier staying behind to defend a narrow pass so others will have time to escape, even though he knows he’ll be killed, is counted as heroic. What about if this same soldier stays behind and blows something up, which he knows will kill him as well, to save his friends and close the pass. Same result, but is the view of the hero changed because he and the others died by one hand (his own) instead of him shooting them and them shooting him and everyone dying. Finally, what if this soldier is wounded. He knows his comrades won’t be able to escape and bring him with them. They’ll try, but eventually everyone knows there is no other way… He has to be left behind. Now, assume there are no hiding places, and that the enemy is brutal and will end up killing this wounded soldier after they force information from him. Now this soldier is willing to give his life keep the information safe. If he were well, he’d fight to the death so they can’t force it from him. But he’s not well and he can’t fight. And either he’ll die a horrible death, after possibly betraying his land, or he could die at once. Death is the result either way, and the information is kept safer he dies at his own hand.
A side note, kind of connected with what we’ve been talking about…carrying around poison and taking it if captured, like many agents did during WWII. You go into the fight not only knowing you’re risking your life, but that you’ll take your own life if necessary to save others. I guess this hypothetical question is ‘if one is willing to die for their country, is it a sin for one to be willing take their own life for their country?’
You’re it, @Daeus 😉
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
if one is willing to die for their country, is it a sin for one to be willing take their own life for their country?
*having existential crisis* That is the kind of question which could keep me thinking for a good 2 weeks, @hope
I think first of all there’s a difference between a suicide mission, a mission where the likelihood of death is almost if not completely certain, and suicide, where death is not necessarily inevitable, just preferred. I know we’re not dealing necessarily with suicide missions but I just wanted to make that clear.
I think to be willing to commit suicide, to be willing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others is an honorable thing. Since we’re talking about war time, I think that under self sacrifice is an honorable and heroic thing. But I also don’t think that cowards should be honored. For example, in the first scenario you provided, Hope,
One soldier staying behind to defend a narrow pass so others will have time to escape, even though he knows he’ll be killed
Say that instead of simply defending the passage and being killed in action, the soldier instead fired a few rounds into the approaching enemy and then turned the gun on himself and shot himself in the head. While in one way dying for his country, it’s very likely he gave his friends time to escape, he nonetheless took a cowards way out.
I think the scenario where the soldier is wounded is a little more difficult. If the soldier has critical information which could cause the downfall of his nation and thus the lives of millions, well. That’s one thing. However if the only risk is him being tortured. While, I wouldn’t blame him for suicide, I don’t think that I would see that as honorable.
@hope and @adry_grace
I think I’d pretty much side with you, Adry. I like to think of moral dilemmas like these in terms of what we do know and what we don’t know. A soldier who is wounded and can’t escape from an oncoming enemy and has information that could endanger thousands of lives if the enemy gets a hold of it knows certain things for sure and can only guess others. He does not know for certain that the enemy will make it to him, that they won’t just shoot him without first trying to see if he has any information, that he won’t be able to endure any tortures they might give him and that whatever information he might give them actually would with 100% certainty end up in thousands of people dying. He may give a 97% chance that all of these things will happen, but he doesn’t know for sure. In fact, we know from history that many times strange things turn up which stop such seemingly likely circumstances from happening. One thing the soldier can know for certain: his life is not his own to take.
Keep in mind that this is different from a situation such as where a soldier dives over a grenade to take the shrapnel to himself and keep his comrades from getting killed. In the first scenario, the soldier has three options. He can shoot himself, deliver over the information and possibly save his own life, or endure the torture. It is possible he may not be able to endure the torture, but from a moral standpoint it is like this. God is the one who made life sacred and sets the boundaries as to when it may be taken. He would condemn suicide. He would also tell us to try to save those who are in danger. Now we know that suicide keeps the second rule but violate the first. Enduring torture violates neither as long as the victim doesn’t give in. Now the reasoning comes in, “Cannot the one who gave us the command to value our own lives and the lives of others give us the strength to do both?” To answer no seems to me entirely deistical. With the diving over the grenade scenario however he has only two options. Let everyone die (or get injured) or make it just himself and save everyone else.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
A soldier who is wounded and can’t escape from an oncoming enemy and has information that could endanger thousands of lives if the enemy gets a hold of it… Enduring torture violates neither as long as the victim doesn’t give in.
@daeus and @hope So what if for whatever reason the soldier truly believes he would be in danger of giving in to the enemy? Would suicide then be acceptable if not honorable? (I agree that God can and will give the strength to those who wish to uphold his command, I’m just curious what you think)Oooooh… wonderful topic! Nice brain stretcher! Okay, let’s see here, bear with me as I try to organize my thoughts.
1. I do not believe that mercy killings are acceptable. Simple enough— I’ll explain, but gimme a moment.
2. I do believe it would be a fantastic story element to challenge any character if it is not glorified.Now. Why don’t I believe mercy killings are justified? Let’s look at it like this— there are only really three scenarios in which the taking of life is Biblically justified.
1: Self defense.
2: War, which is pretty much the same principle.
3: Punishment under the law for capital crimes.
Obviously number three is not applicable to this discussion. 🙂
Let me know if I missed any.Mercy killing cannot be classified as any of those— it’s not self defense, and I’d have to agree with @Adry_grace that suicide (assisted or not) is never heroic.
Except in any of the three previously named exceptions, life is never ours to take. Even if the person is suffering— it’s not like dealing with an animal. It’s not like putting an old, suffering pet to sleep. We’re dealing with an eternal soul— off limits when the life is not excepted by circumstances already named. It’s never merciful to take the life of a human being— never, ever, no matter what. It’s not always wrong, but it’s never merciful, and thus it follows that it’s still not even when the human being is a friend and suffering horrible pain. If ‘there is a time for every purpose under heaven’, doesn’t that mean there is also a time for suffering?
And I think you hit the nail on the head here, @Daeus, when you said
Cannot the one who gave us the command to value our own lives and the lives of others give us the strength to do both?
And Adry, I think in that scenario the soldier may very well despair, but since we all agree God can give him the strength it would be a needless despair, and so suicide would be no less dishonorable for it.
Excellent topic, @Hope! 😀
*thinks for a moment, goes slowly green in face* Wait—y-y-you’re— wait wait wait—*hides head in hands with horrified gasp* Please tell me this isn’t D who dies and E who kills him?!?!
Oh dear me. I’m beginning to think Kate’s an alien. She’s never not green. We need to have a doctor on staff when Tessa’s asleep and I’m not qualified.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
*squeezes eyes tightly shut* Please please please work!!!!
*sigh* No such luck. The image setting hates me.
@kate-flournoy Where are you getting the url from?
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
When I click on an image and the image itself is in the center of a grey/black mat that fills up my entire computer screen, I just copy and paste the url from the address bar at the top of the page. What am I doing wrong?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.