- This topic has 46 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@adry_grace I agree with @Daeus. There would have to be something important beyond the art for one to risk there life. As much as I love my nation, I’m not going to risk almost certain death simply to save a historical document like the Declaration of Independence or raise a fallen flag. Now, if it served a greater purpose, like rallying the people, then it might be worth it. But otherwise, as much as I would want to save something, no painting is worth a life.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Another set of somewhat related dilemmas to keep this topic going a little longer. What are your thoughts on the ‘one verses the many’? If that ‘one’ is yourself then you could give your life or not as you chose. But what if the one is an enemy leader? (I do hold assassination to be a viable option in some cases in war.) Or what if the choice is yours. Save a friend/family member or save a crowd of people you don’t know. How would one go about deciding?
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
It would depend, I think. Assuming I was faced with such a problem without having bound myself in any way by promises to either party, my first thought would probably be ‘who do I know is ready to die?’ One: myself. Two: hopefully my family member. If both myself and the one person who would stand to die for the many are saved and ready to die, I hope I would have the strength to save the many.
But we can’t always count on the one being saved. In such a scenario, I would say save the people/person you are most responsible for, and trust God to save the rest. For instance— say on one hand I had an unsaved cousin for whom I was responsible and on the other hand an entire city. It seems like it would be wicked to save the cousin and risk all those other people, but since I cannot save both I think my responsibility would lie with my cousin. I would have to trust God with the rest.Now if you can count that convoluted ramble as an answer, tell me your opinion. 🙂
Resurrecting this topic for a bit anyway, because I’ve been thinking about a mystery I watched awhile back. The character who died is assumed to have committed suicide. The Detective thinks he was murdered. In the end, they discover it was actually part of a government spy deal. Basically, the man who died was already dying from some sickness. His friend was trying to infiltrate an enemy group. The enemy group wanted the friend to kill the the man (who ended up dying) as proof of his loyalty. The man insisted his friend go along with it. It was part of the man’s way of doing one last thing for his country before he died. Considering the Christian stance of life being given by God, I’m not claiming that what this man did is morally right, but I’d love your thoughts.
Hmm, I’ve several other situations I might broach soon here too… 😉
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Tough question. I missed the entire previous discussion on mercy killings, so I have a little about that for later.
When is it right to kill? It’s a question that has haunted us for centuries.
I can’t say what the man in the movie did was right or wrong, but I could make a case for either way. If it’s right, isn’t that kind of like sacrificing a friend in battle? I mean, sometimes, soldiers have to make choices that will cost others, even friends and brothers, their lives, but will end up saving more people. Sending a soldier into a deadly position because he is the only one qualified for the job, even though you know he will die, but,by dying, will save others… Maybe it’s not the same thing, I don’t know.
Then, I could also say it’s wrong, because you’re taking a life. Maybe God had a different plan.
But when is it right to take a life?
Suppose you’re in the American Civil War. You’ve just come through a horrific battle that has left hundreds, even thousands, dead or wounded. Your brother was shot in the belly, and your troop has to march on. You know that no doctor will look at him, because there is no cure. You also know that without medical attention, it could be two to three days of agonizing pain before his life finally ends. Your brother pleads with you to shoot him quickly. Do you, aware of the pain he will suffer, quickly put him out of his misery? Or do you, unable to bear taking his life, leave him to suffer alone, in agony, for days?
Or what about this scenario? I’ve had this happen to characters before, and because I am against suicide it has always turned out the same way, but I’m not positive about this situation: you have valuable knowledge. You’ve been captured by the enemy. They want that knowledge, so you stand with torture ahead of you. They have ways to make you talk. And it might not just be through pain. Maybe they could drug you, so you don’t know what you’re saying and have less control of your tongue. But you also have the means to commit suicide. If you leak information, people will die. Your friends will die. Do you commit suicide?
I’ve given my thoughts… I’ve probably just reiterated a lot of what was said before. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on these scenarios. Is it ever right to take a life in these situations? Or others?YA Fantasy Writer
Obsessive Character Namer
Find me at hisinstrumentblog.wordpress.com@his-instrument Ah yes, we’ve talked about those points some. But it’s still a hard question, whatever the morally right answer might be. And I know what you mean. I could argue both ways for the scenario above too. The death is giving one’s life for their country. And no one claims there is anything wrong in risking death for something like that, or even going to certain death (even though certain death, in a novel, somehow manages to be worked around quite often. 😉 ) But when it comes to applying death with ones own hands (like secret agents with poison, who killed themselves when captured) or to another (like killing a mortally wounded friend to keep him out of enemy hands), the picture shifts. Basically…I think I used this line before, but no one says it’s wrong to give one’s life for something important. The hard question is, can one takes his life for the same thing (to avoid giving information or to save everyone else [has anyone see iRobot…there was something like that in there].
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Also, I am aware I’ve not really answered the question, just dissected it more. I’ll be back later, ahem, tomorrow maybe. And I suspect @daeus and @kate-flournoy will be here soon. They like these kinds of questions. 😉
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
So I’ve been thinking about a different angle of this whole ‘what is permissible in war and in defense of others’ type of question. We’ve established earlier that life is given by God and isn’t just something for man to take whenever they wish. Ok. Yes. I agree. However, we don’t live in a perfect world. War does not change what is right and wrong, but some things are permissible in war. Killing in battle is not considered murder.
Basically, the question here is ‘when is it permissible to take life’. I know we’ve talked about if it’s ever right to take one’s own life (or a friend’s life, or ask them to take yours) Bear with me, I’m getting to my point. There are situations when killing is permitted: self-defense, protecting those you love, dying for those you care for, etc. But here’s my question…if there is a line across which one can take life, can this line apply to friend, foe, and self, or just to foes? Say the reason is protecting loved ones from a tyrant. One may kill in battle to protect them. However, information from a mortally wounded soldier could put everyone at risk and cause torment to the fallen soldier as well. For the sake of protecting those he loves, he might wish for a swift death with his friends rather than capture and certain death later on. Is this fear and cowardliness, or this attitude just as brave as the man taking his place in a battle line. Or is this one of those situation by situation deals?
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
@Hope all good questions. I do think I would tend to say it’s cowardice to beg for swift death over torment (though goodness knows if I would have the strength to take it), because ultimately God is in control (so cliche— but He is 😉 ) and ‘I can do ALL THINGS through Christ, who strengthens me.’ That would apply to silence in the face of torture as well.
I think your ‘line’ should only be crossed for the sake of a foe— after all, war is only necessary because of evil, and the object of war is to annihilate that evil. Unless you would class a friend or loved one as evil, war’s ‘permissibles’ would not apply to them, I’m thinking.
Now you’ve got me wanting to write a story where the MC kills his best friend in ‘mercy’ and has to deal with the guilt and consequences… thanks a lot. 😛
@hope I get the idea you asked several questions there.
First, you seem to ask that if there is a situation in which it is ok to kill, does that apply no matter who is in the position to be killed, whether villain, friend, neutral, brother, etc.
That does have a clear answer in my opinion, but not a simple one. The reason is that there are several instances of permitted killing. There are fixed boundaries for each of them, but the boundaries are different from one to another. For instance, a murderer always requires capital punishment no matter who they are. In battle, any foe may be killed, but no civilian. An avenger of blood could slay whoever they were supposed to chase, but another murderer, they had no right to touch. As for friends, I don’t think they can ever get a pass when anybody else would be guilty or a legitimate target. Consider the incident of Levites and Moses after the golden calf. In the instance of having to combat a friend who has chosen the wrong side in a battle, it is certainly good and honorable to avoid combat if possible, but a friend on the wrong side is still technically an enemy.
Then, it seems you ask the other question of whether a man who wishes to die to save himself from the risk of an enemy taking information from him is still brave because he is sacrificing his life in order to keep other people’s lives safer.
First of all, I don’t think it is conceivably possible that a soldier can be carrying information which is absolutely impossible to keep from an enemy. Any message should be destroyable and if he knows the information himself, no torture or such can be absolutely certain. Therefore, there is already some difference because the soldier asking for death knows there is a moral escape, he just either feels incompetent or fearful.
This, however, does not mean he can not be brave or noble. His ultimate reason may indeed be for the safety of other people because he fears he may give information under torture and not for any fear of torture himself. This is in fact brave and noble, but it is also fearful and cowardly at the same time. It is so because there are other options that he knows could very well succeed. He does not even use his thoughts to strengthen himself for these possibilities. Instead, he focuses his mind on the impossibilities. Most importantly, he forgets (I recognize others may debate this, but I will make a few points for it in just a moment) that God has promised not to place him in any circumstance of moral temptation that he will not be able to bear. Hence, the only problem he faces is a lack of faith, a thing which moves mountains.
Now there is one objection that might be raised. That is that there is no moral dilemma at all. The reasoning flows that both options are ok — that if the man can bear torture or whatever, then good for him, but if not, then it is ok because mercy killings are not expressly forbidden (at least not to my knowledge) and hence they must be “the way of escape.”
As far as I can see, this reasoning fails for two reasons. First, it is taken as a granted that killing is wrong and we only know when it is right through clearly expressed exceptions. It doesn’t matter if mercy killing isn’t condemned, it isn’t expressly stated as an exception. Secondly, it is dangerous to assume we can understand morality by considering possibilities impossibilities because of our own weaknesses. If God didn’t take Gideon’s weakness as an excuse, I dare say he won’t take our own as one either.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
after all, war is only necessary because of evil, and the object of war is to annihilate that evil. Unless you would class a friend or loved one as evil, war’s ‘permissibles’ would not apply to them, I’m thinking.
Yes, good point. And that is what I figured, I just like bringing up any sort of scenarios I can.
Now you’ve got me wanting to write a story where the MC kills his best friend in ‘mercy’ and has to deal with the guilt and consequences… thanks a lot.
I know…it would make a fascinating subplot (and lots of emotional turmoil)
Good points, @daeus. It pretty much boils down to ‘taking life outside of punishment and battle is a lack of faith and trust in God, who will either save you or help you to bear what needs to be borne’.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
Another related topic, since we’re back on this thread. Assassinations. Can they ever be right? Assassinations in peacetime on civilians. No. Assassination of leaders. I’d say no…God commands us to obey leaders, even if they are bad. But what about war (I’ve lots of wars in my books…). Again, in war I’d say assassination against civilians is wrong. But what about assassination against the enemy? Is there a difference between killing an enemy general on the field up close, on the field with a sniper, or in his command tent with a sniper or explosion? And what about military leaders who are important but who (for fear or other reasons) don’t come to the battle field. Or…I guess a modern, real life situation, the assassination of terrorists.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
@Hope I do believe assassinations in wartime are no different than pitched battle. The object is to kill either way, and I see no reason why an ambush in the middle of the night should be permitted, yet a single man not be permitted to sneak into enemy headquarters and kill a general.
In the case of terrorists, terrorists are by definition declared enemies. They make no secret of the fact that they are at war— perpetually at war. Thus, they are as ‘eligible’ to be assassinated as a general in battle. All ‘bad guys’ have this in common— they are declared enemies to the truth. That’s what makes war legitimate. Wars are fought for truth. They’re over worldviews, not continents. On the most basic level, war is good against evil. Terrorists are no different than Nazis, Nazis no different than Amalekites. What applies to one, applies to all.Well, Amalekites and battle with them is technically different than with Nazis, though the spirit of the conflict is certainly much the same.
As for assassinations, I’ve never taken a staunch side on the issue, though I haven’t studied it as much as I’d like to. My one reservation is always David not daring to kill the Lord’s anointed, but I can’t say with certainty that that applies and it probably doesn’t apply to all leaders at least.
Terrorists are a little different. Theoretically, I would say assassination against is legitimate, but what I have heard is that, constitutionally, we are not actually at war with terrorism because congress declared no such war and only the president. I’ve never double checked that, but if so, then we run into a technicality.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.