The 9/11 order

[DianaCC]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Yes, we accept the UNintended deaths of civilians in a just war...

So far nothing is being said about the moral responsibility of those who create the situation in the first place. If *I* hijacked a plane full of people, intending to fly it into a building full of more people, I think I would accept responsibility for the deaths of the passengers because *I* was the one who basically forced the military to shoot us down. I would not hold the military responsible for their deaths at all. I have heard Palestinians deliberately launch missiles into Israel from the roofs of elementary schools *because* they know Jews have a problem with killing innocent children. It's the same idea as when in old movies men fight over a small object and a woman drops it down the front of her dress with a defiant smirk, because she knows no 19th century gentleman would be so crass as to violate a lady's person. The key to the safe with the stolen gold bullion is one thing, but if it were the key to the nuclear reactor core shutdown switch, that's another. And the simplest way out of that dilemma is for the supporting actress to shove her own fist down that bodice for the greater good. So following this analogy, how could we sidestep the OP's dilemma altogether?

[exnihilo]

Originally Posted by St Francis

It is moral to shoot down a plane (or other vehicle) which is about to crash into, say, a city. The action is not directly targeting the passengers--you would still shoot down the plane if it were remore-controlled and had no people on it--so the deaths of the people are an unintended side-effect.

This is ***absolutely not*** the same as performing an abortion to save the lofe of the mother. Performing an abortion *is* directly targeting the person; the death of the unborn child is the intention of the act of abortion.

First please understand I very much against abortion, war and any violence. Having said that I'm not convinced the distinction is one that matters between these two scenarios.

The ultimate goal of aborting a fetus that threatens the life of a mother is the same as the goal of shooting down a plane on 9/11. In both the goal is to save innocent lives. In both possibly innocent lives will be killed.

In both cases the lives that will be killed are threatening the life of an innocent person. In the case of a 9/11 plane the threat is much less certain. We could assume that the people on the plane will all die. But they will die regardless of whether the government shoots the plane down or the hijackers crash it. We can assume the plane is intended to be used as a missile but we are much less certain of the success of that evil intention and the number of people at risk if the plane is allowed to be used for its ultimate purpose. We simply dont know if it will actually kill innocent people on the ground and how many they will be.

The fetus threatening the mother could be called innocent. But if its actions are threatening the life of the mother, even if it is done without the will of the actor, does that prohibit self defense? I'm not convinced think that in such a case self-defense is not allowed. There are plenty of similar scenarios one can think of. What if a young child or retarded adult was standing over a device that will cause explosives to detonate and kill many people. Would it be morally acceptable to kill that child or adult to prevent the loss of many lives? In that case the actor is not aware of the danger their actions pose and are not really responsible for the actions just as the fetus is not responsible for the threat it poses.

In both shooting down the plane and aborting the fetus the ultimate goal is not killing for the sake of killing. I think both are difficult issues but I dont see how if one so easily accepts shooting down the plane they can find abortion to save the life of the mother wrong.

Originally Posted by DianaCC

I have heard Palestinians deliberately launch missiles into Israel from the roofs of elementary schools *because* they know Jews have a problem with killing innocent children.

I dont doubt that people in many conflicts try to hide behind innocents. But regarding this war the innocent Palestinian children are dying at a much greater rate than Israeli children. Certainly not everyone in the Israeli army is so troubled by the idea of killing children.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

But regarding this war the innocent Palestinian children are dying at a much greater rate than Israeli children. Certainly not everyone in the Israeli army is so troubled by the idea of killing children.

It does not follow that the death rate would have anything to do with anyone in the Israeli army.
There are a number of other factors involved that could readily contribute to this statistic.

Your logic here is flawed.

[exnihilo]

Originally Posted by vz71

It does not follow that the death rate would have anything to do with anyone in the Israeli army.
There are a number of other factors involved that could readily contribute to this statistic.

Your logic here is flawed.

Well that was not a tight logical argument. The point was merely that I do not believe that everyone in the Israeli army is worried about children's deaths. To believe otherwise is to think that one side is holy and the other not. Of course such thinking is popular, particularly in the US, but very inconsistent with Christian thought.

[DianaCC]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

I dont doubt that people in many conflicts try to hide behind innocents. But regarding this war the innocent Palestinian children are dying at a much greater rate than Israeli children. Certainly not everyone in the Israeli army is so troubled by the idea of killing children.

Well maybe the Palestinians know that if they throw their children in the paths of Israeli bullets it will make the Israelis look bad.

[DianaCC]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

Well that was not a tight logical argument. The point was merely that I do not believe that everyone in the Israeli army is worried about children's deaths. To believe otherwise is to think that one side is holy and the other not. Of course such thinking is popular, particularly in the US, but very inconsistent with Christian thought.

So your counter-argument is that I supposedly said "no Israelis kill children" to which you reply with "but some Israelis do kill children"? Ok I'm out of my league here. Maybe the stats run the way they do because Israelis protect their children instead of using them as human shields.

But to get back on topic, the fact that a terrorist deliberately sets up the dilemma in the first place lessens the military's responsibility for the deaths of the other people on the plane.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

First please understand I very much against abortion, war and any violence. Having said that I'm not convinced the distinction is one that matters between these two scenarios.

The ultimate goal of aborting a fetus that threatens the life of a mother is the same as the goal of shooting down a plane on 9/11. In both the goal is to save innocent lives. In both possibly innocent lives will be killed.

...

There is a difference between the end of an act and the goal, and between those two and the result.

An action is taken to fulfill a goal, to save one or more lives. the result is, one hopes, the saving of the life, but it may not be, as you point out.

The end of the action is what you might call the goal of the action in itself.

You are driving when you see a car hurtling down a hill towards a group of people. You quickly intercept the car with yours, knocking off course into a river. If the car is empty, no one dies. If the car is full of people, they die (in this scenario). You did not, however, intend their deaths, nor was death the end of your action. The end of your action was knocking the car. The goal was to save the lives of the bystanders. The result was some saved lives and some lost if there were people in the car, or just saved lives if it was empty.

In shooting down the planes, if they are empty, you will still want to shoot it down. The end of you actiin is the disablement of the plane, the goal is to save lives the plane might take.

But in abortion, while the goal is the same, to save the life of the mother, the end of the act is different. The act just *is* the taking of a human life, the end of the act is the death od the baby.

Consider is a doctor performs chemo on a woman with cancer. the end is to eradicate the cancerous cells, but a side effect for a pregnant woman might be that the unborn child dies.

Does that clarify the difference for you?

[St Francis]

ExNihilo,
http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...=596167&page=5

Starting on post 65 of that paage, you'll see a discussion where Contarini makes the same point as yours, and my replies. Maybe that will help you understand the Catholic positiin better.

[AndyF]

This is not the experience, since the reciprocal to attempting to obtain peace by force in this way effects tempered resolve in the enemy(?), (proof, ill equipped viet cong) and having primitive weapons is no factor in persuasion. If while shooting a presumed taliban leader from a drone and it kills my three children in proximity, then I wouldn't need my nation to declare war, I would do it myself. So now we see why we have so many family-less individuals has the ideal role model for these attacks.

cc2309: - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Following your thought process, then I am justified in using a howitzer to rid my home of a burglar regardless if the blast would take out many (colateral)families in my neighborhood. Having in possession a weapon that can do more than needed does not justify it's use for all cases.

But you miss the point. The government who does it's duty in protecting peace could
be in a position where prior to ever using the drones, finds itself in severed friendship with God by ignoring the restriction to murdering sentenced offenders in direct defiance of the moral laws (hence my ref "it goes alone"). Jesus warns us to clean our house before we present our good works has gifts to His glory, and nations are not exempt. Not only this, while in this state the decision making process is open to more faults and errors has a compounding effect of sin.

The consequence of dropping capital punishment could result in the added graces to
see a strategy has not appropriate for the effect desired. So we can never tell whilst in this state, only when we obey does our collective conscience turn on the runway lights to see if we are making the right moral landing.

Besides, while 5 tons of Cesium 137 still not accounted for since the end of the cold war, a pound of which could render square miles of rendered useless real estate for decades not to mention elevated cancer cases, I think there isn't a bat big enough to allow us to stick our chest out in arrogance. And if this isn't a good enough excuse for you, then you have just rendered my grandchildren's future life has "collateral damage".

[St Francis]

I for one am not talking about any partcular action or nation.

And as to the howitzer, the use of force must not exceed that which is needed to stop the attack or war. If you only need a gun to stop a burglar, you cannot morally use a cannon.

Originally Posted by AndyF

This is not the experience, since the reciprocal to attempting to obtain peace by force in this way effects tempered resolve in the enemy(?), (proof, ill equipped viet cong) and having primitive weapons is no factor in persuasion. If while shooting a presumed taliban leader from a drone and it kills my three children in proximity, then I wouldn't need my nation to declare war, I would do it myself. So now we see why we have so many family-less individuals has the ideal role model for these attacks.

cc2309: - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Following your thought process, then I am justified in using a howitzer to rid my home of a burglar regardless if the blast would take out many (colateral)families in my neighborhood. Having in possession a weapon that can do more than needed does not justify it's use for all cases.

But you miss the point. The government who does it's duty in protecting peace could
be in a position where prior to ever using the drones, finds itself in severed friendship with God by ignoring the restriction to murdering sentenced offenders in direct defiance of the moral laws (hence my ref "it goes alone"). Jesus warns us to clean our house before we present our good works has gifts to His glory, and nations are not exempt. Not only this, while in this state the decision making process is open to more faults and errors has a compounding effect of sin.

The consequence of dropping capital punishment could result in the added graces to
see a strategy has not appropriate for the effect desired. So we can never tell whilst in this state, only when we obey does our collective conscience turn on the runway lights to see if we are making the right moral landing.

Besides, while 5 tons of Cesium 137 still not accounted for since the end of the cold war, a pound of which could render square miles of rendered useless real estate for decades not to mention elevated cancer cases, I think there isn't a bat big enough to allow us to stick our chest out in arrogance. And if this isn't a good enough excuse for you, then you have just rendered my grandchildren's future life has "collateral damage".

[Bill_G]

I think one question has to be answered before we can decide if the order was moral or not. We have to determine the intent of the decision/order as if intent was to kill as many people as possible which is the intent of the attack in the first place, but I doubt was the intent of the order that was given out to shoot down any other planes.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Bill_G

I think one question has to be answered before we can decide if the order was moral or not. We have to determine the intent of the decision/order as if intent was to kill as many people as possible which is the intent of the attack in the first place, but I doubt was the intent of the order that was given out to shoot down any other planes.

The order was given by the US government to the US military to keep the planes from crashing into populated areas where they would kill a lot of people.

The military was doing its job of protectiing our nation and our citizenry.

[Bill_G]

Originally Posted by St Francis

The order was given by the US government to the US military to keep the planes from crashing into populated areas where they would kill a lot of people.

The military was doing its job of protectiing our nation and our citizenry.

Yes that is what I was driving at but you said it much better than I did.

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by Bill_G

Yes that is what I was driving at but you said it much better than I did.

Oh, good. i was afraid you might be trying to say someething else!