Correct answer to this question posed by non-believer?


Is this the correct answer to this question?

“In fact, I can demonstrate this to you with an example: Go back to 9/11. You’re commanding a squadron that is about to shoot down the hijacked planes. You receive a message. The passengers are in the process of taking the planes back from the terrorists.  There’s no sure bet they’ll succeed, however. You now have a choice to shoot them down or see if they’ll take the plane back. You don’t have time to wait. What is the objectively moral decision to make?”

(He doesn’t believe in God and is trying to make the case that all morality is subjective. I am making the case that because without God, all morality WOULD be subjective, God must exist, as proves that fact that it is “built” into us to recognize that murder is wrong)

My answer: Either decision is morally OK, assuming that either way your intention is to save as many lives as possible and any lives lost are an unintended side effect. In this case, it would not be murder. This is called the principle of double-effect.


I’d find out what the catechism says, and use that as the basis for my answer.


Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

  • there must be serious prospects of success;

  • 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.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112

found at the Vatican website:


So he objectively belives that morality is subjective? Try asking him that one.


I personally detest so-called "ethics" questions which pin you into an impossible situation and expect you to make a quick moral decision. Non-believers frequently make up questions in order to do just what happened to you: STUMP the believer!

You may ask back:

"Why exactly are you asking me this question? To learn the value of life? Or to find out how I think in quick life or death decisions?"

"What would YOU do in this situation?" "Why?"

You might ask:

How exactly would you know that the people are overcoming the terrorists?
How far is the plane from its target?
How accessible is your commanding officer? Is it your call only?

Do the situational ethics here make the truth of an action more murky and muddy? What purpose does that serve?

Remember: when Jesus was arrested He did not answer every question in a helpful, forthright manner. He knew who was a fool and who was using Him for their attempts at playing with power and truth.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit