Extreme situation:if a criminal asked you how would you prefer to be killed is it immoral to even pick an option?

Extreme situation:if a criminal asked you how would you prefer to be killed (let’s the options were by shot at point blank,poisonous injection,flamethrower or thrown into a crocodile pit) and presuming that any of actions will 100% result in your sure death, would it be moral to actually/even *pick *an option?.

This is what I mean/why I think this/why I ask. I’m guessing that most ppl would answer (pick) the least painful way (lethal injection) but then it occurred to me that (wouldn’t you) by the simple volitional act of choosing the methods that could be done onto you laid out before you (with the reason/intention:confused:, I might add of picking a method that is effective at being an expedient/“deliverer” of death).

Wouldn’t the lesser evil in this case by to say to the killer “do whatever you want” ,b/c you would not be participating in the taking of your own life ?, (even if the outcome that they choose is a painful one;like being thrown into a crocodile pit).

B/c it’s occured to me and I wondered,“how many who have found themselves at dispoistion of a cruel person who lays out options on how it’s going to end,have picked the least painful method possible to lessen suffering…*…one justification brought up by advocates of euthanization :blush: (?),I’m guessing…”

*I also thought to myself how [wikipedia quote] "Origen wrote: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer…[dying that way;choosing to die that way;choosing to be killed that way;for the special reason being that he did not feel worthy of being crucified like Christ]

By extention I wonder:would choosing the least painful way to be killed/die if I killer laid out the method he could do before me,make me no better than those who choose to pain in a less painful way?,(lethal injection in some hospice?)

the thought in my mind that it’s better to “to die than to be killed”–makes me think this here is something related/having to do with meta-ethics b/c I’m looking at the language and logic here.

Here we go again: another weird “too much time on my hands” thread, masquerading as “moral theology.”

This is not moral theology, and as somebody who comes to the moral theology forum to educate myself and perhaps others, I must confess I do not think spending mental energy on this material to be a positive or productive use of time or mental resources.

I’m sure this probably falls into the same category as double effect. If someone breaks into your home and is attempting to kill you and your family, and you shoot them in self-defense, it is not a sin because the intent wasn’t to kill them, but to stop the murder of others. In a similarly impossible situation as you described, I don’t see how you would be held morally culpable. The example of Peter that you described is a good example.

For the record, there are theologians that deal with proper answers to rare fringe questions like this, but usually only after the fact. Some of the more interesting genuine ones:

  1. What to do if a mouse or rat runs across the altar after the consecration and steals and eats a host before it can be prevented.

  2. What to do if a spider falls into the consecrated Blood.

  3. A very unusual real one that became public in the 1970s is whether cannibalism is a sin in the event of a disaster where it’s the only hope of survival. This came up because of a plane crash high in the Andes that stranded several passengers for many weeks and made famous in the movie “Alive”. BTW, the official answer from the pope was no, it is not sinful; as long as the people are actually dead (and were not killed for food, etc), it falls under the same moral rules as an organ transplant, in that someone else’s body part can be morally used to keep another person alive.

I can only agree. Better to ask real life questions, such as to which a barrister has to have a moral response. What do you do if your client tells you he is guilty? There is a specific answer under the rules of ethics but I wonder is this sufficient for a Christian? These are better debating issues than the one posited by the OP.

“100 years from now” :stuck_out_tongue:

The best answer I have ever heard has come from Maxwell Smart.

Evil Villain:

How would you like to die.

Maxwell Smart:

Old Age.

You can reply " I cannot decide". Your captor would then have to let you go. Your inquiry implies that the potential killer could not decide.

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