Is it morally wrong to endanger one's health and that of others?

Are there ever any good reasons for endangering:

  1. One’s own health?

  2. The health of others?

  3. Everyone’s health?

Soldiers and their leaders do it all the time.

Not that I can think of.

Are they ever morally justified in doing so? If so when?

Don’t you believe it is wrong to pollute the world? :wink:

BTW My mother was born in Nottingham… :slight_smile:

I endanger my health and the health of others to drive to work every morning.

SO, it’s a risk/reward thing.

These are moral concerns, but I don’t think you’ll find many that will say that these are always “morally wrong.”.These are speaking about “risk” where the negative outcome may or may not occur. At best you can avoid creating situations that involve unnecessary risk and use your best judgement to decide when a risk is unnecessary. Ambulance drivers put others drivers and pedestrians at risk when they rush an injured person to a medical facility. There are also activities in which the risk involved are significantly higher than others, or the loss involved if the risk occurs is higher.

There’s also some Catholic “principal of double-effect” (PDE) that may be worth mentioning.

Oh WOW really! Which part?

I meant I can’t think of any good reason to endanger people’s (or any) life.

The care of the Earth is a major concern of Franciscans and should be of Christians everywhere.
But life and children are a blessing.

I don’t know. One day I’ll have to investigate…

I meant I can’t think of any good reason to endanger people’s (or any) life.

The care of the Earth is a major concern of Franciscans and should be of Christians everywhere.
But life and children are a blessing.

What about self-defence when unjustly attacked - as we were by the Nazis?

This is what Jesus Christ said about it, that’s what I believe:

Matthew 5:
10 Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you because of me.
12
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

43
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.


The Church condemns absolute pacifism.

Devoutchristian how can you say that? You have just disagreed with what Jesus is recorded as saying.

John Paul II ““War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity”

Because its true and because I don’t form my opinions about theology by cherry-picking bible verses that can be construed to support my position.

Jesus also took action in the Temple, condemned the self-righteous and defended the victims of injustice…

:thumbsup: I apologise for the delay in answering.

Do you believe it is morally wrong for persons who smoke, take illegal drugs or practise unnatural sex to live in close daily contact with children?

I don’t think we’d agree on the topic of “unnatural sex” (for example, as I understand it sex with contraceptives is considered “unnatural” by many in these forums). Use of illegal drugs (or irresponsible use of some legal drugs!) can be correlated to higher risks especially if the parent is also engaged in certain other activities while under the influence of the drugs (simple example: taking a muscle relaxer and driving).

I’m not supportive of smoking at all. And smoking around children is something that can endanger their long term life quality which also raises concerns.

What justification is there for regarding anal sex as natural?

I don’t know. I’m not personally concerned with whether it’s classified as “natural” or “unnatural” or “artificial” when speaking about whether or not a person that practices it is a safe person in which to entrust the well being of children. There are homosexual and heterosexual people alike that engage in anal sex or use other instruments and devices when engaging in sexual activity. I can’t yet make the conclusion that people that do so are putting children at risk, so it’s a non-issue for me.

Yet you are aware there is a higher incidence of anal sex, HIV and other contagious diseases among homosexuals?

Specifically among male homosexuals, not females homosexuals. Though if a potential parent isn’t HIV+ and in a monogamous relationship it seems like this would be a non-issue.

It sounds like what you may be getting at is having a restriction against HIV+ potential parents from adopting children (and possible restriction against parents adopting HIV+ children?).

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.