Is it morally acceptable to kill in innocent person in self-defense?

[Pb]

It is hard to come up with a good scenario here, but...

Suppose an innocent person is endangering your life unintentionally.

Is it morally okay to kill that person, assuming that is the only way you can prevent yourself from being seriously injured or killed?  What do you think? 

[Hawkmoon]

In my humble opinion, absolutely yes. Although the King James Bible says the sixth (or 5th, or 7th, depending on how you count) commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," more recent translations make it clear that a more accurate rendition is, "Do not commit murder."

The Roman Catholic Catechism makes it clear that the taking of a human life in self defense is not a sin:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

[HeroHog]

Them or me, I choose me. Will feel REAL bad about it in the end when the facts/reasons come out but, hey, I'm still here. Now had I known up front that it was a mistake on their part, I would do everything I could to avoid killing them while ultimately preserving myself.

[griz]

I'm still having a hard time imagining the scenario.  How do they endanger my life accidentally?  Anything I can imagine means they are no longer innocent.

[cordex]

I'm still having a hard time imagining the scenario.  How do they endanger my life accidentally?  Anything I can imagine means they are no longer innocent.

Not to speak for Pb, but the old "two people on a life raft with limited rations" might be one example.

[230RN]

I'm still having a hard time imagining the scenario.  How do they endanger my life accidentally?  Anything I can imagine means they are no longer innocent.

It reminds me of one of those college sophomore artificially set up ethical debates which come up as the party winds down.  Exempli gratia: "If you had a chance in 1938 of killing Hitler without anyone knowing who did it, would you do it?"

They usually last until the "qualifications" to the issue run out, the beer runs out, the sun rises, or everybody gets horny, whichever occurs first.

Proceed.

Terry, grinning, 230RN

[dogmush]

I think a lot would depend on the exact situation.  One variable I can think of is whose fault is the situation?

If you have done something to put yourself in the situation where an innocent is unintentionally threatening your life, then no I would say it's not moral to kill them.  Like if a plane is crashing and there's you and one other person, but only one parachute, but it was expressly your responsibility to ensure enough parachutes for everyone, can you morally take the chute and condemn the innocent?  I would say no.

Not to speak for Pb, but the old "two people on a life raft with limited rations" might be one example.

This example as well.  I'm not sure anyone would agree that it's moral to throw other survivors out of the raft to maximize your available food/water.


If we want to get really navel gazing, let us contemplate the age old Trolley Problem from the point of view of the guy on the tracks.  The trolley is speeding towards a bunch of widows and orphans and the guy in the trolley is about to pull the lever and send it down the tracks towards you. Is it moral to shoot the guy in the trolley, saving yourself, and condemning the widows and orphans?

[Ben]

I think a lot would depend on the exact situation.  One variable I can think of is whose fault is the situation?

If you have done something to put yourself in the situation where an innocent is unintentionally threatening your life, then no I would say it's not moral to kill them.  Like if a plane is crashing and there's you and one other person, but only one parachute, but it was expressly your responsibility to ensure enough parachutes for everyone, can you morally take the chute and condemn the innocent?  I would say no.


This example as well.  I'm not sure anyone would agree that it's moral to throw other survivors out of the raft to maximize your available food/water.


If we want to get really navel gazing, let us contemplate the age old Trolley Problem from the point of view of the guy on the tracks.  The trolley is speeding towards a bunch of widows and orphans and the guy in the trolley is about to pull the lever and send it down the tracks towards you. Is it moral to shoot the guy in the trolley, saving yourself, and condemning the widows and orphans?

I would like to see Pb post an example so I don't misinterpret him. In the examples above, my own moral upbringing (and I suppose Catholicism comes into play even though I'm a half-assed Catholic) as well as my own philosophy on life, would not only say that killing the people is wrong, but also that if there was no other way out, that I should be prepared to step up and possibly die if necessary so that (innocent) others might live.

There are certainly grey areas to the above. Like what if the person, innocent in that particular instance, is also a murder/child rapist/Democrat? Are they still really innocent?

EDIT: I'm not voting until I get a better sense of what Pb means.

[Pb]

I'm still having a hard time imagining the scenario.  How do they endanger my life accidentally?  Anything I can imagine means they are no longer innocent.

I've come up with a few.

A woman who is hallucinating that you are a demon trying to kill her children, for example, and so she is attacking you based on her delusions.

Somewhat more far-fetched...In wartime, a courier, unaware of what he is doing, transporting a bomb towards your position.

[Brad Johnson]

"Innocent person" implies there is no threat. If someone is attacking you or giving the perceived appearance thereof, no matter the reason or their base demeanor, they are a threat and shall be dealt with accordingly.

Brad

[Ben]

"Innocent person" implies there is no threat. If someone is attacking you or giving the perceived appearance thereof, no matter the reason or their base demeanor, they are a threat and shall be dealt with accordingly.

Brad

Mostly agree, but there is still that darned trolley car.

[cordex]

A woman who is hallucinating that you are a demon trying to kill her children, for example, and so she is attacking you based on her delusions.

A mentally ill person trying to murder someone else is still an active threat.  While there may be some sort of exception for criminal liability that would let you call her "innocent", she is still trying to initiate violence.  If lethal force was the only option, then I'd say yes, it is morally acceptable.

If it were not, then wouldn't it also be morally wrong to defend yourself against an intoxicated attacker as well?

Somewhat more far-fetched...In wartime, a courier, unaware of what he is doing, transporting a bomb towards your position.

Yes, but the moral culpability for the death lies in the person or group that duped the courier into carrying the bomb.

[HankB]

The scenarios I'm coming up with all seem to be movie scripts - for example, someone is kidnapped and blackmailed into being a suicide bomber. Would you shoot them to stop their approach, or allow them to get close and blow you up as well as themselves?

Or someone with a deadly disease (Ebola?) is still ambulatory, but is approaching you, maybe seeking help. If you're not a health care worker with the right PPE, would you risk infection by letting them get within contact distance?

Or a boat you're on capsizes - you're NOT a great swimmer, but you think you can - barely - make it to shore. But some stranger from the boat panics and tries to climb on top of you, placing you at high risk of going under. Now what?

[griz]

OK, given the examples I went ahead and voted.  I wouldn't characterize those examples as "innocent".  Like most here, my criteria would be whether or not they were an actual threat, not their motivation or sanity at the time.  Given the train track switch problem, I think I'll wait till I (or anybody ever) is confronted with the problem rather than determine the correct solution now.

[Ben]

I also voted, and chose "morally acceptable", but with the caveat that I don't consider them completely innocent.

[cordex]

A few years ago Charby had a thread along these lines.

In his example the choice was between killing a loved one and surviving as a group or the whole group dying.

[French G.]

It would have been moral for the Air Force pilots to shoot down an airliner on 9/11, even a mistaken identity one that wasn’t hijacked. If a guy slipped at a scenic overlook and tumbled towards the cliff also knocking my child to hanging on to the edge I would gladly step on his head to save my child.