Execution

[Vouthon]

I am well-aware the Catholic Church doesn't take the whole bible literally. But consider speeches like this:

It's clear that those events are meant in a literal way. There is no denying that.
So when you tell me that the Church teachs strictly about Faith and Morals, that is a claim that simply doesn't correspond to reality.

This is not about Papal Infallibility. This is about what the Church teaches.



Because we now know those events didn't transpire as depicted in the bible. So it is convenient to say that the scriptures don't mean they did happen. There is simply no room for them to be completely incorrect and misguided in essence. They must not be. Therefore, if any interpretation would lead one to that conclusion, they must be interpreted as not being literal.

I'm afraid that there is still a disconnect between our respective approaches to this issue.

Benedict XVI, contrary to your interpretation, is not speaking as to the historicity of the events of Exodus and whether they were written by their author with the intention of being a historical account - he is discussing the religious significance of the story in the history of God's relationship with the Jewish people and as a consequence to Christians, the divine drama of faith rooted in a historical people, the Jews, and their covenant with God.

Where you are going wrong, is that you are confusing the religious reading with a discussion of the genre.

The Church has no authority to declare whether a text was written as a history or a fable or a myth or a parable - she has authority only over Faith and Morals. She must rely on scholarly expertise and knowledge of the literary norms of the period in question to arrive at a proper exegesis. This is is precisely what the Divine constitution, Dei Verbum, calls Catholics to do - and it is the authoritative document of an ecumenical council.

And for Moses and the flood narrative, the relevant scholarship has established that these were not written as histories. That is not their genre. The Noah story is derived from poems written in Akkadian and Sumerian that form part of clearly fictional narratives that were popular literature in the culture of other Semitic peoples. The sacred authors drew on these tales to impart moral and religious truths revealed by God, according to our understanding. I'm failing to see why you don't get that it wasn't written as history, which means that while it is divine revelation and the religious significance is clear, we shouldn't treat it as history.

If Benedict XVI did think it was a historical account (which he didn't actually say in your quote, that's not what his purpose was), then that would be his personal opinion and certainly not binding on me or any other Catholic. The Church has no authority to determine these matters - its outside her remit, which concerns only Faith and Morals.

In this manner, the Church relies on critical scholarship to form a proper exegesis of the sacred text according to the genre, time period and intention with which it was written - which we cannot discern by osmosis but only through academic study.

It's not merely a case of we now know these events didn't happen - its what the original authors intended. And they didn't intend to write history, as evidenced by their reliance on earlier fables from surrounding cultures and literary motifs.

1 Maccabees (which is sacred scripture for Catholics, forming part of our Old Testament canon), by contrast, was written as a historical account of the Maccabean Revolt from whence the Jewish festival of Hanukkah originates and so I accept it as being such.

 

[Koldo]

I'm afraid that there is still a disconnect between our respective approaches to this issue.

Benedict XVI, contrary to your interpretation, is not speaking as to the historicity of the events of Exodus and whether they were written by their author with the intention of being a historical account - he is discussing the religious significance of the story in the history of God's relationship with the Jewish people and as a consequence to Christians, the divine drama of faith rooted in a historical people, the Jews, and their covenant with God.

Let me stop you right here.
Just read the first sentence: "For Israel, the Exodus is the central historical event in which God reveals his powerful action. "

He then builds upon that. Never denying its historicity.

"The Catechism retraces God’s journey with man from the Covenant with Noah after the flood, to the call to Abraham to leave his land to be made the father of a multitude of peoples. God forms his People Israel in the event of the Exodus, in the Covenant of Sinai and in the gift, through Moses, of the Law, in order to be recognized and served as the one living and true God. With the prophets, God forms his People in the hope of salvation."

Where you are going wrong, is that you are confusing the religious reading with a discussion of the genre.

The Church has no authority to declare whether a text was written as a history or a fable or a myth or a parable - she has authority only over Faith and Morals. She must rely on scholarly expertise and knowledge of the literary norms of the period in question to arrive at a proper exegesis. This is is precisely what the Divine constitution, Dei Verbum, calls Catholics to do - and it is the authoritative document of an ecumenical council.

And for Moses and the flood narrative, the relevant scholarship has established that these were not written as histories. That is not their genre. The Noah story is derived from poems written in Akkadian and Sumerian that firm part of clearly fictional narratives that were part of the culture of the Semitic peoples. I'm failing to see why you don't get that it wasn't written as history, which means that while it is divine revelation and the religious significance is clear, we shouldn't treat it as history.

If Benedict XVI did think it was a historical account (which he didn't actually say in your quote, that's not what his purpose was), then that would be his personal opinion. The Church has no authority to determine these matters - its outside her remit, which is Faith and Morals.

In this manner, the Church relies on critical scholarship to form a proper exegesis of the sacred text according to the genre, time period and intention with which it was written - which we cannot discern by osmosis but only through academic study.

It's not merely a case of we now know these events didn't happen - its what the original authors intended. And they didn't intend to write history, as evidenced by their reliance on earlier fables from surrounding cultures and literary motifs.

1 Maccabees, by contrast, was written as a historical account of the Maccabean Revolt and so I accept it as being such.

Regardless of whether it has such an authority, the Church does teach things that go beyond Faith and Morals. Period.

 

[metis]

Firstly, the Church teaches only Faith and Morals. The genre of biblical texts is dictated by historical fact and scholarship, not the Magisterium. It's not a matter of Faith. The Church does not teach that Catholics should accept the Exodus account as historical, rather it teaches us that we must understand it according to its literary genre to engage in proper exegesis of the text (which is a matter of faith) as laid out in Dei Verbum (the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation) which I quoted for you above - and scholars, including Catholic ones, have determined that it isn't historical and was not written as such. So that's that.

Exactly, and when was the last time we have heard anyone being excommunicated from the CC because they have the wrong beliefs?

The church has its role to teach what it thinks is right, but Joe & Mary Parishioner have their role to understand the teachings but then make their own decisions. I personally don't know of any Catholics that have been excommunicated, including yours truly.

The analogy I've used here at RF is that the church is like the Roman traffic cop, whereas if you ignore him then what happens next falls upon yourself.

 

[Vouthon]

Let me stop you right here.
Just read the first sentence: "For Israel, the Exodus is the central historical event in which God reveals his powerful action. "

For Israel, it was remembered by later Jews as their national origin story - but that does not speak to the actual intention of the author of the Book of Exodus. He is talking about the reception of the collective cultural footprint of the story of the exodus from Egypt in the life of the historical people of Israel, not about the intent of the original author of the text from which it is derived.

"The Catechism retraces God’s journey with man from the Covenant with Noah after the flood, to the call to Abraham to leave his land to be made the father of a multitude of peoples. God forms his People Israel in the event of the Exodus, in the Covenant of Sinai and in the gift, through Moses, of the Law, in order to be recognized and served as the one living and true God. With the prophets, God forms his People in the hope of salvation."

According to the text of the Torah, God forms his people through these events. That's the religious significance.

But he isn't speaking academically as to whether the book is actually about actual history and was intended as such. And if he did teach outside his remit, then his role of pope has no reach into this area - making it mere personal opinion, and one which I'd emphatically reject on the basis of scholarly consensus on the intended genre of the original text which must frame our exegesis.

Regardless of whether it has such an authority, the Church does teach things that go beyond Faith and Morals. Period.

Then you must not properly understand Catholic theology or have read Dei Verbum because that's simply not how it works. The Church cannot teach divine truth binding on conscience about science or archaeology or literature or other matters. She must rely, and does rely, on the appropriate disciplines and then uses that information to more clearly teach and/or distinguish the moral or religious aspects of these things.

As I said, you can refer to our list of de fide doctrines and they are all restricted to Faith and Morals.

If a pope utters something outside Faith and Morals, or if the Magisterium were to do so, then it is not binding on anyone.

 

[Vouthon]

Exactly, and when was the last time we have heard anyone being excommunicated from the CC because they have the wrong beliefs?

The church has its role to teach what it thinks is right, but Joe & Mary Parishioner have their role to understand the teachings but then make their own decisions. I personally don't know of any Catholics that have been excommunicated, including yours truly.

The analogy I've used here at RF is that the church is like the Roman traffic cop, whereas if you ignore him then what happens next falls upon yourself.

Very true!

See:

"...All men, then, should [...] be joined in mutual and just regard for one another's opinions...For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark..."

- Pope St. John XXIII, AD PETRI CATHEDRAM (On Truth, Unity and Peace), 1959​

 

[Koldo]

For Israel, it was remembered by later Jews as their national origin story - but that does not speak to the actual intention of the author of the Book of Exodus. He is talking about the reception of the collective cultural footprint of the story of the exodus from Egypt in the life of the historical people of Israel, not about the intent of the original author of the text from which it is derived.

He is saying that "For Israel, the Exodus is the central historical event in which God reveals his powerful action."
He is saying that, regardless of the author's intent, it is intrepeted as a central historical event.

According to the text of the Torah, God forms his people through these events. That's the religious significance.

But he isn't speaking academically as to whether the book is actually about actual history and was intended as such. And if he did teach outside his remit, then his role of pope has no reach into this area - making it mere personal opinion.

If those events didn't transpire, then God didn't form his people through them.

He isn't speaking academically. But his speech is a form of instruction, and therefore, being the Pope, it is accurate to say that it is a, de facto, teaching coming from the Church.

Then you must not properly understand Catholic theology and must not have read Dei Verbum because that's simply not how it works. The Church cannot teach divine truth binding on conscience about science or archaeology or literature or other matters. She must rely, and does rely, on the appropriate disciplines and then uses that information to more clearly teach and/or distinguish the moral or religious aspects of these things.

As I said, you can refer to our list of de fide doctrines and they are all restricted to Faith and Morals.

I am not talking about teaching divine truth binding on conscience. I am not talking about whether a Catholic individual is bound by the teachings of the Pope or the Cathecism. I am talking about what the Church teaches. Just that.

 

[Vouthon]

He is saying that "For Israel, the Exodus is the central historical event in which God reveals his powerful action."
He is saying that, regardless of the author's intent, it is intrepeted as a central historical event.

But the author's intent is the crucial matter for proper scriptural exegesis of the kind we were discussing earlier. You agree, Benedict was not discussing this then? Whether or not the Jewish people interpreted it as describing a historical event (which they evidently did) is a different question from what the original author meant to convey by writing it.

If those events didn't transpire, then God didn't form his people through them.

Not true. The parables of Jesus didn't historically transpire but by means of God delivering them to us through the Apostles they most certainly formed the later people of God throughout the history of the Church.

An event need not have actually happened to exert a great influence upon the collective mind of those who believe it did, or who derive spiritual meaning from it.

He isn't speaking academically. But his speech is a form of instruction, and therefore, being the Pope, it is accurate to say that it is a, de facto, teaching coming from the Church.

The religious and moral teaching inherent in the address would form part of the ordinary magisterium. Anything else, if there is indeed anything else, wouldn't.

I am not talking about teaching divine truth binding on conscience. I am not talking about whether a Catholic individual is bound by the teachings of the Pope or the Cathecism. I am talking about what the Church teaches. Just that.

What the Church "teaches" are moral and religious truths derived from divine revelation that it alone has the ultimate authority to definitively interpret for the faithful. It cannot and doesn't imply anything beyond that. It's teaching authority extends only to matters having to do with Faith and Morals, there is simply no disputing this from the Catholic theological standpoint.

 

[Koldo]

But the author's intent is the crucial matter for proper scriptural exegesis of the kind we were discussing earlier. You agree, Benedict was not discussing this then?

Consider the post before that: "He then builds upon that. Never denying its historicity."

Not true. The parables of Jesus didn't happen but by means of God delivering them to us through the Apostles they most certainly formed the later people of God throughout the history of the Church.

An event need not have actually happened to exert a great influence upon the collective mind of those who believe it did, or who derive spiritual meaning from it.

But Exodus' case is quite distinct here. It is impactful to Israel because it is regarded as a historical narrative ( at least to a certain extent ).

The religious and moral teaching inherent in the address would form part of the ordinary magisterium. Anything else, if there is indeed anything else, wouldn't.

Irrelevant to the regular listener.

What the Church "teaches" are moral and religious truths derived from divine revelation that it alone has the ultimate authority to definitively interpret for the faithful. It cannot and doesn't imply anything beyond that.

But it does teach beyond that. How many more examples do you want me to bring up before you are satisfied ?

 

[Vouthon]

Consider the post before that: "He then builds upon that. Never denying its historicity."

Which is not the same thing as positively affirming that the sacred author intended to write it as a historical account.

But Exodus' case is quite distinct here. It is impactful to Israel because it is regarded as a historical narrative ( at least to a certain extent ).

It sure was and that's what Benedict was saying but that still doesn't mean the author wrote it as a historical account. He evidently didn't, since the distantly set events it describes could not possibly have relied upon any extant historical data available to him/her in the era when he or she put pen to paper and because its written according to the literary conventions of Canaanite mythological "warrior deity" literature.

And its genre is what is crucial for proper exegesis. The Book of Jonah was once popularly received as a historical account, as was the Book of Daniel but we now know that Jonah was not written as history but with clearly fiction characteristics while Daniel is in the genre of apocalypse and was written not as a witness to the events of the Babylonian captivity but during the Maccabean Revolt as an explicitly fictional narrative set during the earlier epoch.

But it does teach beyond that. How many more examples do you want me to bring up before you are satisfied ?

It doesn't.

Catholics know what the church actually teaches and to what matters her teaching authority extends. Personal opinions about matters outside this remit are not part of the church's teaching even if, hypothetically, they happen to be in ecclesiastical documents.

The Church cannot, even in principle, authoritatively teach anything outside faith and morals. It has no authority to teach outside these two categories.

I'm not budging on this one iota because its a fact.

 

[Koldo]

Which is not the same thing as positively affirming that the sacred author intended to write it as a historical account.

The Book of Jonah was once popularly received as a historical account, as was the Book of Daniel but we now know that Jonah was not written as history but with clearly fiction characteristics while Daniel is in the genre of apocalypse.

It sure was but that still doesn't mean the author wrote it as a historical account. He evidently didn't, since the events it describes could not possibly have relied on any historical data available to him and because its written according to the literary conventions of Canaanite mythological "warrior deity" literature.

And its genre is what is crucial for proper exegesis.

It doesn't.

Catholics know what the church actually teaches and to what matters her teaching authority extends. Personal opinions about matters outside this Reno are distinct even if, hypothetically, they happen to be in ecclesiastical documents.

It doesn't matter what the intellectuals are thinking on their ivory towers. The ones who teach the regular folks are the priests, and to a certain extent the bishops and the pope. It's their views that matter. It's their view that influence them. That's what regular Catholics know. The Church teachs what its priests ( collectively ) teach. It doesn't matter what they have the authority to teach if they don't care to make this clear enough.

But since you have made quite an interesting claim, I can't let it slide. Substantiate that "Catholics ( in general ) know what the church actually teaches and to what matters her teaching authority extends".

 

[Vouthon]

It doesn't matter what the intellectuals are thinking on their ivory towers. The ones who teach the regular folks are the priests, and to a certain extent the bishops and the pope. It's their views that matter. It's their view that influence them. That's what regular Catholics know. The Church teachs what its priests ( collectively ) teach. It doesn't matter what they have the authority to teach if they don't care to make this clear enough.

But since you have made quite an interesting claim, I can't let it slide. Substantiate that "Catholics ( in general ) know what the church actually teaches and to what matters her teaching authority extends".

Well, we're entering a somewhat different discussion now - the question of how well lay Catholics have been catechised. Obviously, the reality will be dependent on a variety of factors in different jurisdictions around the world. Catholics who have been Jesuit-educated, for instance, should be very well catechised since a Jesuit education is so intellectually robust.

I can only rely on anecdotal evidence but would wager (and certainly hope) that the majority of practising Catholics who have taken a basic interest in and study of their religion, are aware that the pope and bishops only have the authority to teach on matters of faith and morals. It was certainly taught to me in early secondary school RE. I'm not making it up, that's a staple of Catholic theology.

What I have told you is the truth: the Church has no authority to teach anything outside faith and morals, such that if a pope or bishop does wander beyond that strict remit, his views on these issues are of no weight theologically. He might as well be talking about Game of Thrones or Star Trek, which he can certainly do if the notion takes him but its nothing but an opinion or curiosity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but opinions on matters beyond faith and morals do not, and more precisely cannot, amount to "church teaching".

See,

Lumen gentium

Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 25:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.

​

Faith and morals. No more, no less.

 

[Koldo]

Well, we're entering a somewhat different discussion now - the question of how well lay Catholics have been catechised. Obviously, the reality will be dependent on a variety of factors in different jurisdictions around the world. Catholics who have been Jesuit-educated, for instance, should be very well catechised since a Jesuit education is so intellectually robust.

I can only rely on anecdotal evidence but would wager (and certainly hope) that the majority of practising Catholics who have taken a basic interest in and study of their religion, are aware that the pope and bishops only have the authority to teach on matters of faith and morals. It was certainly taught to me in early secondary school RE. I'm not making it up, that's a staple of Catholic theology.

What I have told you is the truth: the Church has no authority to teach anything outside faith and morals, such that if a pope or bishop does wander beyond that strict remit, his views on these issues are of no weight theologically. He might as well be talking about Game of Thrones or Star Trek, which he can certainly do if the notion takes him but its nothing but an opinion or curiosity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but opinions on matters beyond faith and morals do not, and more precisely cannot, amount to "church teaching".

See,

Lumen gentium

Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 25:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.

​

Faith and morals. No more, no less.

Faith in what ?
We have an interpretation issue here.

We have been drawing a distinction here between faith and historicity. But this distinction is not apparent in your source. Faith can be interpreted as being in reference to everything that concerns God, which includes the bible and all the events written on it.

 

[columbus]

I'm afraid that there is still a disconnect between our respective approaches to this issue.

Here is where I see the disconnect between folks like you and @metis , and @Koldo and most people (believers and non-believers.

You have a very sophisticated and educated view of the Teachings, particularly about Scripture. The Christians who talk the loudest, most persistently, on the media and everywhere else have very different opinions. They write books and Facebook obnoxiously.
They are the ones most of the teaching about what Christianity means and stands for and teaches comes from.

You may not like it and think that Koldo et al should pay more attention to your interpretation than the loud common interpretations. But that is not likely to change any time soon.
Tom

 

[Vouthon]

Faith in what ?
We have an interpretation issue here.

We have been drawing a distinction here between faith and historicity. But this distinction is not apparent in your source. Faith can be interpreted as being in reference to everything that concerns God, which includes the bible and all the events written on it.

"Faith" in this context includes:

"all the truths revealed by God and proposed by the Church as necessary for men to believe and to act upon if they are to attain eternal salvation, e.g., articles of the Apostles Creed, the commandments of love of God and neighbor."

If something is not necessary for salvation, then it is not of faith.

For example, it is necessary to belief in the Holy Trinity and the sacraments for salvation according to Catholic understanding. These are example of "faith".

Faith is distinguished from other areas such as scientific knowledge, or indeed historical genres and literary forms. The Church cannot authoritatively teach that "x book of the Bible" was written in "x" genre. We must defer to the judgement of qualified scholars in discerning the genre according to the time period and then work within that context to formulate the proper exegesis.

The teaching authority of the Church extends only to faith and morals: what is necessary for salvation, basically.

And I've been explaining to you that situated in its proper literary context, the Exodus narrative cannot have been written as a historical account, nor indeed the Flood story.

In this latter case, the provenance of the story of Noah's Ark in the much earlier Sumerian narrative of Ziusudra, and the Babylonian stories of Atrahasis and Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh, is amply demonstrated by parallel, almost verbatim lines in the different versions:

"the storm had swept...for seven days and seven nights" — Ziusudra 203

"For seven days and seven nights came the storm" — Atrahasis III,iv, 24

"Six days and seven nights the wind and storm" — Gilgamesh XI, 127

"rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights" — Genesis 7:12

"Ziusudra made an opening in the large boat" — Ziusudra vi, 207

"I opened the window" — Gilgamesh XI, 135

"Noah opened the window of the ark" — Genesis 8:6

"he pried open a portion of the boat" — Berossus.

"He offered a sacrifice" — Atrahasis III,v, 31

"And offered a sacrifice" — Gilgamesh XI, 155

"offered burnt offerings on the altar" — Genesis 8:20

"built an altar and sacrificed to the gods" — Berossus.

"The gods smelled the savor" — Atrahasis III,v,34

"The gods smelled the sweet savor" — Gilgamesh XI, 160

"And the Lord smelled the sweet savor..." — Genesis 8:21


Eridu Genesis | Mesopotamian epic

Eridu Genesis, in Mesopotamian religious literature, ancient Sumerian epic primarily concerned with the creation of the world, the building of cities, and the flood. According to the epic, after the universe was created out of the primeval sea and the gods were born, the deities fashioned man from clay to cultivate the ground, care for flocks, and perpetuate the worship of the gods.

Cities were soon built and kingship was instituted on earth. For some reason, however, the gods determined to destroy mankind with a flood. Enki (Akkadian: Ea), who did not agree with the decree, revealed it to Ziusudra (Utnapishtim), a man well known for his humility and obedience. Ziusudra did as Enki commanded him and built a huge boat, in which he successfully rode out the flood. Afterward, he prostrated himself before the gods An (Anu) and Enlil, and, as a reward for living a godly life, Ziusudra was given immortality.

​

Epic mythological poems from neighbouring semitic cultures. That was the source of the sacred author's narrative of Noah's Flood in Genesis.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?



*For the purpose of this thread, 'execution' is defined as taking the life of another being in a premeditated fashion against his/her will when there is no immediate danger to the executioner and s/he is not acting is self-defense.


*Edit: Adjusted the definition of 'execution' to exclude those who want to end their own lives voluntarily.

Good question, I can see both sides, and been on the fence, but I think I'd vote no-

for a couple of reasons

The most egregious crime is considered a cold blooded premeditated killing of another human being- as opposed to a crime of passion... and we punish this with the most cold blooded premeditated killing imaginable

i.e. the original killer may claim a moral 'justification' also- and this may even lighten a sentence- but it's primarily about the act, which is objective, not the motive/justification , which is more of a grey area and can/has been used for everything up to state genocide

Also -execution cannot be reversed when new evidence emerges

Also as BSM notes, life in prison seems at least as bad anyway (it can also be much cheaper by some accounts)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

having said no....practice can get more complicated than principle..

In the 'travelling back in time to kill Hitler' scenario- most people inc myself would say yes

Then there's the 10 innocent people on the railroad track; would you divert the train to kill just one innocent person?

A little more troubling, but again, all principles aside, most would reason that this is justifiable- 10 innocent lives are saved at the cost of one- so this is better than simply turning our backs

So what about taking one innocent person walking into a hospital.... and using their organs to save the lives of 10 innocent patients?

Most like me find this intuitively repugnant, but what's the big moral difference exactly?

 

[Poisonshady313]

The most egregious crime is considered a cold blooded premeditated killing of another human being- as opposed to a crime of passion... and we punish this with the most cold blooded premeditated killing imaginable

I'd like to point out that while premeditation is certainly one of the characteristics of murder, it is not the only one.

the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

If the state has the legal authority to execute murderers and you aren't able to say that the state has the moral high ground in this, then we shouldn't have prison either because that would make the state guilty of kidnapping.

 

[Poisonshady313]

having said no....practice can get more complicated than principle..

In the 'travelling back in time to kill Hitler' scenario- most people inc myself would say yes

Then there's the 10 innocent people on the railroad track; would you divert the train to kill just one innocent person?

A little more troubling, but again, all principles aside, most would reason that this is justifiable- 10 innocent lives are saved at the cost of one- so this is better than simply turning our backs

So what about taking one innocent person walking into a hospital.... and using their organs to save the lives of 10 innocent patients?

Most like me find this intuitively repugnant, but what's the big moral difference exactly?

The difference is, the train track example doesn't give you the option to save all 11 lives. All 11 people are a part of that situation, whether they like it or not.

There's no reason why the person who walks into the hospital can't walk out again until you decide to start harvesting his organs.

The state isn't purposefully rounding up innocent people to inject with lethal chemicals. It might make a mistake from time to time, and every step should be taken to make sure mistakes are avoided. But until it can be proven that the system gets it wrong more often than not, I prefer to divert the train at the expense of one person to save the 10 people on the track.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd like to point out that while premeditation is certainly one of the characteristics of murder, it is not the only one.

That's the point, murder without premeditation is considered less serious, it can be arguably part mistake, passion- mitigating circumstances

While forethought, planning, conspiracy to commit the act- these all aggravate the crime right?, yet this is also what happens with an execution

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The difference is, the train track example doesn't give you the option to save all 11 lives. All 11 people are a part of that situation, whether they like it or not.

There's no reason why the person who walks into the hospital can't walk out again until you decide to start harvesting his organs.

Let's clarify the same for the hospital analogy then, you can't save all 11, if you don't use the innocent visitor for organs, the 10 patients die, if you do- you save 10 at the cost of 1-

& likewise the 1 guy on the other rail line is fine till you decide to divert the train to his track..

The state isn't purposefully rounding up innocent people to inject with lethal chemicals. It might make a mistake from time to time, and every step should be taken to make sure mistakes are avoided. But until it can be proven that the system gets it wrong more often than not, I prefer to divert the train at the expense of one person to save the 10 people on the track.

well no- let's hope not! it's a hypothetical moral question;

for the train track analogy, most of us would act to sacrifice 1 for 10
but in the hospital analogy, we generally balk at the idea morally - but I'm not sure what the difference is, it may be selfishness- we identify with the innocent guy visiting the hospital- that could be us, but not the 'idiot' standing on the tracks- that's some other guy..