Question about suicide and murder from a religious perspective

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Do you have an exact scenario in mind or is this just an impossible hypothetical?

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

1. I'm not Catholic and do not believe suicide is necessarily a mortal sin in all cases, which removes one of the barriers from the equation for me.

2. TMK the Bible does not directly and specifically address this question. It is after all, a rather esoteric hypothetical.

3. I expect I could, if I wanted to go to the bother of digging and doing a lot of reading, find Biblical support for the idea "better one perish than all".

4. If one has the option of sacrificing oneself to save the other, that would be the "most Christian" thing to choose to do. Self-sacrifice in such context is not suicide.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I suspect that killing someone else to save yourself would be considered a selfish act (frowned upon/sinful) whereas killing yourself (or allowing yourself to die) in order to save someone else would be a selfless/sin-free act.

But I'm no scholar in that area. I just know my narratives.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Well initially I think you may have a wrong perception, or at least stumbled onto a biblical conundrum. If you are facing certain death, is saving yourself against god or with god? My reading of the bible, and no I'm not a believer but I do comprehend the bible, Jesus says not to be afraid of death, he doesn't say to fight it tooth and nail, or at all, that I recall. Yes, overtly killing yourself is considered a sin, but not saving yourself, I'm not sure, what if it was the hand of god coming to take you to heaven, .... How would you know?

Crovax said:

Do you have an exact scenario in mind or is this just an impossible hypothetical?

Click to expand...

No because the point isn't to wiggle out of the scenario simply to assume that there is no other way out other than to intentionally kill the other person means the killer is saved. If you think about it, it's really not that far fetched. All it takes is a little imagination to imagine a situation in which failing to kill another person would result in the death of both people where killing the other would mean one would survive.

Summerwind said:

Well initially I think you may have a wrong perception, or at least stumbled onto a biblical conundrum. If you are facing certain death, is saving yourself against god or with god? My reading of the bible, and no I'm not a believer but I do comprehend the bible, Jesus says not to be afraid of death, he doesn't say to fight it tooth and nail, or at all, that I recall. Yes, overtly killing yourself is considered a sin, but not saving yourself, I'm not sure, what if it was the hand of god coming to take you to heaven, .... How would you know?

Click to expand...

So, without intending to be snarky, if I walked out in front of a bus and stopped knowing I would be hit, is that not suicide?

csbrown28 said:

So, without intending to be snarky, if I walked out in front of a bus and stopped knowing I would be hit, is that not suicide?

Click to expand...

Did you walk out and then see the bus too late, or did you walk out intentionally in front of a bus? If the former, I think there's a conundrum.

csbrown28 said:

No because the point isn't to wiggle out of the scenario simply to assume that there is no other way out other than to intentionally kill the other person means the killer is saved. If you think about it, it's really not that far fetched. All it takes is a little imagination to imagine a situation in which failing to kill another person would result in the death of both people where killing the other would mean one would survive.

Click to expand...

Scenarios where it is utterly inevitable and there are no other options whatsoever? Possible but unlikely.

Goshin said:

Scenarios where it is utterly inevitable and there are no other options whatsoever? Possible but unlikely.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to suggest that these are everyday occurrences, and please don't misunderstand, I'm not here to argue the fallibility of god or the bible (at least here in this forum :mrgreen based on anyones answer. I hope other non-believers will also respect that. I'm just genuinely curious how a Christian would answer this question.

Summerwind said:

Did you walk out and then see the bus too late, or did you walk out intentionally in front of a bus? If the former, I think there's a conundrum.

Click to expand...

I was responding to the statement

Yes, overtly killing yourself is considered a sin, but not saving yourself, I'm not sure....[sinp]

Click to expand...

.

So if you didn't see the bus then you never had the opportunity to save yourself, right? So then yes you saw the bus and you decided not to move.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"Lay down your life for one's friends"
It's an easy answer, but a hard choice to make.

csbrown28 said:

No because the point isn't to wiggle out of the scenario simply to assume that there is no other way out other than to intentionally kill the other person means the killer is saved. If you think about it, it's really not that far fetched. All it takes is a little imagination to imagine a situation in which failing to kill another person would result in the death of both people where killing the other would mean one would survive.

Click to expand...

Actually it does since you added the stipulation of a "non intentional and unstoppable action"

Im not trying to wiggle out of anything I just literately cant image a scenario that you are describing.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I don't think one really could resolve that, if you're asking about Christianity (the doctrine), as opposed to the OT Judaism. The precepts of Christianity are more along the lines of love, peace, and self-sacrifice for gaining a long-term goal concerning the afterlife, than about the more earthly endeavors concerning physical life and death.

csbrown28 said:

I don't mean to suggest that these are everyday occurrences, and please don't misunderstand, I'm not here to argue the fallibility of god or the bible (at least here in this forum :mrgreen based on anyones answer. I hope other non-believers will also respect that. I'm just genuinely curious how a Christian would answer this question.

Click to expand...

Well, I answered from a Biblical (Protest Evangelical, which is not the same viewpoint as Catholic for reasons given) basis above, best I can offhand without engaging in research I don't have time for just the now.


What would a person, a Christian (we'll assume a serious and devout one), actually do in such a circumstance? As opposed to theoretical maunderings?

My guess is it would depend on the details of the situation, as well as how long he had to think it over.


It's hard to imagine how this scenario would play out with no other options available unless it was time-constrained... since given time to think long enough more options can usually be found.

If it was time-constrained I expect a lot of it would come down to how badly does the person want to live vs how strong is his belief against taking another human life on purpose.

Things that might factor in could include whether they know the other person, whether the other person could be construed as being somehow responsible for the predicament in question, and whether they have a moment to realize the implications and discuss same... as well as things like age, dependents and so on. One might decide to tell the other "kill me and save yourself" if the others' life appears more valuable to them... for instance a 75yo in ill health versus a young adult with children.

Of course those are pragmatic considerations, while I suspect your interest was more in the matter of principle.


I'm going to guess your question is which sin is more "forgivable", killing the other person to live or letting one's self die rather than committing "murder".

The latter is probably going to be seen as the more moral choice by most... at least, most Protestants. I don't presume to speak for Catholics.

The former choice, killing to live, is more morally questionable but not unforgivable. Most Christians consider killing in self-defense to be morally acceptable. Even if one assumes the other person had no fault or responsibility in creating the incident, given that circumstances forced a choice to be made it could be argued to more closely resemble self-defense in principle than actual "murder" per se.


As I say though, TMK it is not a question directly and specifically addressed in scripture, and thus somewhat subject to interpretation.

Crovax said:

Actually it does since you added the stipulation of a "non intentional and unstoppable action"

Im not trying to wiggle out of anything I just literately cant image a scenario that you are describing.

Click to expand...

You're in a boat which gets sunk by a storm before you have the chance to radio for help - no-one knows you are out there, or that you are missing, and the area that you are in is totally isolated because of REASONS. Two of you make it to the life raft, and you know that you will naturally drift to safe land in five days - but you only have enough fresh water for one person to - barely - survive that long. Oh, and for more REASONS there is a loaded gun on board the life raft. No, you can't use it to kill fish, or signal for help, etc - more REASONS.

Hypothetical engaged.

(For those who think this sounds familiar - yes, I do watch Arrow)

Crovax said:

Actually it does since you added the stipulation of a "non intentional and unstoppable action"

Im not trying to wiggle out of anything I just literately cant image a scenario that you are describing.

Click to expand...

We are on the space station, just you and I. There is a catastrophic failure and we are caught at each end of the station with the part between us impassable. NASA says that it can have a shuttle up in 8 days, but there is only 4 days of air at your end and 4 at my end. We both have the ability to take the air from each others section.

Ridiculous, perhaps, but not impossible. If I was so inclined I could make this stuff up all day. If I was really motivated I could probably find a real life case where something similar happened, but it's just a hypothetical more interested in responses than trying to justify the question.

If you think that what I'm posing is totally impossible, then the question simply isn't directed at you.

-Cheers

faithful_servant said:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"Lay down your life for one's friends"
It's an easy answer, but a hard choice to make.

Click to expand...

So then the irony would be, if both people knew the situation the other was in but couldn't communicate and decided simultaneously to sacrifice themselves for the other. Hmmmmm....

Just some random thoughts.

iangb said:

You're in a boat which gets sunk by a storm before you have the chance to radio for help - no-one knows you are out there, or that you are missing, and the area that you are in is totally isolated because of REASONS. Two of you make it to the life raft, and you know that you will naturally drift to safe land in five days - but you only have enough fresh water for one person to - barely - survive that long. Oh, and for more REASONS there is a loaded gun on board the life raft. No, you can't use it to kill fish, or signal for help, etc - more REASONS.

Hypothetical engaged.

(For those who think this sounds familiar - yes, I do watch Arrow)

Click to expand...

you have violated the unstoppable principal, a boat could randomly find you or you could end up on land in 6 days and both die anyways or end up on land in 3 days and both live is you share water.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

Click to expand...

Define "easily".

...the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves.

Click to expand...

Okay, that makes this pretty easy to answer from a Roman Catholic perspective.

The Catholic Church does not require, at all, that "heroic measures" be taken in order to preserve one's own life.

A person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the individual Catholic offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the individual or others (family, medical staff, community, etc...).

I would imagine that murdering someone, even if one could "easily" do so, would fall under the auspices of "heroic measures" which place an"excessive burden" on the guy you plan on murdering.

So...no obligation to murder an innocent person in order to preserve your own life.

Allowing one's self to die under these circumstances wouldn't be considered suicide.

How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense?

Click to expand...

You're looking for a quote directly from the Bible that clearly addresses this?

You're not going to find it.

If you're interested in the doctrine and theology of the current position of the Church read this.

I don't know how any other churches approach this issue.

csbrown28 said:

I was responding to the statement .

So if you didn't see the bus then you never had the opportunity to save yourself, right? So then yes you saw the bus and you decided not to move.

Click to expand...

You can not see it in time to not step into the street, and then be faced with running or staying. Perhaps you simply have a deer in the headlights moment and you mean to move but you don't. Is that suicide? There are too many variables to be totally black and white about it. Hence except for the extreme of intending to step in front of the bus, there's potential and likelihood of a conundrum. Was it sent by god to bring you to heaven, or is it chance, or is it sent by the devil to test you? How could you in that split second know the answer, when in this forum where you have all the time in the world, it can't be answered?

Crovax said:

you have violated the unstoppable principal, a boat could randomly find you or you could end up on land in 6 days and both die anyways or end up on land in 3 days and both live is you share water.

Click to expand...

What about in space?

Crovax said:

you have violated the unstoppable principal, a boat could randomly find you or you could end up on land in 6 days and both die anyways or end up on land in 3 days and both live is you share water.

Click to expand...

Nope, I specified that no-one was in the area (you know this for certain) and that the currents would take you five days to get to land (you also know this for certain).

It increasingly does sound like you're trying to wriggle out of something.

iangb said:

Nope, I specified that no-one was in the area (you know this for certain) and that the currents would take you five days to get to land (you also know this for certain).

It increasingly does sound like you're trying to wriggle out of something.

Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness things are rarely ever so cut-and-dried in the real world.

Currents, for instance, are rarely so constant, and weather can change drift. "No one in the area" is also subject to uncertainty and change, especially in the modern era of air travel and satellite imagery.

csbrown28 said:

First, I presume that failing to save yourself from certain death when you could do so easily would be considered suicide.

I offer the following conundrum.

If there are two people who are about to be killed by some non intentional and unstoppable action and the only way to save themselves is to murder the other person and they could easily save themselves. How would you resolve that in a Christian biblical sense? Is there anything in the bible that provides evidence to your answer?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

The only biblical example that comes close to this scenario is Samson. Super strong dude in Judges 13-16. At the end of his life, he was captured by the enemy and bound to the supporting pillars of a building in enemy territory. While it was full of people, Sampson pulled with his super strength and broke the pillars, killing himself and the enemy noblemen inside. This was looked at favorably.

A better example is in Christian history. Often Christians were thrown into gladiator fights, but they refused to harm their opponent. They spent their time attempting to convert the other gladiator. The Christian teachers at this point said there was no sin in letting the other man kill you.

So Christian moral teaching often differentiates between killing and letting die, one being active and the other being passive. The active sense is rarely justified, but the passive sense is often justified. In your scenario as given, you've given opportunity to allow me to say that one should jump in front of the other in order to die first, thus save the other.

However, there could be another hypothetical scenario that eliminates all other option. Some non-intentional and unstoppable thing will kill them unless they one actively ends the life of the other. They're both strapped to an electric fence, which will fry them both simultaneously. Their only way out is to press a nearby button, exploding a bomb underneath the other while releasing their personal restraints. Here scenario specifically removes the option of the passive dying that I think is morally permissible (or beneficial, depending on your philosophical outlook). Here, I think that neither man can ethically press the button, and so both die.

Many find that appalling. "It's better that one should live than both die!" and stuff. But I would argue there is more worth in refusing the action. What does the refusal say about the value of the life of another? While we lose both lives, we maintain a stance of human dignity. What I do, I do not simply do for the greater good. What I do, I do for individuals out of a respect for that person as a person. Playing number games cannot capture that ethic.