Imagine for a moment that a man wrecks his car in a rural area. The car bursts in flames and the man is trapped inside. There is no way for authorities to reach him in time before he dies. Knowing this, he reaches for his gun in his glove box and shoots himself in the head to avoid a long and agonizing death by fire. Did he commit sin (suicide), or is this morally justified?
Now let’s change the scenario a bit. A man wrecks his car in a rural area, right in front of your house. The authorities could never reach him in time to save him. In this scenario, however, he does not have a gun. You hear the accident and explosion from your house and rush to the road to see what has happened. You can hear the man writing in pain from within the car. He sees you through the flames and shouts, “Shoot me! Kill me please!” Is it morally permissible for you to honor his request, killing him with a gun to shorten the amount of agony he must suffer? Or is this murder?
I’m inclined to think that shooting the man is morally justified under both circumstances. But this raises a problem for me since I also hold that euthanasia is morally wrong. These two conclusions seem to be in tension, however. Euthanasia is the practice of actively and prematurely taking the life of an individual experiencing great suffering so that they can avoid further suffering. While I would be inclined to shoot the burning man, I would not kill a cancer patient who was experiencing intense physical suffering. This seems inconsistent, but I admit that I can’t pinpoint the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios.
I could raise other similar situations as well. Consider the circumstance in which a person is being tortured to death. If they were able to acquire poison, would it be morally permissible for them to ingest that poison to take their life so they could avoid further suffering on their road to sure death? Would it be wrong for you to provide them with that poison if they asked you to?
Think of the unfortunate souls who were trapped in the upper floors of the Twin Towers. They had no chance of escape. Their death was certain. They had a choice: Die in the flames or jump to their death. Did those who chose to jump commit a moral wrong? They did so out of a desire to die in the least painful way possible. Isn’t this similar to the burning man who would rather be shot than to die in the flames? But it also seems similar to the cancer patient who would rather die early than endure the pain cancer brings. What are your thoughts?
Thinking to Believe 
November 18, 2015 at 9:14 am
This dilemma seems to go to the point of morality being subjective, like beauty and sin itself. There cannot be and could not be, a one size fits all.
Now if one man decided to shoot the man in the burning car how could the end of hope be determined? Say another man, unbeknowns to the decider with the gun, comes upon the scene and suddenly appears on the opposite side of the car and just as you were about the pull the trigger, the other man smashes the passenger window out with the bottom end of a portable fire extinguisher, releases the retardant and presto, puts the fire out saving the man in the nick of time.
Would you exclaim Wow! that was a close call?
What circumstance determines the end of hope?
Would your belief that no hope was left but to shoot, trump the belief of the hope of the man with the fire extinguisher? The twinkling of an eye decision would be critical in both scenarios.
What if you had shot the man in the burning car just as the window was smashed and the fire put out?
I think you would have some explaining to do to the authorities if your decision was a second premature in light of the fire being put out and now the paramedics had to try to save the man, not from the burning car, but from the gunshot wound.
Not an easy answer to speculate on.
LikeLike
November 18, 2015 at 9:39 am
Interesting dilemma….if nothing else I think we can conclude that always doing what appears to be the morally right thing isn’t necessarily the most important thing.
It’s sort of like the difference between law and grace. If we just live by a moral code and call ourselves Christian, we are missing the boat.
Naz
LikeLike
November 18, 2015 at 10:10 am
As a function of prospective interests/goals — avoiding needless pain, a lack of plausible hope of recovery, and a lack of plausible hope in helping others — “clumsy goal-seeking” can tell us that the right decision is to speed death.
The worry is that, since “clumsy goal-seeking” is clumsy, it might err in being actually consequentially optimal. There may come a cure for the pain (medical or miraculous), there may be recovery (medical or miraculous), and one may find ways to help others with the time they have left that were not immediately obvious.
Google “stanrock musical morality”
If we as a society come to find that many people very, very often err in speeding their death, then we can find it useful — that is, in their interests and ours — to impose rules by force that prevent them from doing so. We can take away their means. We can imprison medical professionals who’d assist them. Etc.
However, if we as a society have not “come to find” this — if we admit that we’re no better, as a society, at making this decision for an individual than that individual themselves — then we can point out to this individual the hopes that yet remain, but we ought not — at that point — impose rules by force to prevent them from speeding their deaths. We can remain a culture of life while simultaneously remaining a culture of freedom, as a function of our reluctance to impose that which we cannot fully appreciate.
LikeLike
November 18, 2015 at 11:53 am
I do not think those who jumped from the Twin Towers were trying to die in the least painful way possible. They were just trying to escape the flames. A couple of people have lived from very high falls. One man fell out of an airplane and landed on the frozen snow covering a very large Christmas type pine tree. Another hit a hay stack.
LikeLike
November 20, 2015 at 1:37 am
I think the principled difference may be rooted in whether we are dealing with a natural death or unnatural death. When the death we are facing is through natural causes (disease), it is wrong to choose an unnatural end to one’s death (euthanasia) even if the unnatural death would lessen the suffering. But when our death is certain via unnatural causes, it is morally permissible to choose a less painful form of unnatural death. That’s why it was morally acceptable for the victims in the World Trade Center to jump to their deaths. Likewise, that’s why it is morally permissible for the burning man to shoot himself. He is choosing the least painful form of unnatural death when death cannot be avoided.
I’m still not sure, however, about whether or not it is morally permissible for someone else to shoot the man per his request. If it is morally permissible for the man to do so, however, I don’t see why it would be morally wrong for someone else to do it, particularly when he has given permission. If it’s a good thing to reduce his suffering, then it doesn’t matter who is responsible for reducing it.
LikeLike
November 20, 2015 at 3:02 am
Let me try to say this another way. It’s never right to choose an unnatural death. However, when an unnatural death is inevitable, and we are able to choose a means of unnatural death that involves less suffering, it is moral to do so.
LikeLike
November 20, 2015 at 5:36 am
Jason, I am going to have to conclude that it is not moral to take another’s life in either case. In fact, had the bible not explicitly deemed it moral to kill in war time / for justice, then I would conclude that killing any human would be morally unacceptable. Your confusion simply comes from an over emotional cultural sensibility.
LikeLike
November 20, 2015 at 8:48 am
Jason, you wrote,
“Let me try to say this another way. It’s never right to choose an unnatural death. However, when an unnatural death is inevitable, and we are able to choose a means of unnatural death that involves less suffering, it is moral to do so.”
If you mean “natural” in the sense of “proper telos,” then cancer is as unnatural as 9/11.
LikeLike
November 20, 2015 at 10:05 am
I am convinced that all human death is unnatural; albeit we are still persuaded otherwise from the traditions of the ancients who thought death was natural, if you lived long enough to avoid being killed by your fellow man. When ignorance prevailed and death came from unknown causes other than demons which is probably what disease was called and we do not have to go that far back to see that prayer to fight diabetes or exorcism to fight epilepsy instead of medical remedies still make the news headlines in todays civilized world when children die from neglect; thus, causes for death was normally ruled as natural.
But as stanrock pointed out cancer is unnatural hence death from cancer is as unnatural as 9/11 and so also would be heart attacks, high blood pressure, parkinson, alzeimer, whooping cough, shingles and sexual transmissions, the flu, immune deficiency and the common cold without neglecting ebola and parasitic brain infections and countless other pathogenic causes, all unnatural. Why even capital punishment is quote unnatural, justified or not and so the reason for the penalty imposed as well generally.
So sit back and read a little ballistic religious story taken straight from the bible with a bit of natural imaginative embellishment, I hasten to add
THE TEN OBSERVATIONS; AKA, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
[ 1 ] IN WALKS Moses. Whoa fellow, hold on and let’s assess what’s happening here dude.
[ 2 ] LET US figure this scene out as the current way is just WAY too crazy and makes no sense.
[ 3 ] SO MOSES did some thinking and decided to do a survey. That was the beginning of keeping records.
[ 4 ] WHICH today is the truest indication of a civilized society.
Why?
Why was Moses bothered by this?
Moses wanted to determine the root causes of all the violence in society; what things people did that caused retribution and killing and maiming and utter chaos it seemed, all around the community in their daily lives.
There’s got to be some way to understand the workings of the human mind so as to adjust and live in harmony and peace, thought Moses, but what did that magic (MIRACLE) look like?
SO MOSES SCRATCHED his head and determined he would do a little research, by thinking God, the causes of havoc in society; in particular, Moses wanted to explore why there were so many capital penalties taking place, it came to Moses and he knew what he had to do. The answer must come direct from the God and so Moses THOUGHT GOD. In those days all thoughts, it was thought, came from God to God’s representatives and Moses gave quiet thanks for the thought that was about to lead him this very day to go on a retreat to the mountain.
On top of Mt Sinai one could get closer to the spirit as one surveyed the vast expanse of land. The Mountain was like being in the desert or being alone on the seashore where one’s mind could get away from the trials and tribulations of daily life.
Looking out over the grand expanse Moses thought about life and death, not so much about birth and ordinary death as much as about the life and unnatural and untimely death of the citizens by the hand of their fellows.
IN THOSE DAYS, many merchants became wealthy buying and selling the idols of choice but alas in the days of Moses, you could pay with your life if you were found out worshipping banned idols. The Number one REASON FOR AN UNTIMELY DEATH MOSES OBSERVED, WAS SIMPLE.
And so Moses penned his Research Observations in such a way as to be a caution to the people that they ought not to do such behavior if they valued their life as the religious zealots would kill to ensure observance (this zeal for religious adherence is still present in the world as temples and buildings are destroyed, cults spread fantacism and people killed) so Observation Number One was written in a way to suggest that warning.
AND so the First OBSERVATION was written as a preventative caution:
1. I AM THE LORD THY GOD. THOU SHALT NOT HAVE FALSE GODS
BEFORE ME. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF AN IDOL.
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
you shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that represents anything in heaven above, or represented on the earth beneath, or that is represented in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
LikeLike
November 20, 2015 at 10:09 am
THE TEN OBSERVATIONS cont’d:
IN KEEPING WITH religious tradition and teachings the name of God was considered so sacred that even to speak the name was blasphemous, as it is in Israel today the name of God is still considered so sacred they are not allowed to speak the name; therefore, Moses noted that using the name of god for wrongful purpose, was punished by death and not only wrongful use but to associate its use for one’s own vanity; i.e., to sell merchandise for example as the Holy Waters that heal you, “so saith the Lord”.
As merchants still today sell their wares in the name of Jesus.
That, Moses observed, was punished by death and scoundrels who did that were being slaughtered everyday in almost the same proportion as those who worshipped false gods. Therefore he wrote his second religious caution to mankind.
2. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF YOUR GOD IN VAIN.
you shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
THERE WAS A DAY of the week which must be set aside for the sole purpose of recognizing God. On that day one is forbidden to work and all commerce must seize and you must spend that day in humble prayer and reflection on the great god who gave you life— disobey that and you will die an untimely death and thus Moses’s third observation for a man’s untimely death he cautioned was the religious observation:
3. REMEMBER THOU THEREFORE TO KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
for six days you shall labor and do all your work.
But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
NEXT TO BEING thankful to God for giving you life it was an obligation to give similar respect to your parents through whom god chose to bring you into the world and therefore anyone disrespecting their parents, speaking against them or doing any behavior that would dishonor them or bring shame upon them was a great sin and many people were killed in fits of anger against their parents especially rebellious youth. Such was a Fourth Observation laid out that Moses noted caused the untimely death of many a lad and lass. The fourth observation then as Moses thought about untimely deaths in society was disrespect, dishonor and shame to parents so he penned the 4th observation thusly:
4. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER.
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
MOSES ALSO NOTED that when people killed other members of society because those members violated the religious and cultural traditions of the first four observations, the killing was justified and the killers were never prosecuted.
Killing people who did not violate those rules, he noted however, was not acceptable. When a man slayed a victim out of road rage, let’s say, when someone was walking too slow along the pathway to the marketplace or lay in wait as a robber which caused his untimely death, that surely was a reason to kill that fellow who slew his neighbor.
And so Moses noted that many untimely deaths were caused if one killed someone for no apparent good religious reason; these killers were themselves put to death as the rule was an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a death for a death. So even though you may dislike the next door neighbor and you hate his guts, don’t kill him or else you yourself will face a similar fate. Yes thought Moses. that indeed is a cause of many deaths in society so he observed that caution Observation 5 must be:
5 THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
And so it was that the further cautions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were for social transgressions
It was growing dark and Moses had enough for the day. He pondered his writings, had a tea leaf drink heated over a hot fire, a bedtime snack, fed some hay and straw to his faithful mule his mobility asset traveling with him and bedded down for a night’s sleep next to the campfire after forty days and forty nights of intense Theosophical Rumination.
Moses was always amazed watching the shadow of night slowly hovering and eventually covering the village while the sun still shone upon him high in the mountain retreat. He pulled over the blankets covering himself from the cool mountain night air and like a little baby fell fast to sleep under the never ending twinkle, twinkle little star, how I wonder where are you?……….or is that where you are?
LikeLike
November 21, 2015 at 12:28 am
Scottspeig, I appreciate the psychoanalysis, but I still have to laugh at it. You’ve been around this blog long enough to know that I am not exactly one for reasoning emotionally! If it was emotional, then I would surely support euthanasia.
Jason
LikeLike
November 21, 2015 at 12:31 am
stanrock, no, I don’t mean “natural” in the sense of “proper telos” since no death is proper. Death was never purposed for human beings. I mean “natural” in the sense of “occurring via normal natural processes.” The natural process of death involves the breakdown of healthy bodily function. Cancer is just one form of that, and hence natural on my definition.
Jason
LikeLike
November 21, 2015 at 4:25 am
Jason,
please demonstrate from the genesis account itself that death was not originally part of the natural progression of life. -KIA
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm
Jason,
Not to muddle the original question (to which I have no real idea how I would answer anyway), but I have given some thought to the 9/11 “jumpers”.
I don’t think they “chose” to jump per se… I think the circumstances demanded them getting away from the fire at all costs, overwhelming any thoughts of the danger of jumping. In other words, the fire “pushed” them out of the window.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
February 21, 2016 at 12:11 am
Richardgobble,
I think there is something to be said for that. But how is the guy in the car different? He’s just trying to escape the flames as well. Since he cannot jump, He does the only other thing He can to escape the flames: shoot.
What would you say if the person in the Twin Towers chose to drink cyanide rather than jump?
Jason
LikeLike