Protest and Suicide

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Irrespective, I don't see why others should decide that the film should not be allowed to be shown. This is simply one sector of society trying to impose their skewed view of reality on everyone else. Sod that! Let them die.

This is simply one sector of society trying to impose their skewed view of reality on everyone else. Sod that! Let them die.

This post reveals your ignorance on Indian history. Did you know that Gandhi probably saved thousands (if not tens of thousands) of lives with his fasting, e.g. IIRC the one he did in Calcutta when the city was about to erupt with Hindu-Muslim tensions? I'd have liked to see you say that in his face.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you saying that it is OK to commit otherwise sinful acts as long as they are being used as a means to a good end?

Suppose the government agreed to ban the movie if the protesters raped every non-Christian woman in India. Would those rapes be sinful?

Under certain circumstances - yes.

Look up the concept of "double effect":
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

Clearly your hypothetical case does not qualify.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b] This is simply one sector of society trying to impose their skewed view of reality on everyone else. Sod that! Let them die.

This post reveals your ignorance on Indian history. Did you know that Gandhi probably saved thousands (if not tens of thousands) of lives with his fasting, e.g. IIRC the one he did in Calcutta when the city was about to erupt with Hindu-Muslim tensions? I'd have liked to see you say that in his face.[/b]

Fasting as an expression of protest has a venerable place in Indian history primarily because, as you pointed out, the effective use of it (led by Gandhi) in our independence struggle.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Clearly your hypothetical case does not qualify.

Why not? Why do you think God endorses the doctrine of double effect?

In my example, they are intending to ban the movie, and the rapes are an unavoidable side effect of achieving that good end, to the same extent that starving to death is an unavoidable side effect in the actual protest.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Fasting as an expression of protest has a venerable place in Indian history primarily because, as you pointed out, the effective use of it (led by Gandhi) in our independence struggle.

That wuz kinda the point I was driving at. 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Fasting as an expression of protest has a venerable place in Indian history primarily because, as you pointed out, the effective use of it (led by Gandhi) in our independence struggle.

So, to engage in a sin (suicide) to help accomplish a worthy goal is considered permissible by the
Church?

It is irrelevant whether it has a venerable place or not or if its aims were always or never noble:
the point is that suicide was threatened (and often realized) for a certain goal.

This is considered permissible?

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why not? Why do you think God endorses the doctrine of double effect?

In my example, they are intending to ban the movie, and the rapes are an unavoidable side effect of achieving that good end, to the same extent that starving to death is an unavoidable side effect in the actual protest.

Look over the four conditions needed for double-effect to apply (I'm using Mangan's formulation):

1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect

In your case the action is rape - which fails #1, #3 and #4 at the very least.

In the case of the protestors, the action is fasting. The good effect is influencing public policy on an issue. The bad effect is the [potential] death of the protestor. So:

1. Fasting, in itself, is at least morally indifferent.
2. The intent is the good effect.
3. The good effect is not produced by the bad effect - the person does not have to actually die to produce the good effect.
4. This is the criteria where I feel the protestors are on weak ground. However, given the delicate situation involving inter-religious relations in India, it's quite possible that some of these protestors may have a sufficiently grave reason that warrants even the sacrifice of their own lives to prevent future bloodshed.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, to engage in a sin (suicide) to help accomplish a worthy goal is considered permissible by the
Church?

It is irrelevant whether it has a venerable place or not or if its aims were always or never noble:
the point is that suicide was threatened (and often realized) for a certain goal.

This is considered permissible?

Nemesio

1. See my analysis above. You seem to be adopting the same simplistic framework as Scribbles.

2. Actually, it's relevant when you're making cross-cultural judgments.