| Theology Annual <<MAIN>> | Peter Brady << INDEX >> |

<<PREV NEXT>>

 

vol.15
Theology Annual
¡]1994¡^p135-144
 

Dialogue In A Cave

 

 

Intentions and Choices

Green: I agree that we alwaus have to consider intentions and choices. Obviously, there must always be good. And one must never intend to bring about a bad effect, but only to allow it when one has good reason for doing so.

Black: In the case mentioned, the man on the life-raft, the warship going full steam ahead and the woman keeping her children alive, the aims of the agents were good, they chose good means to achieve these aims, they did not intend to cause the bad effects and they had good reasons for permittiing them to occur.

Grey: How does all this apply to the case of our fat friend? It is well that he is not able to hear this conversation. He would have died of anxiety long ago.

Black: Our problem is like the case of the man who kills in self-defence. His purpose is to save his life and he chooses to use an appropriate degree of force. In fact, in the circumstances he has to use so much force that he knows he will kill the man, but he does not intend or choose to kill him. It is not because the man dies that he saves his life but because he stops the attack. The death is the unintended side - effect of his action.

Green: I would say that he intentionally killed the attacker in self-defence. The man's death was the means, or at least the immediate effect of the means, by which he defended himself. Direct killing in the case is quite legitimate. After all, he was unjustly attacked.

Black: I stick by my analysis. It is one thing to choose to use appropriate means to defend oneself, it is another thing to choose to kill a man to save one's life.

 

 

 

 

 
| Theology Annual <<MAIN>> | Peter Brady << INDEX >> |

<<PREV NEXT>>