Why Can You Kill in Self Defense, But Not Lie?

is addressed here.

"They appear different because you insist that they are and will not listen to anyone ..."

Raymond Arroyo: Derision Over Truth
"Divine Mercy is to help souls avoid hell... That the reason we need it, all ..."

Raymond Arroyo: Derision Over Truth
"But he did NOT say it, but you seem to refuse to believe that it ..."

Raymond Arroyo: Derision Over Truth
"Please give me quotes, without skipping the context, of what was actually said by Pope ..."

Raymond Arroyo: Derision Over Truth

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I’m sorry I missed the earlier article. The example of the “good shot” who chooses to kill because he thought it would be fun is moronic on two levels. First, very good shots miss, regularly, when it’s a real life situation where innocent lives are on the line. It would be stretching credulity to imagine that a legitimate good shot wouldn’t have learned that along the way. So the idea of confidently saying I can shoot the gun out of the man’s hand violates all sorts of rules of good sense when it comes to firearms.

    A related layer of stupid is that the psycho (because someone who always wanted to kill someone is generally psychotic) chooses a head shot. Good shots are trained to go for center of mass for the reasons I just described above.

    To put a vain psychopath at the center of your case against ever lying is setting up a rotten foundation. People steeped in the gun culture will shut themselves to it for firearms related reasons and in the US that’s a lot of people you’re shutting out for no good reason. You may want to revise things to work it better.

    • chezami

      Sigh. Don’t over think it. My point is that the Church’s opts to minimize rather than maximize violence. So if you don’t *have* to kill, you don’t kill. If war means *getting* to kill, then you’d be able to shoot prisoners. But war means *having* to kill as a last ditch. Soldiers who are eager to kill are in a morally perilous position.

      • You don’t under think it either. Neat scenarios where adrenaline isn’t messing with your aim and you can just “decide” to shoot to wound without major changes in your chance for success are not going to convince anybody who has looked at the mechanics of the situation semi-seriously.

        Hollywood is not a great moral guide. It’s not a great guide for shooting situations either. Leaning on Hollywood to provide your shooting scenario is not going to help you prove your point as much as you think it is.

        I happen to agree that those who are eager to kill are in moral peril. I also think that in such situations your body is dumping in enough natural drugs into your bloodstream that impairment is a real issue. That is why war brings out acts that appear so mad so often.

        Lying is often a different sort of temptation with different sorts of rules. And from some of the commentary, there seems to be one of those nasty labeling issues between West and East so a bit of caution might be in order based just on that. We may not agree on definitions and terms, legitimately and without betraying the Church on either side.

        • chezami

          The point, which is really not that hard to grasp for those willing to see it, is that in a situation where one is not obliged to kill, one ought not kill. If you dislike my example, pick another. one. Sheesh.

          • obpoet

            What if you are in a situation where telling a lie means you do not have to kill? What then?

            • obpoet


          • I was looking to avoid that road because I have had bad experiences with such expedients in the past. It is a recipe for rancor and misunderstanding IMO.