Would it be wrong?

[scottlittlefield17]

If a man was burning to death in a car with no way of getting him out in time. Would it be okay ethically for a bystander to shoot him? How about a police officer, and why or why not.

[Coyotero]

Interesting subject.

On the one hand, putting someone out of their misery when they are otherwise doomed is noble. On the other hand, the human body can survive a LOT of punishment and come out alive.

Check out this story, about a very brave phoenix police officer. Guy's become something of a local celebrity... I realize it's long, but it's worth reading, very inspiring.

http://www.azstarnet.com/clips/trialbyfire/day1.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/clips/trialbyfire/day2.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/clips/trialbyfire/day3.html

Since this is a religion forum, let me explain my own take on it... According to Asatru, the best way to gain the favor of the Gods is to die gloriously and with honor. Therefore as I see it, the best thing I could do would be to risk my own life to save him. If I died in the process, I would do it knowing I ad the favor of the Gods and my ancestors and would thus be allowed to enter Asgard as one of them. If I survived, whether or not I succeed in saving the person, I'd know that I had done an honorable and noble act, and thus gained hamingja for myself and my family.

Aside from that, I think it's the best course of action, for someone of any faith.

[TXatheist]

Interesting subject.

On the one hand, putting someone out of their misery when they are otherwise doomed is noble. On the other hand, the human body can survive a LOT of punishment and come out alive.

But the scenario presented states that the man would not survive. I say shooting him is ok. I am assuming, according to the scenario, that he is beyond saving, period. If so, I can let him die in a few more moments filled with agonizing pain beyond our comprehension, or I can put him out of his misery instantly. I am not affecting whether or not he will go to heaven (assuming there is a heaven), I am simply sending him wherever it is he is going a few moments early. Of course the law may have a different opinion and I may be in serious trouble. But honestly, I think a jury would understand and be sympathetic since my only motive was to end his pain.

[Coyotero]

But the scenario presented states that the man would not survive. I say shooting him is ok. I am assuming, according to the scenario, that he is beyond saving, period. If so, I can let him die in a few more moments filled with agonizing pain beyond our comprehension, or I can put him out of his misery instantly.

That's the problem with the hypothetical situation. Relistically, in the described situation, I'd have no way of telling whether or not the person would survive. Even if I were a trained EMT or emergency doctor... People can survive amazing amounts of physical damage (Check the story I posted, there's no reason he should have survived.)

Now, if I somehow had insight into the situation and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man in the car were doomed, I see no problem in ending his life. A mercy killing, in the right context, is noble, if not legal.

Another hypothetical factor to consider would be the expediency of the mercy killing, could you shoot accurately enough with a high enough caliber of a weapon to ensure a quick, clean kill? After all, it wouldn't be too merciful at all to fill the poor guys torso with poorly aimed .22 rounds.

I am not affecting whether or not he will go to heaven (assuming there is a heaven), I am simply sending him wherever it is he is going a few moments early.

I don't imagine you would be, is this in response to something I said? Please clarify.

Of course the law may have a different opinion and I may be in serious trouble. But honestly, I think a jury would understand and be sympathetic since my only motive was to end his pain.

That's the ugly part... The law doesn't like it when you defend yourself, I hate to think what may happen in a mercy-killing situation. I would hope the court would be sympathetic, but I don't trust that it would be.

[TXatheist]

But the scenario presented states that the man would not survive. I say shooting him is ok. I am assuming, according to the scenario, that he is beyond saving, period. If so, I can let him die in a few more moments filled with agonizing pain beyond our comprehension, or I can put him out of his misery instantly.

That's the problem with the hypothetical situation. Relistically, in the described situation, I'd have no way of telling whether or not the person would survive. Even if I were a trained EMT or emergency doctor... People can survive amazing amounts of physical damage (Check the story I posted, there's no reason he should have survived.)

I think the OP stated that this person would not survive specifically so that we would not have to debate this factor. If I show up and have no idea if the guy will make it or not, then of course I am not going to shoot him. The question is not what would you do if you showed up with a gun and had to decide whether or not the guy would make it and then whether or not to shoot him. The question is if you know that he will not make it (we're just playing along here), what would you do?

Now, if I somehow had insight into the situation and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man in the car were doomed, I see no problem in ending his life. A mercy killing, in the right context, is noble, if not legal.

And that situation is what the OP is implying.

Another hypothetical factor to consider would be the expediency of the mercy killing, could you shoot accurately enough with a high enough caliber of a weapon to ensure a quick, clean kill? After all, it wouldn't be too merciful at all to fill the poor guys torso with poorly aimed .22 rounds.

I think I could walk up to the vehicle and get a head shot pretty easily. Why would I unload in his chest?

I am not affecting whether or not he will go to heaven (assuming there is a heaven), I am simply sending him wherever it is he is going a few moments early.

I don't imagine you would be, is this in response to something I said? Please clarify.

I wasn't referring to your post at all. Simply stating a fact.

Of course the law may have a different opinion and I may be in serious trouble. But honestly, I think a jury would understand and be sympathetic since my only motive was to end his pain.

That's the ugly part... The law doesn't like it when you defend yourself, I hate to think what may happen in a mercy-killing situation. I would hope the court would be sympathetic, but I don't trust that it would be.

When they realized that I was a stranger with absolutely no motive whatsoever to kill this guy, and the forensics show that he was going to be dead within moments anyway, I think a good lawyer could get me off. If I actually had something against the guy and wanted him dead, obviously I would not want to be connected with the killing, so the logical thing to do would be let him burn. Why would I kill him when he is about to die anyway and then stand there and wait for the police? The truth would prevail.

[Coyotero]

But the scenario presented states that the man would not survive. I say shooting him is ok. I am assuming, according to the scenario, that he is beyond saving, period. If so, I can let him die in a few more moments filled with agonizing pain beyond our comprehension, or I can put him out of his misery instantly.

That's the problem with the hypothetical situation. Relistically, in the described situation, I'd have no way of telling whether or not the person would survive. Even if I were a trained EMT or emergency doctor... People can survive amazing amounts of physical damage (Check the story I posted, there's no reason he should have survived.)

I think the OP stated that this person would not survive specifically so that we would not have to debate this factor. If I show up and have no idea if the guy will make it or not, then of course I am not going to shoot him. The question is not what would you do if you showed up with a gun and had to decide whether or not the guy would make it and then whether or not to shoot him. The question is if you know that he will not make it (we're just playing along here), what would you do?

Now, if I somehow had insight into the situation and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man in the car were doomed, I see no problem in ending his life. A mercy killing, in the right context, is noble, if not legal.

And that situation is what the OP is implying.

I know, I'm not trying to argue the original post, mostly I'm just considering the situation from a realistic standpoint, rather than a hypothetical. Maybe a bit off the subject, but I felt it was worth delving into is all.

Another hypothetical factor to consider would be the expediency of the mercy killing, could you shoot accurately enough with a high enough caliber of a weapon to ensure a quick, clean kill? After all, it wouldn't be too merciful at all to fill the poor guys torso with poorly aimed .22 rounds.

I think I could walk up to the vehicle and get a head shot pretty easily. Why would I unload in his chest?

Most likely. Once again, I'm merely expanding on the information given for the sake of discussion.

The original post proposes an ethical dilemma in a situation where all of the conditions are ideal (Except for the poor guy in the car). Reality is rarely, if ever so kind. I'm trying to point out potential complications of the dilemma that might force one to change his point of view, is all.

I am not affecting whether or not he will go to heaven (assuming there is a heaven), I am simply sending him wherever it is he is going a few moments early.

I don't imagine you would be, is this in response to something I said? Please clarify.

I wasn't referring to your post at all. Simply stating a fact.

Gotcha.

Of course the law may have a different opinion and I may be in serious trouble. But honestly, I think a jury would understand and be sympathetic since my only motive was to end his pain.

That's the ugly part... The law doesn't like it when you defend yourself, I hate to think what may happen in a mercy-killing situation. I would hope the court would be sympathetic, but I don't trust that it would be.

When they realized that I was a stranger with absolutely no motive whatsoever to kill this guy, and the forensics show that he was going to be dead within moments anyway, I think a good lawyer could get me off. If I actually had something against the guy and wanted him dead, obviously I would not want to be connected with the killing, so the logical thing to do would be let him burn. Why would I kill him when he is about to die anyway and then stand there and wait for the police? The truth would prevail.

This is the American legal system we're talking about (presumably). I don't trust the truth to ever prevail in our system. That said, I'd do it anyways, to hell with the law.

[TXatheist]

But the scenario presented states that the man would not survive. I say shooting him is ok. I am assuming, according to the scenario, that he is beyond saving, period. If so, I can let him die in a few more moments filled with agonizing pain beyond our comprehension, or I can put him out of his misery instantly.

That's the problem with the hypothetical situation. Relistically, in the described situation, I'd have no way of telling whether or not the person would survive. Even if I were a trained EMT or emergency doctor... People can survive amazing amounts of physical damage (Check the story I posted, there's no reason he should have survived.)

I think the OP stated that this person would not survive specifically so that we would not have to debate this factor. If I show up and have no idea if the guy will make it or not, then of course I am not going to shoot him. The question is not what would you do if you showed up with a gun and had to decide whether or not the guy would make it and then whether or not to shoot him. The question is if you know that he will not make it (we're just playing along here), what would you do?

Now, if I somehow had insight into the situation and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man in the car were doomed, I see no problem in ending his life. A mercy killing, in the right context, is noble, if not legal.

And that situation is what the OP is implying.

I know, I'm not trying to argue the original post, mostly I'm just considering the situation from a realistic standpoint, rather than a hypothetical. Maybe a bit off the subject, but I felt it was worth delving into is all.

Another hypothetical factor to consider would be the expediency of the mercy killing, could you shoot accurately enough with a high enough caliber of a weapon to ensure a quick, clean kill? After all, it wouldn't be too merciful at all to fill the poor guys torso with poorly aimed .22 rounds.

I think I could walk up to the vehicle and get a head shot pretty easily. Why would I unload in his chest?

Most likely. Once again, I'm merely expanding on the information given for the sake of discussion.

The original post proposes an ethical dilemma in a situation where all of the conditions are ideal (Except for the poor guy in the car). Reality is rarely, if ever so kind. I'm trying to point out potential complications of the dilemma that might force one to change his point of view, is all.

I am not affecting whether or not he will go to heaven (assuming there is a heaven), I am simply sending him wherever it is he is going a few moments early.

I don't imagine you would be, is this in response to something I said? Please clarify.

I wasn't referring to your post at all. Simply stating a fact.

Gotcha.

Of course the law may have a different opinion and I may be in serious trouble. But honestly, I think a jury would understand and be sympathetic since my only motive was to end his pain.

That's the ugly part... The law doesn't like it when you defend yourself, I hate to think what may happen in a mercy-killing situation. I would hope the court would be sympathetic, but I don't trust that it would be.

When they realized that I was a stranger with absolutely no motive whatsoever to kill this guy, and the forensics show that he was going to be dead within moments anyway, I think a good lawyer could get me off. If I actually had something against the guy and wanted him dead, obviously I would not want to be connected with the killing, so the logical thing to do would be let him burn. Why would I kill him when he is about to die anyway and then stand there and wait for the police? The truth would prevail.

This is the American legal system we're talking about (presumably). I don't trust the truth to ever prevail in our system. That said, I'd do it anyways, to hell with the law.

The OP set up the specifics in order to illicit a "yes" or "no" answer in order to learn about people's beliefs on morality. I say "yes" based on those exact circumstances. But if we throw in the "what if's", that is a different story.

I think it is sad that you do not trust the truth to ever prevail in our judicial system. While I admit that our system is flawed (simply because we as human beings are flawed), I have great faith in our system overall. I am confident that the truth prevails more often than not.

[McCulloch]

If a man was burning to death in a car with no way of getting him out in time. Would it be okay ethically for a bystander to shoot him? How about a police officer, and why or why not.

Seeing that this is a Christianity and Religion debate site, might I suggest that we add to the question? In your responses, could you indicate in what way your religious faith (or lack) informs your position? Be specific.

[scottlittlefield17]

I would not shoot under any circumstances because I am a Christian. My rule is the Bible and it says not to kill, even in self defense never mind in this situation. I posted for the purpose of getting to know some of the peoples position that use this sight. If it does not fit the purpose of the site feel free to delete the thread.

[TXatheist]

I would not shoot under any circumstances because I am a Christian. My rule is the Bible and it says not to kill, even in self defense never mind in this situation. I posted for the purpose of getting to know some of the peoples position that use this sight. If it does not fit the purpose of the site feel free to delete the thread.

In my opinion, this is a perfectly valid thread with no reason to delete it.

Seeing that this is a Christianity and Religion debate site, might I suggest that we add to the question? In your responses, could you indicate in what way your religious faith (or lack) informs your position? Be specific.

I am a non-theist, so my beliefs on this matter have nothing to do with religion or any rules that any religion imposes. I simply believe that if a person is experiencing extreme suffering and death is certain and only moments away, there is nothing wrong with ending that suffering in a quick and humane manner. If I was on fire and I knew that I had absolutely no chance for survival, I personally would welcome someone expediting my death. The alternative is to continue being in the worst pain a person can imagine for no good reason.