Yes, There Are Times When It Is Moral to Kill an Innocent Human Being

Time to expand this discussion from beyond the realms of abortion into the realities of war and crime.

Dear Alec,

I really appreciate the opportunity we’ve had to dialogue about this controversial subject again, and especially respect your thoughtful answer to

Sally Shideler

’s compelling response:

I wanted to continue the discussion with two things you said in your answer to me:

You wrote in response to my claim that I regard myself as both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” that,

I suggest that you cannot really be both, just as you cannot be both pregnant and not pregnant. It is always and everywhere immoral to kill an innocent human being, or it is not. Even the slightest exception betrays. But there’s still hope for acting morally, even in those exceptional cases where a mother’s life is at risk….

But I must point out that in this stance there is a common misunderstanding that in a life-threatening situation, abortion can somehow not be an immoral act. It is never moral to directly kill an innocent human being.

First, the more minor disagreement: your comparison of two subjective political/culture philosophies/ideologies - Pro-Life and Pro-Choice - to the objective scientific fact of pregnancy, seems to me way off. What one thinks philosophically about abortion is not at all comparable to what science says about a pregnancy. This is the same thing as comparing being a liberal or conservative to whether one has cancer or not. This is like saying one being either a Marxist or a capitalist is akin to whether someone has the flu or not.

The problem here is that these various ideologies and cultural debates are entirely subjective, whereas physical conditions are not. What even each of these terms means is disputed both by those who embrace them and who oppose them. Who has the authority to say what “pro-life” and “pro-choice” mean conclusively? Who is to say what key beliefs one must have to qualify as a “liberal” or a “conservative”? What is the bare minimum of Marxist concepts one must embrace to be fairly named as one? To what extent must one support a capitalist system before one becomes a capitalist themselves? In all of these cases there is no little stick we can each pee on in the bathroom to get a virtually inarguable answer.

In this case, as with your previous citing Jesus’ instructions to the disciples on how to spread his message among Jews to back up your proposed political strategies to fellow activists, I think you’re not creating accurate comparisons.

Your claim that,

It is always and everywhere immoral to kill an innocent human being, or it is not. Even the slightest exception betrays.

and its corollary,

It is never moral to directly kill an innocent human being.

can be demonstrated with ease to be inaccurate overstatements which do not consider the range of human behavior more broadly. I will provide you with four examples of when it is indeed moral and necessary to kill innocent people:

1. In a hostage situation in which the killer is using a human shield and about to detonate a bomb killing the dozens of other hostages, it is moral to shoot and knowingly kill both the hostage-taker and the innocent person he is using as a human shield. This is necessary to save more lives than are lost. Other criminal situations less extreme than this also qualify.

2. In a situation in which a plane has been hijacked and is heading toward a city to crash, akin to 9/11, it is entirely moral for jets to be scrambled to shoot it down, killing all the innocent people on board. This is necessary to save more lives than are lost.

3. In every war which is declared there will always be “collateral damage” — innocent people will be killed. Does this mean that all wars are by their very nature immoral? Absolutely not, of course. Wars need to be fought to prevent more people from dying than who would die in the course of the war. When Israel drops a bomb on a Hamas target hiding amid Palestinian civilians is Israel engaging in an immoral act? Certainly not. It is doing what is necessary for preventing more of its own citizens from being killed. Likewise, does the United States engage in an immoral act when it bombs a terrorist hideout, potentially killing the innocent people held prisoner by the Jihadists or in the vicinity of the target?

4. Most important, though: were the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in order to win World War II and prevent an invasion of the Japanese mainland morally justified? Or was this an immoral act because innocent people were knowingly killed? I very much believe they were moral — fewer people died in these bombings than would have died if the war continued longer.

I am particularly emotionally engaged with this fourth example because my grandfather very much believed that the dropping of the atom bomb saved his life. If the war had dragged on and he and other servicemen were forced to invade Japan then the chances of his death would have been tremendously high. And if he had died then I and my whole family would not exist.

This principle in mind - that if one must kill some innocent people in order to prevent the killings of even more innocent people - I find your efforts to deflect from the obvious exception to the immorality of abortion (to save the life of the mother) misguided. You essentially refuse to acknowledge that this situation is ever a reality.

Merely saying, “Put simply, there is never a need to intentionally, actively kill a child to save a mother’s life,” does not eliminate at all that yes, there is sometimes a medical need to do that. I have honestly never heard a pro-life advocate try and pretend that such situations never occur. All my life engaging in discussions of abortion with those on both sides, I’ve never heard someone make this claim. I’m sorry Alec, but I’m going to need to see much stronger medical consensus to back up your position that abortions to save the life of the mother simply don’t exist at all. What research do you have at hand to support this?

Again, we can’t make an exception for an intrinsically immoral act, even if our general motive is the safety of women.

Yes, we can. In extraordinary circumstances then extraordinary exceptions to conventional, normal morality are necessary. During Covid it was morally necessary for the government to shut down religious services. That was necessary to keep people from dying needlessly.

Alec, we began this discussion with you noting that sometimes it’s necessary to compromise on one’s values in order to prevent a worse situation. That’s exactly what this is here. Assuming an absolutist position that not even in saving the life of the mother is abortion acceptable it is really no different than those you criticized for refusing to vote for a politician who supports birth control:

At the same time, we live in a compromised world, where sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. If I’m faced with voting for a pro-life candidate who allows for exceptions to abortion and the opposition is rabidly pro-choice up until birth—I must support the former candidate. But some on our side don’t see it that way.

In Kentucky, we have had that problem in the pro-life movement for many years. Like today’s so-called "principled conservatives," these pro-lifers will not support anyone who does not match all of their specific criteria for being pro-life, one of which, for example, was being against the contraceptive pill. This steadfast holding to principles made it possible for the defeat of otherwise good pro-life politicians.

I saw this as more virtue-signaling than successful politics. I have yet to vote for an absolutely pure and perfect candidate for office. I don’t think one exists.

Are you not now “virtue-signaling” yourself?

You write, “we must choose the lesser of two evils.” Abortions which are necessary to prevent the death of the mother certainly qualify in this category, just as using violence in war or criminal situations to prevent the deaths of more are as well.

best,

David

---