Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Paul Hill

Are Christian prolifers hypocritical for not resorting to violent resistance? I’ve already approached that question from more than one angle. Now let’s consider yet another angle.

Take the case of Paul Hill. Hill was a defrocked Presbyterian minister who was later convicted and executed for the murder of an abortionist.

What were the consequences of his actions? Well, one consequence is that he left behind a widow and three young kids.

As a husband and father, Hill had prior obligations. Obligations to his dependents. By committing a capital offense, he was unable to discharge his prior obligations. He’s morally equivalent to a married man who walks out on his wife and kids. Even apart from the question of murder, desertion is a sin. A very serious sin. Hill was shirking his domestic responsibilities.

Some things are morally permissible–all things considered–which are morally impermissible–all things being equal. A single man or woman doesn’t have all the same responsibilities as a spouse, parent, and breadwinner.

However, even single men or women have prior obligations. For example, grown children have a duty to care for elderly parents who are too enfeebled to care for themselves. If a single man commits a capital offense, then he’s no longer in a position to discharge his filial duties. That’s in addition to the moral status of the capital offense, in and of itself.

(The same would also hold true for a life sentence. You can’t provide for your dependants when you’re behind bars.)

4 comments:

  1. I used to buy into the idea that killing abortionists is the moral equivalent of deserting one's family...but that argument only holds water if being caught/sentenced/or death as a result was a guarantee *every time*.

    It doesn't actually speak to the "rightness" or "wrongness" taking an abortionist's life...only to the fact the killer of a mass murderer was caught.

    Desertion of one's family is the result of choosing an immoral path that removes one from his family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CRAIG FRENCH SAID:

    "I used to buy into the idea that killing abortionists is the moral equivalent of deserting one's family...but that argument only holds water if being caught/sentenced/or death as a result was a guarantee *every time*."

    i) There's no guarantee that a man who deserts his family will desert his family for good. He may change his mind.

    ii) More to the point, though, is the question of intent. The assassin is prepared to assume a risk which will leave his dependents without a husband, father, and breadwinner.

    "It doesn't actually speak to the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' taking an abortionist's life...only to the fact the killer of a mass murderer was caught."

    It wasn't meant to, and it doesn't need to. An action can be right or wrong in more than one respect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Steve,

    I agree that desertion is a sin.
    Would you consider a married man who enlists to fight in Afghanistan a deserter?
    In other words, what sort of qualifications would you put on that term?

    ReplyDelete
  4. RON SAID:

    "Would you consider a married man who enlists to fight in Afghanistan a deserter? In other words, what sort of qualifications would you put on that term?"

    Somewhat complicated question to answer:

    i) In principle, national defense is an extension of self-defense. We do need a military to survive. So, up to a point, that's a legitimate profession.

    ii) If a woman marries a soldier, that involves a tacit acceptance of the military lifestyle.

    iii) At the same time, it's also possible for an ambitious military officer, like any career-driven individual, to effectively desert his family by doing far more than is required of him in order to get promoted.

    iv) Likewise, some military careers, like the navy, make it very difficult to be both a family man (or woman) and professional.

    I think there comes a point at which a person needs to make choices. You can't always have it all or do it all. You shouldn't make a habit of assuming conflicting obligations. If we already have a set of prior obligations, we shouldn't assume another set of obligations which regularly conflict with our prior obligations.

    ReplyDelete