a tale of two sons

Tooley's Example

Two sons are looking forward to the death of their nasty but very wealthy father. Tired of waiting, they decide, independently of one another, to kill their father. The one puts some poison in his father’s whisky, and is discovered doing so by his brother, who was just about to do the same thing. The latter then allows his father to imbibe the deadly drink, and refrains from administering an antidote which he happens to have. The one son killed his father. The other merely allowed him to die. Did the former do something significantly more wrong than the latter?

My own view is that the actions are morally equivalent... other things being equal, it is just as wrong intentionally to refrain from administering an antidote to someone who is dying of poisoning as it is to administer the poison, provided that the same motive is operative in both cases. And, more generally, it follows that the distinction between killing and intentionally letting die is not in itself a morally significant one.

- Michael Tooley, An Irrelevant Consideration: Killing Versus Letting Die

The Parable of the Lost Son

"Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.'"" - Luke 15:11-12 (NIV)

You're out of rank, son. You're the younger son. What are you doing? The older son is the son who would be the only one who would have a right to make such a request, but no older son in his right mind would make such a request because you didn't get your inheritance until your father was what? Was dead! So to go to your father and say, "Could you please die?" is outrageous conduct...

"So he divided his property between them." - Luke 15:12 (NIV)

What? This is where the Pharisees would say, "Whoa, whoa. No father would do that. You don't give in to that kind of shameful attitude. You don't give in to someone that is that insolent."

But he did. He divided his wealth among them. He didn't have to wait until he was dead. He split it up. He gave two-thirds to the older son, one-third to the younger. This is a father abandoning his own honour. This is a father taking on shame. This is ridiculous. This is a very, very dishonourable son, but this is a more dishonourable father. This is a weak-willed father in the minds of the Pharisees. This is a father who is not protecting what must be protected. This is a silly kind of superficial love in their eyes.

And by the way, where is the older brother here? He is purposely not in the story. Jesus doesn't put him in the story here, but he should be in the story and that is another eye-roller here because the older brother had a responsibility to protect his younger brother from stupid things and he knew about the division because he got his two-thirds. Why didn't he stop this kind of insolent behaviour by the younger brother and why didn't he, of all things, do what the older son was committed to doing, protect the honour of his father?

- John MacArthur, A Tale of Two Sons (Voice of Christian Youth America Rally, 9 Sep 08)

to be sure, there are differences between tooley's example and the parable of the lost son. besides, the parable of the lost son is not primarily about killing vs letting die, the sin of commission vs the sin of omission. it is primarily about the Son of Man, who 'came to seek and to save what was lost' (Luke 19:10, NIV).

nevertheless, it is striking that both tooley's example and the parable of the lost son tell a tale of two sons who both want their wealthy father dead. in tooley's example, the first son puts some poison in his father's whisky and the second son does nothing about it because it is in his interests as well. in the parable of the lost son, the younger brother asks for his share of the estate and the older brother also does nothing about it because it is in his interests as well.

"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." - James 4:17 (NIV)

*****

1. killing with the intention to kill (eg. the first son in tooley's example) is wrong.
2. letting die with the intention to kill (eg. the second son in tooley's example) is wrong.
3. killing with the intention to not kill (eg. killing in self-defence) is not wrong.
4. letting die with the intention to not kill (eg. passive euthanasia) is not wrong.