Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

Yes. People do. It is called “abortion.” (Not this instance, of course, but people do remove health tissue like this sometimes.)

Clearly, you argue now just for the sake of argument. Do you have a point relevant to the topic to make in the above?

Just because the word “because” has “cause” as its root does not mean that people doing things for a reason are the “cause” of the consequence of their action. That is a misunderstand of semantics.

Another unhelpful diversion.

I think the “indirect causes” he refers to here are:

1. Temperature dropping.
2. Loss of blood supply.
3. Loss of nutrients.

These are indirect causes in that the surgeon did not intend them. They just happened as an unfortunate consequence of the tube’s removal.

The bullet didn’t kill him, he bled out from the hole in his chest.
The gun didn’t kill him, the bullet made the hole in his chest.
The trigger didn’t kill him, the gun fired the bullet.
The man didn’t kill him, the gun did.

Substitute “trolley” for bullet and “switch” for trigger in the above to see the silliness in your example.

Your argument vaporizes when you admit the trolley directly causes the death of the innocent, the trolley is the only reason or cause of the innocent person’s death. Now, introduce a moral agent into the action. It is only because the observer throws the switch that the innocent person dies. I cannot make it any clearer to you. Muddle the OP’s scenario all you like.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes. People do. It is called “abortion.” (Not this instance, of course, but people do remove health tissue like this sometimes.)

Clearly, you argue now just for the sake of argument. Do you have a point relevant to the topic to make in the above?

Yes, the point is you cannot use the fact that “people do not remove healthy tissue” to turn a reason for taking an action into the cause of the action. The diseased tissue is not the “cause” of the child’s death. It is the reason the people decided to take action. You are still wrong in saying the diseased tissue caused the child’s death. It did not. Nor does the good Father say it did.

Just because the word “because” has “cause” as its root does not mean that people doing things for a reason are the “cause” of the consequence of their action. That is a misunderstand of semantics.

Another unhelpful diversion.

If it is unhelpful, why did you bother to bring it up? (The appearance of “cause” in “because”)

I think the “indirect causes” he refers to here are:

1. Temperature dropping.
2. Loss of blood supply.
3. Loss of nutrients.

These are indirect causes in that the surgeon did not intend them. They just happened as an unfortunate consequence of the tube’s removal.

The bullet didn’t kill him, he bled out from the hole in his chest.
The gun didn’t kill him, the bullet made the hole in his chest.
The trigger didn’t kill him, the gun fired the bullet.
The man didn’t kill him, the gun did.

Substitute “trolley” for bullet and “switch” for trigger in the above to see the silliness in your example.

None of this refutes my assertion about the causes of the child’s death when the tube has been removed.

Your argument vaporizes when you admit the trolley directly causes the death of the innocent, the trolley is the only reason or cause of the innocent person’s death.

No, my argument is totally consistent with that understanding. If you think it “vaporizes” my argument, please say how.

Now, introduce a moral agent into the action. It is only because the observer throws the switch that the innocent person dies. I cannot make it any clearer to you.

I quite agree that it is only because the observer throws the switch that the innocent person dies. But it is still not clear that this implies the observer has performed an immoral act. After all, it is only because the surgeon removes the tube that the child dies today. We would have died tomorrow or the day after because of the diseased tube. But he died today because the tube was removed.

 

[o_mlly]

The diseased tissue is not the “cause” of the child’s death. It is the reason the people decided to take action. You are still wrong in saying the diseased tissue caused the child’s death. It did not. Nor does the good Father say it did.

Wrong!

https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/1514/4916/3469/NCBCsummFAQ_EctopicPregnancy.pdf

Ectopic pregnancy” occurs when an embryo implants outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube. Once implanted, the embryo’s growth is likely to rupture the fallopian tube, causing the death of both mother and child. …

No matter what is done, there is no chance of survival for the embryo, but without treatment, the mother’s life is at great risk; currently, there is no alternative procedure that can save the embryo, even if nothing is done.

I am only now repeating myself and arguing against strawmen. Watch the recommended videos and study Catholic moral theology. Good luck.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The diseased tissue is not the “cause” of the child’s death. It is the reason the people decided to take action. You are still wrong in saying the diseased tissue caused the child’s death. It did not. Nor does the good Father say it did.

Wrong!

https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/1514/4916/3469/NCBCsummFAQ_EctopicPregnancy.pdf

Ectopic pregnancy” occurs when an embryo implants outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube. Once implanted, the embryo’s growth is likely to rupture the fallopian tube, causing the death of both mother and child. …

No matter what is done, there is no chance of survival for the embryo, but without treatment, the mother’s life is at great risk; currently, there is no alternative procedure that can save the embryo, even if nothing is done.

This doesn’t say what you said! This says that if left alone, the tube is likely to rupture, causing the death of the child. It does not say that it is the cause of death when the tube is removed. After all, it hasn’t ruptured yet! You are still wrong in saying the diseased tissue caused the child’s death, or that the good Father made such a statement.

 

[Elf01]

Let A = the unnatural attachment of the embryo to the tube resulting in the diseased tissue in the mother.

What about a woman who needs her womb removed before the baby can survive outside it?

In that case the baby is exactly where he or she is supposed to be.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You are defining ‘potential’ and ‘real’ as being an either/or situation. Which is not the case. An enemy training his guns on you is a potential threat as he may fire. His actions are also a real danger to your life. In either case you would be within your right to shoot first. And that stands in civiliian situations as well. Morally and legally.

Your example was in a war. Potential and real are either/or situations. Either the war is on or it is not. Either the war is just or unjust. An offensive war is never just.

So you can only use defensive methods in war? You cannot attack the enemy before he attacks you? You cannot attack and destroy nuclear facilities knowing that innocent people will die?

A man who has posted murderous intent on social media is walking into schoolgrounds with an automatic weapon. Is that a potential threat or a real one? Maybe it’s only potential when he leaves his house. Maybe it becomes real when he gets a certain distance to the school. Maybe you can tell us when it changes.

Maybe if he ignores a call to stop it becomes real. Either way, offensive action (even in a just war) is apparently not allowed. Or maybe it is in this case. Maybe you can formulate a situation when a head shot might be ok. When he’s in the car park perhaps. When he’s loading his gun. Or maybe when he’s aiming it? Because it looks like he’s wearing a bomb.

Then again, maybe the gun is a replica. Maybe the guy is deaf so can’t hear the order to stop. But is it morally acceptable to take risks with the lives of others?

I don’t know what world you live in. It’s not the real one. It seems to be a place where people either wear black hats or white ones. Where there is a line dividing right from wrong. Where every act is either moral or immoral. Where there are no grey areas.

It’s a fantasy land.

 

[Gorgias]

We are not talking about negligence here. We are talking about a scenario in which the person faced with the decision knows full well the likely consequences of his action or inaction.

… and chooses to take an action which he knows will kill an innocent bystander. Yes. It’s morally unacceptable.

I hope that explains what the object of an act is.

As I continue to think through the discussion here, it seems to me that the assertions in favor of a ‘double effect’ approach tend to conflate terms. I think I’m hearing “the object is to save lives!” and “the intent is to save lives!”, and that seems somewhat problematic. If the ‘intent’ and the ‘object’ are the same, then why differentiate between them? If they are not the same thing, then perhaps we’re misidentifying them when we claim that they are identical?

 

[Gorgias]

Not benign, neutral .

Still doesn’t help your case. I think your analysis continues to be faulty.

Unfortunately some of you would express this act as “murdering the innocent baby”.

No. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the object is “removing the ruptured fallopian tube” and the intent is “save the life of the mother.”

Since that is not possible, we would minimize the harm by flipping the switch

You’re still claiming ‘utilitarianism’, though, and not ‘double effect’. “Minimize harm” by “killing one innocent bystander” is still the name of the game.

If you claim that the object is “divert the trolley from one track to another”, then you fail according to the “good or neutral” condition – diverting the trolley to a track where one person is standing is neither “good” nor neutral".

I hope you see the TOTAL equivalence between the two cases.

They’re not totally equivalent.

The point in both cases is that the life of the mother and the life of five people is “better” or more valuable,

Umm… no. “Life of mother” is not being judged “more valuable” than “life of baby.”

You are reluctant to use my opinion of what counts as reason

Fixed that for ya. You’re welcome.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We are not talking about negligence here. We are talking about a scenario in which the person faced with the decision knows full well the likely consequences of his action or inaction.

… and chooses to take an action which he knows will kill an innocent bystander. Yes. It’s morally unacceptable.

I hope that explains what the object of an act is.

As I continue to think through the discussion here, it seems to me that the assertions in favor of a ‘double effect’ approach tend to conflate terms. I think I’m hearing “the object is to save lives!” and “the intent is to save lives!”, and that seems somewhat problematic. If the ‘intent’ and the ‘object’ are the same, then why differentiate between them?

I’m not. That’s o_milly who tries to draw distinctions without a difference.

But I would like to hear more about why the principle of double effect is null and void. It has a long history in Catholic teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

But I would like to hear more about why the principle of double effect is null and void

It’s not the principle itself… it’s this particular attempt at applying it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

MAGA-huelye:

Unfortunately some of you would express this act as “murdering the innocent baby”.

No. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the object is “removing the ruptured fallopian tube” and the intent is “save the life of the mother.”

Almost. The object is “removing the fallopian tube before it ruptures.” That’s when the procedure is normally done. They don’t wait for it to rupture before cutting it out. Of course it still isn’t murdering an innocent baby either.

Since that is not possible, we would minimize the harm by flipping the switch

You’re still claiming ‘utilitarianism’, though, and not ‘double effect’. “Minimize harm” by “killing one innocent bystander” is still the name of the game.

Actually minimizing harm is consistent with the principle of double effect, and is even a necessary component of it. Here is why:

The principle of double effect says that an act may be performed to accomplish a good even if an unintended evil can reasonably be expected as a side effect, but only if the good that is accomplished in so doing is proportionately worth the evil side effect. So, for instance, suppose that instead of 5 people on the track we had an expensive Fabergé egg about to be hit by the trolley, and diverting the trolley would save the jeweled egg from destruction, but kill the one man on the track. This satisfies all the conditions of valid double effect except for one. The good that is accomplished (saving an expensive decoration) is not comparable to the death of the one man on the track.

Now I don’t know if the relative evaluation can be made by merely counting the number of people either. But I do know that some kind of minimizing the evil is a necessary component of applying the principle of double effect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But I would like to hear more about why the principle of double effect is null and void

It’s not the principle itself… it’s this particular attempt at applying it.

OK, explain why it does not apply.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gorgias:

Fixed that for ya. You’re welcome.

You are not welcome. Intentionally distorting what I said is unwelcome.

Not only is it unwelcome. It is a violation of the Catholic Answers Forum terms of use - modifying another poster’s words in a quote.

The whole concept of “foreseen but unintended” is a cop-out. It does not admit that if you have to choose between two options where one is better than the other, than one should choose the better one. The principle of minimizing the harm is universal, and you have no counter argument against it.

I don’t know why you are arguing against the principle of double effect. It supports the position that minimizing the harm in this instance is a morally acceptable action, which I gather is your position too.

The reason we have to talk about double effect is that there is a moral distinction sometimes made between action and inaction. In general, choices that result in action are subject to a higher moral standard than choices that result in inaction. For example, while it may be somewhat cowardly to run away when you see a gang of thugs attack an innocent person, it is still a morally acceptable choice, especially if the thugs are clearly stronger than you. The result of that inaction may very well be the death of that innocent person. But inaction is rarely immoral. However if you are part of that gang and participate the beating of that innocent person, your choice to act would clearly be an immoral one. Even though your choice led to the same outcome - the death of the innocent person - the action choice was immoral while the inaction choice was moral.

The principle of double effect is applied mostly in the case of action. (There are instances where inaction is immoral too, but they are less common.) Since the trolley problem pits an action against an inaction, the choice is not symmetric with respect to morality. The moral standard that must be passed to justify throwing the switching is higher than the moral standard to justify not throwing the switch. Therefore it is a little over-simplified to say it is a simple choice between 1 person and 5 people, because one of them involves action and the other involves inaction.

 

[o_mlly]

What about a woman who needs her womb removed before the baby can survive outside it?

In that case the baby is exactly where he or she is supposed to be.

First, @leafbyniggle’s fundamental misunderstanding of the moral object in the human act misleads him/her to attempt to justify throwing the switch by the double effect, comparing tubal pregnancy to the trolley, and euthanasia to salpingectomy.

It is important to correctly identify the moral object of any human act to determine its morality.

The moral object of the OP’s trolley case is twofold: the act saves five and directly kills one all who are innocent. Because direct killing one innocent is intrinsically evil the act is immoral. The fonts of intention or circumstance cannot make good an act that is evil in its object.

The moral object of salpingectomy is to directly remove diseased tubal tissue which threatens the mother’s life. The indirect outcome is the death of the terminal child in the tube. The reason euthanasia is not comparable is that euthanasia is a direct attack on a terminal patient’s person-body. The salpingectomy does not attack the person-body of the child and is similar to moving a terminal patient off extraordinary but ineffective life support to let nature take its course.

In the case of a cancerous womb, the object of the surgery is to directly remove the diseased tissue and indirectly kill the child. The indirect effect is tolerated, not intended and proportionate to the good effect. The good effect – saving the mother’s life – does not occur through the bad effect – death of the child

Finally, a fair comparison to the OP’s trolley case is salpingostomy – the opening of the tube and scooping the embryo out. Like throwing the switch, the moral object of the act is to directly kill the innocent child and indirectly save the mother. Like the trolley, we may never directly kill an innocent person so salpingostomy is immoral.

 

[Latin]

The Letter Kills, But the Spirit Gives Life​

Legalism is one of the most insidious, and deadliest, dangers which Christians face.

It is insidious because it is a constant temptation which arises from the depths of our old, fleshly nature-hence it is a familiar, even comfortable urge.

And it is victorious, it will prove deadly-as Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 3:6; Who has qualified us to be ministers of a New Covenant NOT IN THE WRITTEN COD BUT IN THE SPIRIT: for the written cod kills, but the spirit gives life.

The reason why death is the constant companion and ultimate successor of legalism is that rules so easily gives one the conviction he is “building brownie points” with God.

.
IGNATIUS CATHOLIC STUDY BIBLE, Footnote on 2 Cor.3:6;

“THE WRITTEN COD: Literally “the letter”, set in contrast to “the Spirit”.

The literal sense of the OT describes things and events of the past, which are shadows and types of the Gospel, but these remain lifeless apart from their fulfilment in Christ.

The spiritual sense reveals the spiritual realities of the messianic age that bring us life and grace, realities foretold by the letter but now made present through the Spirit of Christ.”

.
ACCORDING TO “THE LETTER” OF THE COD:

By removing the fallopian tube the surgeon committed an act of murder by causing the death of the baby, it was an immoral act.

The person by diverting the trolley from one track to another committed an act of murder, it was an immoral act.
.
ACCORDING TO “THE SPIRIT” OF THE COD:

By removing the fallopian tube the surgeon saved the mother, it was a moral act.

The person by diverting the trolley from one track to another, minimized the death by saving 5 people, it was a moral act.

.
WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET WHO WE ARE:

We are ministers of a New Covenant NOT IN THE WRITTEN COD BUT IN THE SPIRIT: for the written cod kills, but the spirit gives life .
.
God bless

 

[o_mlly]

So you can only use defensive methods in war? You cannot attack the enemy before he attacks you?

Read the entire post.

A defender in a just war may use whatever force is necessary to render the unjust aggressor incapacitated from causing further harm.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So you can only use defensive methods in war? You cannot attack the enemy before he attacks you?

Read the entire post.

A defender in a just war may use whatever force is necessary to render the unjust aggressor incapacitated from causing further harm.

Notwithstanding that there is a world of disagreement as to who might be the unjust agressor in any conflict (freedom fighter or terrorist?) you are still hanging on to the concept of a ‘just retaliation’ as opposed to preventing deaths by slipping in ‘from causing FURTHER harm’.

No ‘further harm’ need to considered. It is potential harm that needs to be addressed. A real threat of harm to you and yours. So you can bomb the nuclear facility that is producing weapon grade uranium. You can destroy the factories that are producing chemical weapons. You can take out the guy walking into the school with an automatic weapon.

There are rarely black and white options. You need to address every situation in isolation and balance all the available information before coming to a decision. You seem incapable of doing that.

 

[o_mlly]

Notwithstanding that there is a world of disagreement as to who might be the unjust agressor in any conflict (freedom fighter or terrorist?) you are still hanging on to the concept of a ‘just retaliation’ as opposed to preventing deaths by slipping in ‘from causing FURTHER harm’.

“Just retaliation” is your strawman and putting in quotes is dishonest. Obviously, you have not bothered yet to study Catholic moral theology. Read up on it and then argue how its principles are unreasonable instead of sniping from ignorance.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Notwithstanding that there is a world of disagreement as to who might be the unjust agressor in any conflict (freedom fighter or terrorist?) you are still hanging on to the concept of a ‘just retaliation’ as opposed to preventing deaths by slipping in ‘from causing FURTHER harm’.

“Just retaliation” is your strawman and putting in quotes is dishonest. Obviously, you have not bothered yet to study Catholic moral theology. Read up on it and then argue how its principles are unreasonable instead of sniping from ignorance.

Then why insert ‘further harm’? What is wrong with a first strike against someone with evil intent? Who is most definitely a potential aggressor that poses a real threat. Wait for the first attack and then respond?

And enough with the buck passing ‘study Catholic moral theology’. I’m not discussing this matter with the church. I’m discussing it with you.

 

[o_mlly]

Who is most definitely a potential aggressor that poses a real threat.

This oxymoron shows how muddled your thinking is. Dishonest, ignorant and muddled. Go troll somebody else.