Catholic view on utilitarianism

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Because the act and intention and purpose was to divert the trolley away from the five.

No, only the intention (which is the same as the actor’s purpose) is to divert the trolley. The moral object is twofold – save five and directly kill one.

You have accepted that both outcomes, one good and one evil, are the moral objects in the tubal excision case. Explain how the direct killing of the innocent one is not also in the moral object of the trolley case.

If you want to call both of them moral objects in both cases, then fine. Let’s call them that. But you claim there is a difference between the way the two moral objects are treated in the trolley case and the way the two moral objects are treated in the tubal excision case. What is that difference?

So far you have just make absolute statements about one case and absolute statement about the other case without highlighting any differences.

 

[o_mlly]

If you want to call both of them moral objects in both cases, then fine. Let’s call them that. But you claim there is a difference between the way the two moral objects are treated in the trolley case and the way the two moral objects are treated in the tubal excision case. What is that difference?

Good, that’s progress.

The difference, cited several times now in this thread, is precisely given by Father Tad and confirmed by George Weigel and the Catechism:

“We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being …”

Fr. Tad explains this crucial difference by condemning the act which directly kills the child as immoral and permits as moral the act which indirectly kills the child:

“… we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life.”

So, the only moral act in which an innocent person’s life may be killed is one in which the death occurs indirectly.

So, explain how the bystander only indirectly kills the innocent one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If you want to call both of them moral objects in both cases, then fine. Let’s call them that. But you claim there is a difference between the way the two moral objects are treated in the trolley case and the way the two moral objects are treated in the tubal excision case. What is that difference?

Good, that’s progress.

The difference, cited several times now in this thread, is precisely given by Father Tad and confirmed by George Weigel and the Catechism…

No, none of those sources mention the trolley problem at all. You are on your own here. You can refer to those sources, but in the end, if you think the trolley problem is different, you have to be the one to explain how it is different. These fine sources are not going to do it for you.

 

[o_mlly]

No, none of those sources mention the trolley problem at all. You are on your own here. You can refer to those sources, but in the end, if you think the trolley problem is different, you have to be the one to explain how it is different. These fine sources are not going to do it for you.

I argue from solid Catholic principles citing authorities. You offer your unfounded opinion.

If you offer no authoritative principles, as you have not, to support your opinion which denies the truth of Catholic doctrine then we can and should dismiss your opinion as simply wrongheaded.

 

[Gorgias]

You won’t find a doctor anywhere that doesn’t treat someone because ‘they deserve to die’.

I agree. Yet, that’s the approach MAGA is asking us to sign up for – “I like Mother Teresa and I dislike Dahmer, so let’s give the meds to MT.”

But any doctor practicing anywhere is constantly making decisions about where best to spend her time and the available money to obtain the best results.

It’s a fine line to tread, for sure. And it tends to look a whole lot like utilitarianism. So, it requires precise and delicate care, especially in terms of the ‘intent’.

There are even Ethical Commitees serving in any decent sized hospital who literally make life and death decisions. What you are proposing is that they are acting immorally.

Not at all. Just pointing out that they can slip into utilitarianism, depending on their intent. But, if the decision is “we can expect a greater chance of success with patient X over patient Y, and don’t have the resources to treat them both with treatment Z (which is scarce but better than treatment W)… so we’ll try Z with X and W with Y”… well, in that case, they are acting responsibly and morally.

That Ethical Commitee, if deciding who gets the life saving treatment will most definately take into account that one person is worth saving and the other most definitely is not.

NO. No, NO, NO!!! A hundred times NO! If they said “Wozza is worth saving, but MAGA is not”, then that would be immoral. On the other hand, if they reasoned, “we believe that we have a 75% chance of saving Wozza with the one dose of the miracle drug that’s available, but only a 25% chance of saving MAGA”, then that would be a morally sound decision. It all comes down to intent.

Because the act and intention and purpose was to divert the trolley away from the five.

The act and the intent must be distinct, no?

No, only the intention (which is the same as the actor’s purpose) is to divert the trolley. The moral object is twofold – save five and directly kill one.

I think you have it backward. The intent has to do with saving five. The act has to do with… well… an action: that is, diverting the trolley to the other track.

(And, since “diverting the trolley to the track with one person on it” is not an act that’s morally sound or at least neutral, one cannot take that action.)

 

[o_mlly]

I think you have it backward. The intent has to do with saving five. The act has to do with… well… an action : that is, diverting the trolley to the other track.

Niggling? The intent or “end in view”, is always one of the moral objects of the act, that is the foreseen outcomes. The intent can never be an unforeseen outcome. Leaf’s muddling has taken its toll. I should have more clearly explained intent by citing his complete phrase.

… divert the trolley away from the five.

 

[o_mlly]

(And, since “diverting the trolley to the track with one person on it” is not an act that’s morally sound or at least neutral, one cannot take that action.)

Reverse niggle. The act is intrinsically evil by reason of its evil moral object.

 

[Gorgias]

Niggling?

This whole conversation is all about picking nits.

Reverse niggle. The act is intrinsically evil by reason of its evil moral object.

Double effect speaks in terms of “morally good or morally neutral” acts, and therefore, that’s why I phrased it in the way I did.

 

[o_mlly]

Double effect speaks in terms of “morally good or morally neutral” acts, and therefore, that’s why I phrased it in the way I did.

Only in the abstract can we think of a human act as neutral. Once the intent and all relevant circumstances are known, the act can be judged.

Your description of the train trolley dilemma may be considered concrete if no other circumstances than those given exist bear on the determination of the morality of the act.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You won’t find a doctor anywhere that doesn’t treat someone because ‘they deserve to die’.

I agree. Yet, that’s the approach MAGA is asking us to sign up for – “I like Mother Teresa and I dislike Dahmer, so let’s give the meds to MT.”

That’s not correct either. Personal preference doesn’t come into it. All other things being equal, you would save the person who is beneficial to society and therefore sacrifice the person who is not.

Take another example. A terrorist shoots the pilot and then tries to crash the plane but is shot in turn. If you can only save one, who do you save? The pilot so she can land the plane safely or the terrorist who will simply continue trying to crash the aircraft?

That is exactly the same ethical decision that you rejected earlier. And the plane is going to crash unless you sacrifice the terrorist’s life. As it turns out, the pilot is Mother T (she learned to fly) and the terrorist is Dahmer.

Does personal preference come into this? Do you make the logical decision or do you shrink from the responsibility and everyone dies?

Sometimes you have to play God.

 

[o_mlly]

This whole conversation is all about picking nits

Well, some of it is but not all of it. There have been many posts that were not out and out lousy. (Pun intended.)

 

[Gorgias]

Only in the abstract can we think of a human act as neutral.

No. There are morally neutral acts. For instance, there’s no moral content in my decision this morning whether to have Wheaties or Corn Flakes.

All other things being equal, you would save the person who is beneficial to society and therefore sacrifice the person who is not.

That’s utilitarianism. Not acceptable according to CMT.

Take another example. A terrorist shoots the pilot and then tries to crash the plane but is shot in turn. If you can only save one, who do you save? The pilot so she can land the plane safely or the terrorist who will simply continue trying to crash the aircraft?

I land the plane, and then seek medical assistance for both.

(Or, I provide sufficient medical aid to the pilot so that she can land the plane, and also provide the medical aid that I’m able to provide, to the terrorist. These “either/or” examples are artificial constructs. )

There have been many posts that were not out and out lousy. (Pun intended.)

Ugh…!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, none of those sources mention the trolley problem at all. You are on your own here. You can refer to those sources, but in the end, if you think the trolley problem is different, you have to be the one to explain how it is different. These fine sources are not going to do it for you.

I argue from solid Catholic principles citing authorities. You offer your unfounded opinion.

If you offer no authoritative principles, as you have not, to support your opinion which denies the truth of Catholic doctrine then we can and should dismiss your opinion as simply wrongheaded.

I argue from the same solid Catholic principles you do. But I see you won’t even attempt to say how the two cases are different, so one wonders if you have any basis at all for your claim. Really, now, how are they different?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gorgias:

(And, since “diverting the trolley to the track with one person on it” is not an act that’s morally sound or at least neutral, one cannot take that action.)

Reverse niggle. The act is intrinsically evil by reason of its evil moral object.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the term “intrinsically evil.” Here is an official citation that will explain it, along with the moral object, both of which I think you have got wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

No. There are morally neutral acts. For instance, there’s no moral content in my decision this morning whether to have Wheaties or Corn Flakes.

Nope. The human act of eating cereal for nourishment is a good act.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gorgias:

No. There are morally neutral acts. For instance, there’s no moral content in my decision this morning whether to have Wheaties or Corn Flakes.

Nope. The human act of eating cereal for nourishment is a good act.

The “act” referred to was the act of deciding, not the act of eating.

 

[o_mlly]

I argue from the same solid Catholic principles you do. But I see you won’t even attempt to say how the two cases are different, so one wonders if you have any basis at all for your claim. Really, now, how are they different?

You have conveniently missed the oft repeated principle that the direct killing of an innocent is never permitted.

So, explain how the bystander merely indirectly kill the innocent.

 

[o_mlly]

This is a gross misunderstanding of the term “intrinsically evil.” Here is an official citation that will explain it, along with the moral object, both of which I think you have got wrong.

No, Mr. Conte is well informed but not “official.” Cite in Mr. Conte’s article where you think I got it wrong. Since you refer to Mr. Conte as your authority, did you look at his article on the trolley? Apparently, not.

https://ronconte.com/2017/09/29/the-trolley-problem-and-the-three-fonts-of-morality/

“Since the act of pulling the lever is intrinsically evil, it cannot be done, not even to save a thousand lives.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I argue from the same solid Catholic principles you do. But I see you won’t even attempt to say how the two cases are different, so one wonders if you have any basis at all for your claim. Really, now, how are they different?

You have conveniently missed the oft repeated principle that the direct killing of an innocent is never permitted.

You could only say that if you had already established that diverting the trolley was directly killing the one man on the track. Since you have not defined the word “direct” the way you use it, there is no way you can prove anything about it.

So, explain how the bystander merely indirectly kill the innocent.

Because the death of the one man was the consequence of something that occurred after the act of saving the 5 had been accomplished, just as the death of the baby in the cold and unnourished tube occurred after the doctor cut it out. In both cases the physical cause of death was foreseen. In both cases it was regretted. How are they different?

 

[o_mlly]

The “act” referred to was the act of deciding, not the act of eating.

No, the human act is to choose to eat to nourish one’s body. The choice of any proper food is merely a matter of taste.