Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

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

Asked and answered and ignored. Check my posts in this thread. My fingers are getting tired.

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?

No, the death of the innocent, no matter when it occurs, is not a consequence of the five saved. It is the direct outcome of pulling the switch. If the switch is not pulled, the trolley does not kill the innocent one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.”

Wow! Did pick the wrong authority to explain my point! You are right in that he is no authority. In fact many say he preaches heresy. But I am still waiting for you to say how the two cases are different. I said how they are the same.

 

[o_mlly]

Wow! Did pick the wrong authority to explain my point! You are right in that he is no authority. In fact many say he preaches heresy.

I did not say he is not a authority, I said he is not “official” but well informed as he is on the trolley case.

 

[o_mlly]

But I am still waiting for you to say how the two cases are different. I said how they are the same.

Read my posts. Your repeated amnesia is alarming. Seek medical attention.

I fear I will have to charge you tuition for remedial instruction if you continue.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Fine. Let’s try another. There’s no moral content in the decision to address you as “brother” or “o_mlly” in this post.

Clear enough, o_mlly?

 

[o_mlly]

Fine. Let’s try another. There’s no moral content in the decision to address you as “brother” or “o_mlly” in this post.

Clear enough, o_mlly?

If there truly is no moral content then the act is not a human act. All human acts have a moral object.

If you address me as “brother” as an act of charity then the act is a human act. If you address me as “o_mlly” to save me tripping then that is a human act. One has to know more than “what”, one has to know “why” in order to determine the species of the human act.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Wow! Did pick the wrong authority to explain my point! You are right in that he is no authority. In fact many say he preaches heresy.

I did not say he is not a authority, I said he is not “official” but well informed as he is on the trolley case.

I think he is wrong on the trolley case, partly based on his misapplication of another example he gives to explain the trolley case. He says:
Ron Conte:

Another example: if you are told by terrorists to kill one innocent person, or else they will kill one thousand innocents, you cannot comply. Killing the one innocent is intrinsically evil. Allowing many to die when you are not able to act without sin is not intrinsically evil. The moral law requires us to avoid all grave sins, especially those that are inherently immoral, such that no purpose, however noble, and no circumstance, however dire, can justify the act.

He is right about the act being immoral, but it is immoral for a totally different reason than the trolley case and the tubal excision case. In this “terrorist” example, the killing of the one innocent person is the means to the end. The terrorists will not spare the thousand innocents unless the one is killed. It violates rule #2 in the double effect 4 conditions. But in the other two cases, rule #2 is not violated. The death of the baby is not the means to curing the mother, and the death of the one man on the tracks is not the means to saving the 5. So his inclusion of this example to explain the trolley problem throws doubt on his correct understanding of Catholic moral teaching.

 

[o_mlly]

He is right about the act being immoral, but it is immoral for a totally different reason than the trolley case and the tubal excision case.

Both the terrorist and the trolley cases violate the first rule of the double effect – the act may not be intrinsically evil. The direct killing of an innocent is always immoral.

The tubal excision does not violate any of the four principles of double effect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

He is right about the act being immoral, but it is immoral for a totally different reason than the trolley case and the tubal excision case.

Both the terrorist and the trolley cases violate the first rule of the double effect – the act may not be intrinsically evil. The direct killing of an innocent is always immoral.

The tubal excision does not violate any of the four principles of double effect.

I disagree that the killing in the trolley problem is intrinsically evil. It is a foreseen and unintended evil, just like the killing in the tubal excision was foreseen and unintended. And don’t say one of them is direct and the other is indirect unless you can point to how one is direct and the other is indirect.

 

[o_mlly]

And don’t say one of them is direct and the other is indirect unless you can point to how one is direct and the other is indirect.

To avoid a remedial tuition bill, search the thread for “self-evident”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And don’t say one of them is direct and the other is indirect unless you can point to how one is direct and the other is indirect.

To avoid a remedial tuition bill, search the thread for “self-evident”.

In other words, you have no idea how they are different. Got it. I listed numerous ways in which they were the same. But all you have to do is come up with one significant way in which they are different. I already suggested your best bet back a while, regarding the fact that the baby was going to die anyway but the man on the tracks was not going to die anyway. Why didn’t you take that and run with it?

 

[o_mlly]

In other words, you have no idea how they are different. Got it. I listed numerous ways in which they were the same. But all you have to do is come up with one significant way in which they are different. I already suggested your best bet back a while, regarding the fact that the baby was going to die anyway but the man on the tracks was not going to die anyway. Why didn’t you take that and run with it?

It appears you require the full explanation of a “self-evident” truth. A truth is self-evident if no reasonable person could hold otherwise. So, we are back to the question put to you many times over.

From numerous citations in the catechism, Fr. Pacholczyk, George Weigel, and, most recently from your own source, Mr. Conte – “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

So, is the one on the track innocent? Yes.

May anyone directly kill the innocent one. No.

May one indirectly allow the death of an innocent one? Yes, under certain conditions.

Does the innocent one in the trolley case die? Yes.

If moral then the innocent man death must be caused indirectly. If caused directly then the act is immoral.

So ,for the umpteenth time,

[E]xplain how the bystander merely indirectly kill the innocent.

 

[Elf01]

So, is the one on the track innocent? Yes.

May anyone directly kill the innocent one. No.

May one indirectly allow the death of an innocent one? Yes, under certain conditions.

Does the innocent one in the trolley case die? Yes.

If moral then the innocent man death must be caused indirectly. If caused directly then the act is immoral.

So ,for the umpteenth time,

Does not explain why the death is direct.

 

[Economist]

Mr. Conte – “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

Sorry, that is just an empty assertion. Especially the word “innocent” is undefined. Mr. Conte used to be a poster here on CAF, but he has been banned for some reason. So his authority is dubious.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So ,for the umpteenth time,

o_mlly:

[E]xplain how the bystander merely indirectly kill the innocent.

I would need a definition of “directly” and “indirectly” to do that. Since you introduced the term into the discussion, please point me to the definition you wish to use. I will go with whatever one you want. But be careful. If you pick the wrong definition, I might be able to show that under that definition, the surgeon directly kills the baby in the tube, and neither of us wants that to be the understanding, right?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

Don’t be nonsensical. You are well aware of the concept of these type of hypotheticals. And you pointing out that ‘it’s not acceptable’ is no more than a plea for us to accept that your hands are tied.

‘Why didn’t you save the plane!’
‘Sorry. I wasn’t allowed. Look, it says here that utilitarianism isn’t allowed and unless I’m mistaken…’

We aren’t getting moral viewpoints from your side. We aren’t getting personal opinions. We are getting legalistic arguments about what this line actually means and what this person actually meant.

I think I’m done…

 

[Gorgias]

And you pointing out that ‘it’s not acceptable’ is no more than a plea for us to accept that your hands are tied.

No. I’m pointing out that it’s immoral to take an evil action, and circumstances don’t change that fact.

‘Why didn’t you save the plane!’
‘Sorry. I wasn’t allowed. Look, it says here that utilitarianism isn’t allowed and unless I’m mistaken…’

Or maybe, “sorry … it’s immoral to kill innocent people.”

We aren’t getting moral viewpoints from your side. We aren’t getting personal opinions. We are getting legalistic arguments about what this line actually means and what this person actually meant.

LOL! Oh, the irony! One sentence earlier, you literally just told me what I ‘meant’, and then castigated me for doing that precise thing!

 

[o_mlly]

Does not explain why the death is direct.

If you claim the act is moral then the death of the innocent man must be caused indirectly. How is that possible? Explain how his death is indirect.

Sorry, that is just an empty assertion. Especially the word “innocent” is undefined. Mr. Conte used to be a poster here on CAF, but he has been banned for some reason. So his authority is dubious.

No. The adjective “innocent” in moral theology has a specific meaning. Read the posts. Tell the poster who claimed Mr. Conte is “official”, not me.

 

[o_mlly]

I would need a definition of “directly” and “indirectly” to do that.

Sometimes the density of another must be judged impenetrable. So read your catechism, read Father Pacholczyk, read George Weigel, listen to Monsignor Smith. Do you homework. School is out.

I will leave you and others earnest Catholics who think they may murder the innocent with the following twist. The innocent one tied to the track hears you say that you’re going to throw the switch that will kill him, sees you put your hand on the switch and with his free hand shoots and kills you before you can do the deed. Is he justified?

Others may PM me if they like. I will ask you to stop PMing me as it feels now like your stalking me which is almost as bad as trolling. So long.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And you pointing out that ‘it’s not acceptable’ is no more than a plea for us to accept that your hands are tied.

No. I’m pointing out that it’s immoral to take an evil action, and circumstances don’t change that fact.

‘Why didn’t you save the plane!’
‘Sorry. I wasn’t allowed. Look, it says here that utilitarianism isn’t allowed and unless I’m mistaken…’

Or maybe, “sorry … it’s immoral to kill innocent people.”

First up, you are not killing anyone. You really need to get your definitions right in these matters. If a doctor chooses to help one seriously hurt person over another, for whatever reason, if the other person dies she has not killed him. At the very least she has allowed him to die because her time was better spent saving another. You could, if you were determined, say that the man who died was sacrificed to save others (that might possibly ring a bell with you). But you cannot under any circumstances reasonably suggest that he was killed. This is basic terminology and you are twisting the terms to suit your arguments.

Secondly, in this case, the man who shot the pilot is not innocent. He was actively trying to cause the plane to crash and kill everyone. And he will succeed in that if you stand there complaining that the decision as to who to save is too hard and you do nothing. Your position would suggest that you should actively dissuade anyone else from saving the pilot as well because hey, that’s utilitarianism and it’s not allowed. Maybe you could call for a non-Catholic doctor perhaps. Maybe there’s an atheist medic on board who will be able to make a decision that you can’t.

But that does seem to be your position. Damned if you do but your soul is saved if you don’t. Excuse me for suggesting that sacrificing everyone for your own benefit doesn’t impress me much.