Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

I see. I did misread the object of the sentence, not realizing you were talking about a modification of the trolley problem. In that case, I will try to answer it.

The two killings are both justified, but under different grounds.

The man tied to the tracks would be justified under self defense, if the man on the track could not prevent the switching any other way, say by shooting the man’s hand or leg. And the bystander is justified by double effect. And by the way, the fact that the man on the tracks is justified in shooting the bystander does not imply the bystander is an unjust aggressor. As was noted a long time ago in this thread, there are times when killing in self defense is justified even when there is no unjust aggressor. So where is the problem?

Same problem as always with your posts – no authority. Saying so does not make it true. Cite some authorities, as I have, that support your assertions.

The man tied to the tracks would be justified under self defense … it is patently not self-defense. Show citation that contradicts “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

And the bystander is justified by double effect. Wrong. Show citation or prove that the bystander act indirectly kills the innocent one. As the citation above notes, direct killing the innocent is always immoral.

the bystander does not imply the bystander is an unjust aggressor Wrong. Show citations that one who directly kills an innocent one is not an unjust aggressor. (After you provide citations that prove the act only indirectly kills the innocent one as only indirect killings of innocent are ever permitted.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The man tied to the tracks would be justified under self defense … it is patently not self-defense. Show citation that contradicts “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

I give you some examples, one of which you will like agree with.

A man with mental illness is attacking you with a knife. He is strong and fast and the only way to keep from getting knifed to death is to shoot him. You try to shoot to merely disarm him, but he dies anyway. You directly took the life of an innocent man. (Extreme mental illness negates moral culpability, so the sufferer is in fact innocent.)

If you don’t like that one, say the attacker has rabies and has gone mad because of that.

Or, one more, suppose you mistake an innocent person for an attacker. If a reasonable person in your situation would likely believe that he was in imminent danger, acting in self-defense is justified. This comes up a lot in police shootings where the officer says he felt his life and the life of his partner was threatened, even though it turned out to be a very unfortunate mistake. I recommend you take a look at the case of Justine Ruszczyk. It turned out that she was completely innocent. Do you think the police officer who acted in self defense was guilty of sin?

 

[Wozza]

Couldn’t resist…

 

[o_mlly]

I give you some examples, one of which you will like agree with.

A man with mental illness is attacking you with a knife. He is strong and fast and the only way to keep from getting knifed to death is to shoot him. You try to shoot to merely disarm him, but he dies anyway. You directly took the life of an innocent man. (Extreme mental illness negates moral culpability, so the sufferer is in fact innocent.)

If you don’t like that one, say the attacker has rabies and has gone mad because of that.

Or, one more, suppose you mistake an innocent person for an attacker. If a reasonable person in your situation would likely believe that he was in imminent danger, acting in self-defense is justified. This comes up a lot in police shootings where the officer says he felt his life and the life of his partner was threatened, even though it turned out to be a very unfortunate mistake. I recommend you take a look at the case of Justine Ruszczyk . It turned out that she was completely innocent. Do you think the police officer who acted in self defense was guilty of sin?

Still no authoritative citations.

Your examples do not parallel the situation in the trolley case.

Please focus on the trolley case and cite an authoritative teaching that contradicts “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I give you some examples, one of which you will like agree with.

A man with mental illness is attacking you with a knife. He is strong and fast and the only way to keep from getting knifed to death is to shoot him. You try to shoot to merely disarm him, but he dies anyway. You directly took the life of an innocent man. (Extreme mental illness negates moral culpability, so the sufferer is in fact innocent.)

If you don’t like that one, say the attacker has rabies and has gone mad because of that.

Or, one more, suppose you mistake an innocent person for an attacker. If a reasonable person in your situation would likely believe that he was in imminent danger, acting in self-defense is justified. This comes up a lot in police shootings where the officer says he felt his life and the life of his partner was threatened, even though it turned out to be a very unfortunate mistake. I recommend you take a look at the case of Justine Ruszczyk . It turned out that she was completely innocent. Do you think the police officer who acted in self defense was guilty of sin?

Still no authoritative citations.

Your examples do not parallel the situation in the trolley case.

Please focus on the trolley case and cite an authoritative teaching that contradicts “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

Please answer whether you think it is a sin for a policeman to deliberately shoot an innocent person who he honestly believed to be a serious threat to his life at the time. I ask because it goes to the literal interpretation of the version of “Thou shall not kill” that you quoted.

 

[o_mlly]

Please answer whether you think it is a sin for a policeman to deliberately shoot an innocent person who he honestly believed to be a serious threat to his life at the time. I ask because it goes to the literal interpretation of the version of “Thou shall not kill” that you quoted.

Why divert? If you would like a discussion on another situation then start a new thread.

Please focus on the trolley case and cite an authoritative teaching that contradicts “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your authoritative citation is taken out of its proper context, which was abortion. In general it is qualified by “except in self defense”.

 

[ChuckWilson]

debate going on about U.S. dropping A-bombs right now in another thread (not exactly a trolly problem, but similar)

 

[o_mlly]

Your authoritative citation is taken out of its proper context, which was abortion. In general it is qualified by “except in self defense”.

No. The scope of CCC#2258 proscribes one from directly killing an innocent from the beginning of his life to its end in all circumstances.

CCC#2258 God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.

Cite an authoritative teaching that contradicts CCC#2258.

 

[Economist]

No. The scope of CCC#2258 proscribes one from directly killing an innocent from the beginning of his life to its end in all circumstances.

Why do you think that the catechism is “authoritative” for any non-catholic, when many catholics disagree with significant portions of it. But the real problem is general. What is the “moral” solution when the life is endangered (mind you, not threatened, but endangered) by someone who is unaware of the danger?

Using the problem of a deadly disease, if someone deliberately tries to infect you, you are allowed to act in self defense, but if he is ignorant of the danger, then all you are allowed to do is “roll over” and get infected? (And, no, there are no other options. No magical solution of summoning a cure from thin air.)

And there is the other scenario. You are forced (by the circumstances) to choose between two options, both of which lead to the death of “innocents”, but one group has more people in it than the other one. Which group will survive and which one will die? This is alike to the trolley problem, except there is no “default” option. You cannot try to wiggle out by saying “I will not do anything” and thus wash my hands.

By the way, your first responsibility is to take care of yourself. Just like on an airplane you must use the oxygen mask on yourself, and only when you are safe should you place one on your child’s nose.

 

[o_mlly]

Why do you think that the catechism is “authoritative” for any non-catholic, when many catholics disagree with significant portions of it.

I believe the Catholic Church teaches the truth in matters of faith and morals. The truth is independent of a believing or a non-believing community. The truth does not require that any minds be in conformance. The Church does not impose her truths, only proposes them. All are free to reject.

Using the problem of a deadly disease, if someone deliberately tries to infect you, you are allowed to act in self defense, but if he is ignorant of the danger, then all you are allowed to do is “roll over” and get infected?

This is an interesting dilemma and probably more realistic than the trolley exercise here. Please start a new thread.

By the way, your first responsibility is to take care of yourself. Just like on an airplane you must use the oxygen mask on yourself, and only when you are safe should you place one on your child’s nose.

And if your mask does not descend, are you permitted to rip the mask off another passenger? Again, interesting dilemma worthy of a new thread.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why do you think that the catechism is “authoritative” for any non-catholic, when many catholics disagree with significant portions of it.

For the purposes of the exchange between o_mlly and me, the Catechism is authoritative since we both accept it as such. I can understand why you may not think so. But the title of the thread is “Catholic view on…”.

LeafByNiggle:

Your authoritative citation is taken out of its proper context, which was abortion. In general it is qualified by “except in self defense”.

No. The scope of CCC#2258 proscribes one from directly killing an innocent from the beginning of his life to its end in all circumstances.

CCC#2258 God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.

Cite an authoritative teaching that contradicts CCC#2258.

I will do better than that. I will explain CCC#2258 in light of the other paragraphs of the Catechism.

CCC#2258 proscribes claiming the right to destroy an innocent human being. Self-defense is not an instance of that. The only legitimate way to engage in self-defense is to use the minimum amount of force necessary for protection. If that force turns out to take the life of the aggressor, it is not because the person claimed the right to kill. It is because the killing happened as an unintended consequence. As it says in CCC#2263:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

This makes it clear that the intention not to kill the aggressor is exactly what makes self-defense licit. It also says in CCC#2264:

Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

Note that neither 2263 nor 2264 specify that the aggressor must not be innocent for self-defense against the aggressor. Self-defense against an innocent aggressor is therefore licit, as strange as that may seem. I gave several common-sense examples of that earlier - all of which you refused to comment on. So maybe now would be a good time to comment on them.

Anyway, there you have it. Your citation doesn’t mean what you hoped it would mean, and nearby sections of the Catechism confirm it.

 

[o_mlly]

Self-defense against an innocent aggressor is therefore licit …

This is a grave misunderstanding of the teaching. Rather than what you hoped, your very citations show your error.

CCC#2258 is a proscription against murder. That fact is made absolutely clear in #2261:

The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

CCC#2263, which you cite but do not understand, clearly states the same proscription against murder: “legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder.”

Self defense always involves an aggressor. There is no aggressor, other than the bystander who chooses to act, in the trolley case.

So, cite an authoritative Catholic source that teaches that one may ever kill directly kill an innocent person (murder). Your notion of an “innocent aggressor” is foreign to Catholic moral teaching and emanates from the errors of consequentialism. There is no such thing.

The heresy of an “innocent aggressor” is used to justify direct abortion. As cited many times, the Church teaches that direct abortions are never permitted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Self-defense against an innocent aggressor is therefore licit …

This is a grave misunderstanding of the teaching. Rather than what you hoped, your very citations show your error.

CCC#2258 is a proscription against murder. That fact is made absolutely clear in #2261:

The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

I highlighted “deliberate murder” because it is an important distinction. Killing in self-defense is not deliberate murder. Deliberate murder implies that murder is the deliberated end. In self-defense, repelling the aggressor is the deliberated end. The intention is not to kill the aggressor. If that is the intention, then that self defense is illicit. But if the person does the minimum he can to prevent the loss of his own life, then it is licit, even if death does result, as 2264 says. So no. 2261 does not prohibit sufficient self defense, even against the innocent, as long as every effort was made to avoid killing the innocent aggressor.

CCC#2263, which you cite but do not understand, clearly states the same proscription against murder: “legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder.”

Why did you leave off the rest of 2263 which explains exactly why self defense is not an exception to the prohibition against murder? No, I think I understand 2263 quite correctly.

Self defense always involves an aggressor. There is no aggressor, other than the bystander who chooses to act, in the trolley case.

From point of view of the one man tied to the track, the bystander is the aggressor. I never said otherwise. That is why self-defense by the man on the track is justified.

continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing:

o_mlly:

So, cite an authoritative Catholic source that teaches that one may ever kill directly kill an innocent person (murder).

I dispute that the trolley problem is “direct”. But since you have introduced that fuzzy term without a definition I really can’t argue against it. As I said before, directness is never the determinative factor in the morality of causing death. The use of the word in the citations you gave is for emphasis only, and is not determinative. But I would be glad to argue that the bystander is not directly killing the man on the tracks if you would just tell me what you mean by “direct.”

The irrelevance of “directness” in murder is further emphasized in CCC#2269 which says:
CCC 2269:

The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

You see? “Intention” is much more important that “directness” as 2269 specifically says “indirectness” is no excuse for murder. So for clarity sake, can you please stop insisting that I demonstrate something relating to a term that only you know the definition of?

Your notion of an “innocent aggressor” is foreign to Catholic moral teaching…

Exercise some reason. When you are threatened with the loss of your life you do not have time to ascertain whether the person who is about to kill you is innocent. That would be crazy. All that matters is that your life is threatened and that you do the least harm you can in protecting your own life.

The heresy of an “innocent aggressor” is used to justify direct abortion.

They may try to use that excuse, but it does not apply. The baby is not an aggressor. The baby is not an imminent threat to the life of the mother. In those rare cases where due to some malfunction the baby is a threat to the mother, abortion is still not justified, but medical treatment meant to save the life of the mother is justified, provided that everything is done to preserve the life of the baby during that treatment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Using the problem of a deadly disease, if someone deliberately tries to infect you, you are allowed to act in self defense, but if he is ignorant of the danger, then all you are allowed to do is “roll over” and get infected? (And, no, there are no other options. No magical solution of summoning a cure from thin air.)

It is hard to imagine how this scenario could practically exist. If someone is ignorant that they carry an infectious disease and that person is moving toward you, move away from him. He is not likely to run up to you and mix his blood with yours if he is not doing it deliberately. It is just really hard to imagine any situation where a grave threat exists from unintentional infection, and the only way to protect my life is to deal the infected person a lethal blow. Nope. I can’t comment on a hypothetical for which I cannot imagine a practical realization. It is too theoretical.

Note also there is a difference between taking reasonable steps to protect yourself, and taking unreasonable steps to protect against a threat you have seriously over-valued. We are expected to take small risks in life.

 

[Economist]

It is hard to imagine how this scenario could practically exist.

That does not matter. In a thought experiment everything is permitted, except logically impossible events. Of course no one forces you to participate if you don’t want to. I started a new thread in the Moral theology forum, because it fits better.

Let me make one remark. Not all “sins” are equal. Not even all “mortal sins” are equal. Sometimes one must choose between several actions, all of which are “immoral”, but not to the same extent. What about choosing the lesser of two evils?

 

[o_mlly]

In self-defense, repelling the aggressor is the deliberated end.

No. In the OP’s scenario there is no aggressor. So, as I wrote but you have chosen to ignore, self-defense is patently not involved as a permit for the bystander to act. So, explanations of the limits of self-defense do not apply.

So no. 2261 does not prohibit sufficient self defense, even against the innocent, as long as every effort was made to avoid killing the innocent aggressor.

Nope. There is no such thing as an “innocent aggressor” in Catholic moral theology. The man tied to the tracks and the child lodged in the tube are both innocent and neither is an aggressor.

If you believe such an oxymoron exists in Catholic teaching, cite an authoritative source. Otherwise, you would do well to stop obstinately giving currency to this heresy.

I dispute that the trolley problem is “direct”. But since you have introduced that fuzzy term without a definition …

You introduced the importance of direct and indirect causation by citing tubal pregnancy as a related case. You ignore the lucid explanations of the difference by Fr. Tad, George Weigel, the USCCB and the catechism and others. If your ignorance is willful, shame on you. If invincible, we should pray for you.

The irrelevance of “directness” in murder is further emphasized in CCC#2269 which says:

The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

You are quite confused. The surgeon does not intend the death of the child, he foresees the death and has grave reason – the mother’s life – to act.

So, we are back once again to ask that you put up or shut up, as they say.

• Cite authoritative teaching that an “innocent aggressor” has any meaning in Catholic moral theology.
• Cite authoritative teaching that one may directly kill an innocent under some circumstance.
• Cite authoritative teaching that self-defense as a permit to kill an innocent exists.
• Cite authoritative teaching that the font of intention is more important than the font of moral object in determining the morality of an act.

Please spare us your mistaken musings and give us the citations that support your assertions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

In self-defense, repelling the aggressor is the deliberated end.

No. In the OP’s scenario there is no aggressor. So, as I wrote but you have chosen to ignore, self-defense is patently not involved as a permit for the bystander to act. So, explanations of the limits of self-defense do not apply.

I’m sorry. I thought we were talking about your modification to the trolley problem - the one I misread when I said it was begging the question - in which the man on the tracks sees what is about to happen and shoots the bystander to prevent him from throwing the switch. You asked if that action was moral, and I said that it was because the man on the tracks is acting in self-defense. But even there, he would not be shooting to kill. He would be shooting to disable the observer. If his shot does kill the observer despite his efforts to merely disable, that is still licit under the doctrine of self-defense.

But as for the OP scenario, it is not self defense.

So no. 2261 does not prohibit sufficient self defense, even against the innocent, as long as every effort was made to avoid killing the innocent aggressor.

Nope. There is no such thing as an “innocent aggressor” in Catholic moral theology. The man tied to the tracks and the child lodged in the tube are both innocent and neither is an aggressor.

Where in Catholic moral theology does it say the aggressor must be innocent for self-defense to apply? Nowhere. You are inventing that qualification. Indeed I listed several examples of innocent aggressors that may be licitly repelled and you still have not commented on any of them.

If you believe such an oxymoron exists in Catholic teaching, cite an authoritative source.

Since you have not cited an authoritative source that says it is an oxymoron, there is no need. I have cited examples which you have not attempted to refute. These examples making it clear that it is not an oxymoron (although I will also say it is extremely rare. But then scenarios where people are tied to trolley tracks are also extremely rare, so such examples are in good company in this thread.).

I dispute that the trolley problem is “direct”. But since you have introduced that fuzzy term without a definition …

You introduced the importance of direct and indirect causation by citing tubal pregnancy as a related case.

No, I introduced tubal pregnancy to show the importance of “intention”.

continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing…

You ignore the lucid explanations of the difference by Fr. Tad, George Weigel, the USCCB and the catechism and others.

None of those sources explain the moral difference between directness and intention. As I said, these sources do not use directness to determine morality. They do use intention as a determinative though.

If your ignorance is willful, shame on you. If invincible, we should pray for you.

And if it not ignorance but knowledge, what then?

The irrelevance of “directness” in murder is further emphasized in CCC#2269 which says:

The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

You are quite confused. The surgeon does not intend the death of the child, he foresees the death and has grave reason – the mother’s life – to act.

The only thing I am confused about is how this comment of yours relates to what I posted, because I totally agree with “The surgeon does not intend the death of the child, he foresees the death and has grave reason – the mother’s life – to act.” So why do you think I am confused?

• Cite authoritative teaching that an “innocent aggressor” has any meaning in Catholic moral theology.

Cite any teaching that says self defense can never be against the innocent.

• Cite authoritative teaching that one may directly kill an innocent under some circumstance.

Once you define “directly”

• Cite authoritative teaching that self-defense as a permit to kill an innocent exists.

I never said self defense is a permit to kill. In fact I cited the Cathechism that says self defense must never carry the intention of killing, only of preventing harm to yourself. But if death happens despite your best efforts to disable the aggressor without killing him, it is still licit.

• Cite authoritative teaching that the font of intention is more important than the font of moral object in determining the morality of an act.

I never said anything about that. I only said intention is more important than “directness”.