Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Bon_Croix]

This is similar to the counsel the Chief Priest gave to the Sanhedrin regarding the punishment of Jesus. “It is better for one man to die to save the nation”.

The problem was that they did not believe Jesus was who he said he was–they were blinded by their sin. And his Most Holy blood was on their hands.

 

[Gorgias]

How is it not equally your choice to kill the 5 people if you choose not to flip the switch?

Because it wasn’t your action that sent the trolley down the original track.

The “trick” to seeing what’s really at play here is recognizing that the scenario is attempting to ignore the distinction between “actively choosing a course of action” and “happening upon a scenario and assessing it.”

If you assess the situation and recognize that you cannot choose an action that will fail to kill innocent people, then (according to Catholic moral teaching), then you must choose to not take such an action. Whether it’s five people or one person is immaterial to the question of the morality of the act. Either way, it’s immoral.

(Mind you, I’m not saying that it’s immaterial to the people on the track: they have a real vested interest in your choice! And, perhaps, they might say “do THIS so that I don’t die!”)

So I guess the question is… Is flipping the switch that will kill one an intrinsic evil? & Is not flipping the switch an intrinsic evil?

I don’t think we want to get into asking the question of “intrinsic” evil, since that’s a completely different discussion.

However, if you’re just asking “is flipping the switch and causing a death (that would otherwise not occur) a moral evil?”, then the answer is ‘yes’.

On the other hand, the answer to the question “is ‘failing to cause the deaths of five people to be avoided’ a moral evil?” is (in this case) ‘no, not if you have no way to do it in a morally licit fashion.’

An enemy soldier holds my king at gunpoint, orders me to shoot someone else or else he will shoot my king. I’m not necessarily convinced it’s immoral for me to yield to that coercion.

Really? OK: let’s see how you reason that one out. 'Cause, “murdering an innocent person at the behest of a terrorist” sure sounds like an immoral action…!

This applies to the ‘would you lie to the Nazis if they asked you where Jews were hiding’ dilemma as well.

“Jews? Here? Why would I be hiding Jews?”

This is similar to the counsel the Chief Priest gave to the Sanhedrin regarding the punishment of Jesus. “It is better for one man to die to save the nation”.

The witness of the Gospel is that this is a prophecy, not a doctrinal statement of moral theology. In fact, Jesus did die in order to save the nations.

 

[Opal0427]

I dont know if either side is correct, but for the sake of argument…

If withholding live saving medication is exactly the same as murder, are we all murders when we buy a tv instead of donating the money to feed the starving or buy life saving medications for some extremely poor people in the world?

 

[Bon_Croix]

Nations not nation. So we are both correct.

Israel had the greater sin b/c they lacked the authority to crucify him; Pilate had the authority.

 

[Gorgias]

Nations not nation.

He didn’t realize that he was making a prophecy; in his mind, he was talking about “the nation [of Israel]” not also “all the nations” (i.e., the term for Gentiles).

Israel had the greater sin b/c they lacked the authority to crucify him; Pilate had the authority.

Hmm… not sure that’s how the Church teaches it.

 

[Bon_Croix]

I don’t know what was in his mind.

Read all 4 accounts; the answer is in one of the 4.

 

[Gorgias]

Your wording is highly misleading.

I disagree.

It is not “assessing” the scenario, rather “assessing it, and choosing choosing a course of action”. And not interfering is also a course of action.

“Not interfering” is “not acting”. It’s a lack of action, not a course of action, so to speak. And so, it really is an assessment. The moral actor assesses the situation, thinking to himself, “do I have a morally acceptable option here?”… and if he does not, then he does not act.

You cannot wiggle out by saying “I did not send the trolley, so I am innocent of the outcome”.

“I did not send the trolley, and I have no morally acceptable option of action, and so I am not morally responsible for the outcome.” That’s precisely the situation here.

I doubt it. Do you have an ex-cathedra, infallible proclamation which forbids you to choose the least harmful outcome and forces you to “freeze” and allow a worse outcome to happen?

You can doubt it all you want, but it’s right there in black-and-white in the Catechism: one may not do evil so that good may result from it. (It’s at paragraph 1756. Look it up. Heck, it’s so important that they say it again in #1761! )

While you’re checking out that reference, take a look at #1759, too:

“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec . 6). The end does not justify the means.

So, yes: the Church does teach what you’re doubting it teaches.

Sometimes the circumstances force you to choose between two unfavorable outcomes.

No. The world might tell us that this is the case, but if by “two unfavorable outcomes” you mean “two sinful actions”, then that is not the teaching of the Church. The Church says “do not sin”. Period. Full stop.

But it would be your fault if you did not choose the one which has the least amount of damage (all other things being equal).

Again, no. The responsibility you bear for the sin might be lessened by the circumstances, but it would still be sinful, all the same.

Sometimes you must tell an outright lie.

OK, right back at ya, then: show me an “ex-cathedra, infallible proclamation” from the Church that makes this assertion.

 

[Gorgias]

That is sophism .

Actually, it’s logic. Since when is “inaction” an action?

Do you really think that inaction will absolve you from the responsibility from the result of your inaction?

In the context of the thought experiment we’re discussing, absolutely!

There’s a difference between “I could save that person but I just don’t feel like it” and “I can’t save that person without killing another”. The former is blameworthy, but the latter is not.

The act of flipping the switch is a morally neutral action .

And, here we go…

This is the problem with discussions of “double effect”. There’s always the possibility of defining the situation so narrowly that the salient parts of the problem go away. Murder isn’t murder, 'cause it’s just “pulling a trigger.” Taking an action to kill a person isn’t murder, 'cause it’s just “flipping a switch”. Both are “morally neutral actions”, right?

I disagree with your approach. In order to attempt to make your point, you’ve stripped the action of all its context. Using this approach, each and every human action is a morally neutral action. It’s clear that this approach is invalid. Sophistry, even, perhaps!

The catechism can change. It is not an infallible teaching.

Two thoughts:

• while it may change, it nevertheless is the teaching of the Church; a teaching – authoritatively, mind you! – that you don’t want to hear.
• the issue isn’t “infallibility”, it’s authoritative teaching. And that, my friend, you find in the Catechism always. Even when it disagrees with your own opinion.

Saving the lives of 5 innocent people is not evil.

Ahh, but saving the lives of five innocent people by killing another innocent is evil.

And if you only have “sinful” outcomes available, then you should choose the less sinful one.

Not what the Church teaches. And, although you’ve been presented with the Church teaching that contradicts your statement, you refuse to budge. Fair enough. “There are none so blind…”

And “action” is not more sinful than “inaction” per se . They can only be evaluated by their outcomes.

I’m not claiming that any arbitrary action is more sinful than any arbitrary inaction. Who ever said that?!?

I’m merely claiming that, in the context of this particular question, “inaction” is the only moral choice.

And by the way, the Church doesn’t evaluate the morality of acts by their outcomes; it evaluates them by their objects and intentions.

 

[Pattylt]

I just want to state that after reading all this I’m so glad I’m not Catholic and can just save the five at the loss of the one. I would definitely morn the fact that I had to do so but I also wouldn’t lose more than a few nights sleep over it.

 

[Gorgias]

The actual, physical action is always morally neutral.

So, then… that means that when we’re considering the “act”, what we’re not talking about is the bare “actual physical action”… as you were asserting.

• Switch is flipped.
• Foreseen and unintended consequence: 1 people dies.

Note what this means: the direct result of your action is the killing of an innocent person. No matter where you go from here, you’re already sunk: your action was immoral.

You cannot stop your analysis halfway , and declare that flipping the switch is “evil”, because of the “foreseen but unintended consequence” of the death of a lonely person.

So, here’s the thing: the taking of an action which has the direct result of killing a person cannot be called “foreseen but unintended”. That’s a misuse of the construct.

The intent of flipping the switch is NOT aimed at killing the lonely person, it is to save the other five.

Fine. If you want to take the analysis in that direction, then the response is “OK, so if the intent isn’t evil, then the object is: flipping the switch kills the innocent person, and therefore, the object is immoral.”

See how easy this is? You can’t wriggle out of an immoral act, simply by looking at one part, squinting really hard, and pretending it isn’t.

I just want to state that after reading all this I’m so glad I’m not Catholic and can just save the five at the loss of the one.

Soooo… you’d be happy that you caused an innocent person to be killed?

 

[Pattylt]

Soooo… you’d be happy that you caused an innocent person to be killed?

Where did I say I’d be happy about. It would be awful! However, I would balance the loss of one and the saving of five. I wouldn’t be fretting over the sin of the action, just the sadness that one had to be lost. Remember, your scenario has no option where all would be saved.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Soooo… you’d be happy that you caused an innocent person to be killed?

I think she would be happy she saved five.

 

[o_mlly]

Does the rule “the ends don’t satisfie the means” always apply?

The end never makes moral an act evil in its object. Only in the abstract may one consider a human act as neutral. In the concrete, all human acts are moral or immoral. To be a moral human act the act must be good in all three of its sources – object, intent and circumstances.

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.

The direct effect of the act is the unintended killing of an innocent life. Is this ever permissible? No, “the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation” (CCC#1753).

The teaching seems counter intuitive to a consequentialist. This may be so if the consequentialist believes the highest moral good is human life. But if one sees that minimizing moral evil, the offenses against God, is a higher good then the teaching makes sense.

The moral evil that is already present was caused by the one who tied the innocents to the track. There is nothing the observer can do to reverse this moral evil. The observer can prevent the physical evil of death of five but physical evil does not offend God. If preventing the physical evil can only be accomplished by an increase in moral evil, the killing of one innocent, then such an act is not permitted.

The argument hinges on whether one may offend God to prevent physical evils. I think not.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m trying to imagine this as a real life scenario where the trolly engineer sits down and thinks “hmmm…now what did they say about this back in ethics class?”

Not likely.
In real life pressure situations, a person has to think fast, doesn’t have all the facts at hand and will generally do what seems best in the split second moment.
It might not be what they would have chosen in the absence of pressure and adrenaline.

That’s why these scenarios are generally ridiculous.

Kind of like the scenario where the person is walking along and suddenly is in the middle of a mass casualty scene where they have to decide all by themself who do do CPR on.

In real life, the person will either freeze or start with the person closest at hand.

It won’t necessarily reflect their deepest values.

 

[Gorgias]

Which was NOT intended. It is a very regrettable side effect of trying to save the other five, also innocent persons.

“I didn’t intend to kill you; I just sent a trolley hurtling your way.” Yeah. That works.

Which part of “ foreseen, but unintended ” don’t you understand?

The part where you intend to send the trolley down the other track (and therefore, to crush the person.)

Look: if you want to make the argument you’re making, fine. You still lose on ‘object’: the object of the act is to send the trolley down the other track, which directly causes the death of the person. The part of “double effect” that you’re ignoring in order to make your argument tenable is the part that says that the action cannot cause the bad effect. The action “flip the switch” causes the bad effect just as much as it causes the good effect. Therefore, you cannot take the action.

Patty explicitly said that she would MOURN that she had no other option

We’ve been around this one, and you made the argument yourself: not doing anything is, itself, an option. Choosing to kill an innocent is the option chosen. Another option is “not participate in the killing of an innocent.”

The point is precisely that you and she “would get over it.” How you can say that it’d sit well with you that you directly killed an innocent is mind-boggling.

My argument isn’t in bad faith since I’m asking ya’ll to face the reality: YOU WOULD CONDEMN AN INNOCENT PERSON TO DEATH BY YOUR DIRECT ACTION. That’s evil.

I wouldn’t be fretting over the sin of the action

Right. And that’s the problem. Any time we can say “well, I’m willing to commit a grave sin, just as long as…”, then we’ve crossed a line.

Don’t worry about it. There are some people who start to throw some non-sequitur at you when they run out of arguments.

Just like there are people who accuse folks of arguing in bad faith, themselves in bad faith?

I think she would be happy she saved five.

And that part’s fine… as long as you’re willing to use it as cover for the awful fact that you just killed an innocent person by your own direct action.

The direct effect of the act is the unintended killing of an innocent life.

That’s the part at which they’re closing their eyes, stopping up their ears, and shouting “LALALALALA!” You better be careful – next, you’ll be told “you’re arguing in bad faith!”

It won’t necessarily reflect their deepest values.

Right. And that’s kinda the purpose of this thought experiment: not to plan what to do in such a scenario, but to explore how your thought processes work and how you reason to an answer. Some really would respond, “yeah, I’m willing to kill an innocent person”…

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

but to explore how your thought processes work and how you reason to an answer.

And that’s the fundamental flaw of these thought experiments.

You put a person into a panic situation and they’re just as likely to freeze and their mind “blank out” altogether or run away (and often feel tremendous inadequacy and guilt later) .

The panic state is different than the rational state. It doesn’t reflect a person’s deepest values. It reflects their fear in the moment.
This is actually more a case of a person not having “full consent” because they didn’t have the chance to reflect and maybe even to work up some courage. It’s more like hitting somebody with a two-by-four and then taunting them for not behaving perfectly.

These thought experiments prove nothing.

 

[QwertyGirl]

And that part’s fine… as long as you’re willing to use it as cover for the awful fact that you just killed an innocent person by your own direct action.

Not cover. Just fact. Given a choice (yes, a choice by happenstance) to either allow or prevent the death of five, I would choose to prevent it. Yes, prevent it, even if it meant losing one life.

You can call that sinful from now until the cows come home. I will say you are wrong. It isn’t even close.

 

[Gorgias]

You can call that sinful from now until the cows come home. I will say you are wrong. It isn’t even close.

Right… and that’s the “consequentialist” or “utilitarianist” perspective. There is no such thing as an objective moral standard – that is, the consequences are what make an act ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Killing an innocent person is ‘evil’, except when it’s ‘good’. The gulf between a system of objective moral theology and subjectivist-consequentialist moral theology is vast and unable to be bridged – they’re polar opposites.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Kind of like the scenario where the person is walking along and suddenly is in the middle of a mass casualty scene where they have to decide all by themself who do do CPR on.

You are right in our first aid class, we were instructed to survey the scene and go to the person in most need and do CPR on him/her. However, it is understood that we are to make such decisions to the best of our ability. The instructor was clear nobody has gone to jail for not helping someone that was in greater need. Because decisions are made in seconds in such cases.

 

[Pattylt]

Medical triage is a gut wrenching experience. Not only do have to choose who gets the treatment, you also have to decide who is too far gone to benefit from any treatment. In other words you have to decide who realistically has a chance to be saved and who to let die because you are only one person. The next thing you learn is to then focus only on the one you are trying to save, blocking out the screams and pleas going on around you.

You have to be trained to perform it because you have to learn to control some very strong emotions within. Doctors and nurses that have been in these situations have to emotionally decompress afterwards to maintain their emotional health.