Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

“Circumstances: Any.” Insufficient data to render a verdict.

“Circumstances:” The person was about the detonate a dirty bomb. The act can be justified based on the principle of self-defense / defending others.

This is the correct analysis.

We are looking for the Catholic view. I believe the Catholic view is the correct view. You don’t. I think that horse is also dead.

 

[Elf01]

If the the good result is a also direct causal result of the bad result then the act is proscribed. Still nothing to do with the actor’s intent.

Yes, but the act is still wrong because it fails the principle of double effect (on the grounds of the good effect coming from the bad effect). I had not thought of those scenarios in my initial response about intent.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, but the act is still wrong because it fails the principle of double effect (on the grounds of the goid effect coming from the bad effect). I had not thought of those scenarios in my initial response about intent.

OK, I think.

 

[o_mlly]

The catholic view also accepts self-defense and defense of others. As the last resort, if no other option is available.

One never defends against an innocent person.

 

[o_mlly]

The defense is not against an innocent person. It against harm causued by an innocent person. Innocent people can also caused harm, unintentionally and and as such innocently.

The two principles are contradictory: killing an innocent and defending against harm. This is the problem… for you, of course. For me there is no problem. Self-defense and defending others rulez!

Didn’t I already do you in when you attacked me in the doctor’s waiting room?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is only the correct analysis if you could not stop him any other way and you tried to shoot to disable him, not to kill him.

Yes, all of those are included in the analysis. The killing is only accepted as a last resort.

I still think your analysis is too simplistic, especially if any lesson is taken from this very artificial and extremely unlikely scenario of an innocent person about to detonate a dirty bomb, and applied to scenarios we might actually encounter in real life. In real life you have possible harms much less than a dirty bomb. And you have conditions where not all the facts are known to make a moral decision. I would hate to see someone act under such conditions based on the lessons extracted from your dirty bomb scenario. What if it turned out that you thought it was a dirty bomb, but it wasn’t and you killed an innocent person as a last resort for no reason at all? Would you still say “self defense and defense of others rulez?”

 

[Ender]

I introduced “target” in hopes of further illuminating what is already self-evident. If “target” as defined does not do so for you then you may dismiss it. But that does not change the self-evident fact that an effect is direct if the outcome is in a direct causal relationship.

You keep using direct as if that term was defined, but it isn’t. The fetus dies as a result of the operation; if there was no operation the fetus wouldn’t have died (when it did). That B happens as a result of A looks like a reasonable definition of “direct causal relationship”.

So, (again) please explain the essential difference in the two acts that render the first death an indirect death and the latter (as you have already agreed) a direct death.

How can I possibly explain anything using terms that are undefined?

Ender: Part of the difficulty in making a distinction is your insistence that all foreseeable consequences are intended.

All foreseen outcomes are necessarily accepted.

Yes, I remembered “accepted” as “intended”.

All that is foreseen is in the objective font.

Then again, maybe not.

The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act… (Veritatis Splendor #77)

Also…

By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. (Veritatis splendor #78)

The object is the proximate (immediate) end, which seems to be different than the final end, which I think would describe the intent font.

 

[o_mlly]

You keep using direct as if that term was defined, but it isn’t. … How can I possibly explain anything using terms that are undefined?

The schematic of causation showing the gunman’s act and the bystander’s act are not ambiguous and need no definitions. Yet you claim they are essentially different but do refuse to tell us how. ?

Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.

Gunman – > pulls trigger → directs bullet at innocent person → innocent person dies.

That B happens as a result of A looks like a reasonable definition of “ direct causal relationship ”.

Yes. Direct cause.
Let B = death of an innocent man.
Let A = throw switch.
Or Let A = pull trigger.

Yes, I remembered “accepted” as “intended”.

A synonym in moral vocabulary for “accepted” would be “tolerated” but never “intended”.

Ender:

All that is foreseen is in the objective font.

Then again, maybe not.

The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act… (Veritatis Splendor #77)

I could not find where I wrote what you cite. The quote does not reference the @o_mlly as its source. If so perhaps my fingers were getting tired from typing the same arguments again and again. What I did find that I wrote is this:

The ends in view belong to the object font and are the foreseeable outcomes with moral content

Ender:

By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order , to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. (Veritatis splendor #78)

The object is the proximate (immediate) end, which seems to be different than the final end, which I think would describe the intent font.

Your citation from Veritas Splendor is paragraph 78. The first sentence describes the scope of the teaching on moral object, not intent.

1. The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will

It is unfortunate that the English vocabulary uses the word “end” or “ends” for both the moral object of an act and the actor’s intention. One must look at context to determine which font is being addressed.

(continued)

 

[o_mlly]

So, we are still looking for arguments to support the bystander’s act:

• Show that the moral object of the gunman’s act is essentially different than the bystander’s act.
  (We may assume that neither actor intends the death of the innocent because intent has no bearing either way on the moral object of an act.)
• Show that the innocent person has no right to self-defense as that right is proper only against an unjust aggressor.
• If one claims the death of the innocent is an indirect effect then identify the direct cause. (Remember that a physical evil causes harm only in the order of nature, that is without a moral agent’s intervention.)
• If the bystander cannot be certain that the death of the innocent is not caused by his hand then he may not act. True also for you or anyone who claims the act is moral. Therefore, the burden to prove the indirectness of the innocent one’s death falls on you, not me. Show us the proof that is certain.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

o_mlly claims that:

Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Gunman – > pulls trigger → directs bullet at innocent person → innocent person dies.

are the same, but…

Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.

are different. Does anyone else see it this way?

 

[IQ170]

wrong post

 

[Gorgias]

Does anyone else see it this way?

Yep.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Does anyone else see it this way?

Yep.

Well, how are…
Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.

Different?

 

[Latin]

Well, how are…
Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.

Different?

CONSEQUENTALISM (CONSEQUENTALIST ETHICS).

From a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws.

One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person’s life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath.

It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world.

What benefits he will carry out ; what does not benefit men he will leave alone.

.
DEONTOLOGY ( Deontological Ethics)

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, “obligation, duty”) is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.

It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics.

Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism.

In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.

Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics Deontological ethics (or deontology ), in that deontology, in which rules are central, rather than the outcomes of the conduct.

.
AS WE SEE ABOVE:

If we Judge both actions with the same ethics the outcome of the judgment is the same.

If we judge one with the CONSEQUENTALIST ETHICS and the other with the DENTOLOGICAL ETHICS the outcome of our judgment is different.
.
I believe, the SPIRIT of the dentological ethics is the consequalist ethics, because in the case of both ethics the target is the best outcome of the conduct.
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

Well, how are…
Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.

Different?

“Directs trolley at innocent person” is a morally evil act. “Cut interrupts nutrients” is not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, how are…
Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.

Different?

CONSEQUENTALISM (CONSEQUENTALIST ETHICS).

DEONTOLOGY ( Deontological Ethics)

I do not believe either one of these ethical systems accurately describes Catholic morality. It is partly consequentialism when you look at the principle of double effect. In that principle, the 4th requirement is that the good effect be proportionally greater than the evil unintended consequence. But then Catholic morality is also partly deontological in principles like “the ends cannot justify the means”. In this case a rule that is independent of worldly consequences trumps the desired good end.

Another problem with consequentialism is that in order to weigh all decisions based on their consequences, it assumes that the only consequences worth considering are those that can be evaluated through human reason. Clearly Catholic morality includes consequences (such as separation from God) that cannot be known in a worldly sense.

.
AS WE SEE ABOVE:

If we Judge both actions with the same ethics the outcome of the judgment is the same.

If we judge one with the CONSEQUENTALIST ETHICS and the other with the DENTOLOGICAL ETHICS the outcome of our judgment is different.

How so? I mean there are potentially many different dentological ethical system, since all it means is that it is rule-based, but it does not specify what those rules are. My understanding of Catholic morality is that the judgement would still be the same, although some in this thread have disputed the fact.

I believe, the SPIRIT of the dentological ethics is the consequalist ethics.

I think I understand what you mean there and I mostly agree with you. That is another way of saying that Catholic teaching is consistent with reason. If reason says that one outcome is better than another outcome, then in most cases (but not all cases) the formal Catholic rules would say the same thing. Catholic morality is not arbitrary. It might appear arbitrary to those who do not see the value of the spiritual outcomes that also matter in Catholic morality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, how are…
Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.
Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.

Different?

“Directs trolley at innocent person” is a morally evil act. “Cut interrupts nutrients” is not.

It’s not morally evil to starve someone to death?

 

[Latin]

My understanding of Catholic morality is that the judgement would still be the same, although some in this thread have disputed the fact.

Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent person → innocent person dies.

Surgeon – > cuts out tube → cut interrupts nutrients → innocent baby dies.
.
My understanding also of Catholic morality is that the judgement would still be the same, even some in this thread have disputed the fact.
.
In the case of the trolley, the trolley is the decisive factor of the direct kill, the death of 1 or 5 decided by the bystander, in either way the trolley is the direct killer.

If the bystander decides to throws the switch he is indirectly kill 1 innocent person and directly saves 5 innocent person. – A moral act.
.
In the case of the Surgeon, the position of the baby is the decisive factor of the kill, so the position of the baby is the direct killer and the Surgeon is the indirect killer and the Surgeon directly saves the mother. – A moral act.
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not morally evil to starve someone to death?

If we had the technology to bring a weeks-old embryo to full term, yes, it would be. As we do not have that ability, I’m not sure where you’re seeing the evil. (Except as a means to try and justify killing a person on a track. )

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even though I agree with you on the conclusion, I can’t quite agree with the method you used to get to that conclusion. If the position of the baby (let’s call her a girl) is the direct killer of the baby (being as how it was a very unnatural place for her to be), then surely the position of the man tied to the track is the direct killer of that man, since that is also a very unnatural place for a man to be tied up. In both cases, if the bystander did not throw the switch and the surgeon did not cut the tube, the man on the track would have gone on living for another day at least, and the baby in the tube would have gone on living for another day at least. I’m also trying to avoid the use of the terms direct and indirect for two reasons. One reason is that there is no agreement among the people in this thread what those two words mean in this context. The other reason is that indirectness has been explicitly called out in the Catechism as not an excuse for killing someone. Killing someone through an elaborate Rube-Goldberg machine may be very indirect, but the one who dropped the first marble that kicked it off is just as culpable as if he had stabbed the victim with knife. So I am very suspicious of any argument that relies heavily on the distinction between direct and indirect.