Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Gorgias]

That’s not solving the problem. That’s just asserting that you have solved it. To solve it you have to prove your analysis is right.

I think that the rationale has been provided here ad nauseam: one may not do evil so that good might result.

And in doing so, make sure your analysis, if applied to the other problems discussed here, doesn’t produce the wrong results in them.

Not so, if the other problems are different. If I solve 2+3=? by applying “multiplication” to the “+” operator, then I get a wrong result. It’s not applying the same analysis that leads to correct results: it’s applying the proper analysis. My assertion is that, if “tubal ligation” and “trolley problem” are different problems (which they demonstrably are), then we cannot assert that the same analysis works for both. It doesn’t. And demanding that it does is a flawed approach.

“Proximate end” in this case means what is done because of its immediate consequence.

It does not. It means that it proceeds from the act. (Yet another difference in approach that leads to different answers, I guess.)

Saving the five is the intent.

Cool. Yet, the standard remains: one may not do evil so that good may result. Actively killing an innocent, just so that others might not die, is not morally licit.

but if the act is immoral it is because the intent is immoral, not because the object is.

Not according to Catholic moral theology. An act is immoral if the intent or the object is morally illicit. And this one is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think that the rationale has been provided here ad nauseam: one may not do evil so that good might result.

Now that’s circular reasoning. You were trying to prove that the act in question (throwing the switch) was evil. You can’t assume it is evil to prove it is evil.

Cool. Yet, the standard remains: one may not do evil so that good may result. Actively killing an innocent, just so that others might not die, is not morally licit.

The principle you refer to is the ends do not justify the means. But in this case the killing is not the means of saving the five.

 

[Gorgias]

Now that’s circular reasoning.

No, it’s not. Throwing a switch and thereby killing an innocent is an evil act. That’s pretty much by definition.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Now that’s circular reasoning.

No, it’s not. Throwing a switch and thereby killing an innocent is an evil act. That’s pretty much by definition.

If that is so then cutting a tube and thereby killing an innocent baby is an evil act.

 

[Gorgias]

If that is so then cutting a tube and thereby killing an innocent baby is an evil act.

The baby is the cause of the mother’s impending death, is he not? He bears no personal responsibility, of course, but he’s not removed from the situation; rather, he’s fully part of it. The guy on the other track is separate from the situation, and only becomes part of it once you doom him to death by switching the track that the trolley is on.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If that is so then cutting a tube and thereby killing an innocent baby is an evil act.

The baby is the cause of the mother’s impending death, is he not?

You may not do evil so that good may come of it. Killing a baby because his placement is threatening the mother is abortion. If I were you I would soft-pedal that “baby is causing impending death” business.

He bears no personal responsibility, of course, but he’s not removed from the situation; rather, he’s fully part of it.

There is a very similar situation where the baby is not part of it. That is where the mother has a cancerous uterus. If the uterus is removed with baby inside, the baby was not part of the problem. That problem would have existed even if the baby were not in the uterus.

The guy on the other track is separate from the situation, and only becomes part of it once you doom him to death by switching the track that the trolley is on.

The baby in the cancerous uterus only becomes part of the problem when you doom him by removing that uterus.

 

[Gorgias]

You may not do evil so that good may come of it. Killing a baby because his placement is threatening the mother is abortion. If I were you I would soft-pedal that “baby is causing impending death” business.

Abortion is the direct killing of the baby. That doesn’t happen in the tubal ligation example.

We’ve spilled a lot of digital ink in this thread talking about whether a person may defend himself against a person – innocent or malicious – who is threatening his life. I think I’d say that the tubal ligation is much more like “self-defense” than it is “abortion.” No need to soft-pedal.

That is where the mother has a cancerous uterus. If the uterus is removed with baby inside, the baby was not part of the problem. That problem would have existed even if the baby were not in the uterus.

Agreed. And that uterus will kill the mother … and the baby. In that case, we can only defend against one – the mother. Yet again, we’re talking about a different analysis.

The baby in the cancerous uterus only becomes part of the problem when you doom him by removing that uterus.

The baby in the cancerous uterus is already doomed. He’s already part of the system that is threatening lives. Again: the situations are distinct and the so are the analyses.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The baby in the cancerous uterus is already doomed. He’s already part of the system that is threatening lives.

Whoa there! You can’t discount the killing of the baby just because he is doomed. That’s euthanasia. And he is not threatening anyone’s life. The cancer is.

 

[Gorgias]

Whoa there! You can’t discount the killing of the baby just because he is doomed. That’s euthanasia.

I’m not. I’m pointing out that he’s already in danger. Unlike the guy in the trolley example, who only becomes in danger when you take the act whose proximate end is his killing.

And he is not threatening anyone’s life. The cancer is.

Didn’t say he was. Did say that the cancer is threatening both him and his mother. Reading skills, Leaf…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, the cancer is on the mother, not the baby. The cancer us not threatening the baby.

 

[Gorgias]

No, the cancer is on the mother, not the baby. The cancer us not threatening the baby.

If it’s threatening the mother in the timeframe of the pregnancy, then it’s threatening the baby.

 

[Latin]

LeafByNiggle:

No, the cancer is on the mother, not the baby. The cancer us not threatening the baby.

If it’s threatening the mother in the timeframe of the pregnancy, then it’s threatening the baby.

I agree with you Gorgias what you are saying, but the act of the Surgeon cuts out of the tube and the bystander throws switch is the same principle.

The Surgeon indirectly kills and innocent baby and directly saves the mother, the bystander indirectly kills an innocent person and directly saves five innocent person.

I believe Gorgias you agree with Ron Conte and Saint Catherine of Siena on the subject.

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

Saint Catherine of Siena
Not cause the injury of sin to self in order to be useful to others, for, if one single sin were committed to save the whole world from Hell.

I would commit a thousand mortal sins if I could save the whole world from Hell.

But I know, I don’t have to commit even one mortal sin to save the whole world from Hell because God saves the whole world from Hell without exception.

As we see below, God is the One who saves the whole word from hell.

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it?
With infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection, 314 through the dramas of evil and sin.
.
311 For almighty God, . . . because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. 177
.
324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.
.
God bless

 

[o_mlly]

You haven’t come to recognize that the object contains an intent separate from the intent font. Something done deliberately is something “done consciously and intentionally.”

The reason I have not come to recognize your error is because it is an error.

CCC# 1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject.

“Deliberate” means “willingly”. All foreseen outcomes with moral import are known and willed by any actor who acts. One of those foreseen outcomes is unique to a particular actor and becomes that actor’s subjective intent. I’ve explained this many times but you continue to reject Catholicism understanding of the fonts of morality for Endersim’s understanding.

Nevertheless, you still have to show your arguments to support the morality of throwing the switch:

A summary of the explanations needed to support justification of the bystander’s action:

• 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.

 

[o_mlly]

Your assertions carry weight only if …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Don’t worry, people. That shark thing is just an assertion. It was a boating accident. A boat with teeth.

No, my friend. Like the mayor of Amityville, you refuse to accept convincing evidence.

 

[Gorgias]

And that is being rejected. You cannot declare an act evil, if you disregard the intent and the consequences.

Actually, according to Catholic moral theology, you can declare an act evil solely on the grounds of the object.

So… sorry. Your assertion is rejected.

If you stick a needle into someone, and depress the plunger, it may be an evil act, or may not be, depending on the intent and the consequences. This is just one example to invalidate the concept of “intrinsic” evil.

The fact that there exists at least one evil that is not ‘intrinsic’ does not “invalidate the concept of ‘intrinsic’ evil” itself. No one is saying “all evils are intrinsic evils”, which is what would have to be true for your assertion to hold up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.)

In that case the gunman’s act is not essentially different from the bystander’s act, and neither is it immoral. If the gunman does not intend the death of the person he is shooting at, you have to wonder why is he shooting at him at all? Since you didn’t give him a motive to shoot, I will do so:

A mugger is attacking me with a knife and I have a gun. I try to defend myself and shoot at the mugger just enough to stop the knife attack. I decide to go for the stomach. As I fire the gun into the stomach, the bullet penetrates the soft tissue of the mugger, stops his attack, but then passes through him to fatally strike an innocent person standing behind him. I may have known that there were people standing being the mugger and I may have guessed there was a good chance my bullet might hit an innocent person. But my shooting the innocent person standing behind the mugger, even if it was foreseen, does not deprive me of my right to self-defense.

 

[Thom18]

I could be wrong here, but wasn’t the trolley problem designed as a refutation of Utilitarianism? I’m pretty sure it was made by a critic of Jeremy Bentham (the father of Utilitarianism) to attack his notion of “more total happiness”.

 

[Gorgias]

which would be evil regardless of the ethical system someone subscribes to, then I would agree with your reasoning.

You’ve just stacked the deck. I can meet all your criteria – evil that’s independent from the intent, the means, and the circumstances – and all you have to do is to say “sorry… I disagree with your ethical system, so you’re wrong.”

I can give you all three, but since you would get to play Lucy and pull the football out from under me, I’m gonna pass and ask you to find another Charlie Brown to play your fool…

(p.s., just for giggles, though: according to Catholic moral theology, direct abortion is always and everywhere a moral evil, aside from any considerations of intent, means, and circumstances.)

 

[Ender]

It does not. It means that it proceeds from the act. (Yet another difference in approach that leads to different answers, I guess.)

I accept that this is the legal definition; I just don’t think it is the way JPII used the term in his encyclical. If everything that proceeds from an act is a “proximate end”, what would the “final end” be? Quite clearly the church sees these as very different things, but such a distinction is precluded if all that proceeds from the act is proximate. The entire concept of a final end evaporates in your definition of proximate, which suggests it doesn’t reflect what JPII meant.

the standard remains: one may not do evil so that good may result. Actively killing an innocent, just so that others might not die, is not morally licit.

You apply a standard to this act you don’t apply to the operation. You recognize that the operation is morally valid, but you offer no more than assertions to distinguish one action from the other. Actively killing the fetus, just so the mother might live, is not morally licit. You simply repeat aphorisms with providing an argument as to how they apply.

Not according to Catholic moral theology. An act is immoral if the intent or the object is morally illicit. And this one is.

Again, this is nothing more than an assertion. There is no argument to support your claim. Where’s the beef?

 

[Ender]

The reason I have not come to recognize your error is because it is an error .

Well there’s another strong argument for your position…“because I assert it”.

“Deliberate” means “willingly”. All foreseen outcomes with moral import are known and willed by any actor who acts.

According to this the doctor deliberately wills the death of the fetus. That is a clearly foreseeable outcome. I don’t think this argument goes where you want it to.

I’ve explained this many times but you continue to reject Catholicism understanding of the fonts of morality for Endersim’s understanding.

You continue to make assertions, and yes, I continue to reject your understanding of morality. That is, however, nothing like rejecting what the church teaches.

Nevertheless, you still have to show your arguments to support the morality of throwing the switch:

Here it is in a nutshell:

The intent is to save the five. Saving them involves the death of one. That outcome is not intended but is allowed under the principle of double effect. The only objection raised here is that the object, the action taken, is immoral. That is really the center of this entire debate.

So, what is the object, and is it immoral? According to JPII the object is more than just the physical act (throwing the switch), it also includes the proximate end. What then is the proximate end? Gorgias insists it is everything foreseeable that flows from the action, but this cannot be so (for the church) as this would eliminate the possibility of a final end, a concept we know she accepts.

Also, the wording itself makes no sense if “proximate end” (singular) means all of the consequences (plural) that flow from it. There is therefore one proximate end, as the term implies, so what is it? That end is to achieve the immediate and obvious consequence of the act: to reroute the trolley. That is always the proximate end of that act, regardless of subsequent consequences. Those consequences are real, but foreknowledge of them affects the intent and influences the decision of whether or not to take the action; it does not change the nature of the action (the object) itself.