Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Latin]

Ronald L. Conte, Roman Catholic theologian.

“The trolley problem is an ethical hypothetical meant to propose a seemingly insolvable moral dilemma.

Should you pull the lever, killing one but saving four? Or should you refrain from acting, and allow the four to die?

The three fonts of morality are (1) intention, (2) moral object, (3) circumstances.

For the act of pulling the lever:
The intention is to save four lives. The death of the one innocent is not intended. So the first font is good.

The circumstances are that, if you pull the lever, four lives are saved and only one is lost. So the reasonably anticipated good consequences morally outweigh the bad, making the third font good.

But three good fonts are needed for any act to be moral. The font of the moral object is what will determine the morality of this act, since the other two fonts are good.

This act has two moral objects. The concrete act of pulling the lever switches the trolley from one track to another. This switch is inherently ordered to save four lives, which is a good moral object.

But it is also inherently ordered toward killing one innocent, which is an evil moral object.”

.
THERE ARE TWO AGENTS IN THIS STORY (This is the key to understand.)

Agent A: The trolley/ The person who organized it.

(2) Moral object: To kill and the killing is already in motion, the killing cannot be stopped.
This is an evil moral object by agent A.

.
Agent B: The bystander.

(1) Intention/ moral object: To save four lives. The death of the one innocent is not intended.
So the first font is good.

(3) If he pulls the lever, four lives are saved and only one is lost.
So the reasonably anticipated good consequences morally outweigh the bad, making the third font good.
.
The two agents shares the three fonts of morality.

Conclusion: A moral agent should NEVER let an immoral agent to stop from to do his best.
In the above circumstances to save four life.

If we fail to see, in the above story there are two agents acting and shares the three fonts of morality, we can have a wrong conclusion.

The killing is the works of agent A, agent B is NOT responsible for the killing, he cannot even stop the killing, only can minimize it if he does his best!
.
God bless

 

[o_mlly]

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.

We’re making progress.

Yes, any doctor who excises the tube wills the death of the fetus. One who foresees and deliberates on an outcome and then acts cannot claim the outcome was not deliberate, that is not willed. A particular doctor may not intend and tolerate the outcome and be cognitively consonant.

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 .

Maybe not a much progress as I thought.

Acts which have only one moral object (which most acts do) have only one proximate end. If your interpretation were correct then the double effect principle is meaningless. Any good intention would allow any act with (in the actor’s judgment) had proportionate outcomes. But the Church teaches exactly the opposite:

CCC# 1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.

 

[o_mlly]

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

That is just untrue. And repeating it does not change the fact.

Search the topic for “CCC” and you’l find 17 citations from o_mlly and none from Ender.

As it is your position that the bystander may act, the burden to do more than merely assert falls on you. Yet all you have done in this thread is assert.

If you claim that the bystander’s act is moral then justify your claim with arguments supported by authoritative Catholic teaching.

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.

 

[Ender]

Yes, any doctor who excises the tube wills the death of the fetus. One who foresees and deliberates on an outcome and then acts cannot claim the outcome was not deliberate, that is not willed.

No, the PODE requires that the bad effect not be directly willed or intended. If your contention was correct then there would be no such thing as a valid operation that caused the death of a fetus.

Acts which have only one moral object (which most acts do) have only one proximate end. If your interpretation were correct then the double effect principle is meaningless. Any good intention would allow any act with (in the actor’s judgment) had proportionate outcomes. But the Church teaches exactly the opposite:

This doesn’t address my point at all. It seems to me that every object has but one proximate end, and that is to achieve the immediate consequence expected from the physical action taken. The reason for desiring that particular consequence goes to the intention. The principle of double effect does not describe one action with two objects; that wouldn’t be possible because there is only one physical act. What you are ascribing to the object is in fact a consequence, and is not part of the object. An “end” is a goal, an objective; “it” is not a list of consequences.

The proximate end of the act of throwing the switch (taken together: the object font) is to reroute the trolley. There can be any number of reasons (intent font) for wanting it rerouted, and any number of consequences for doing so (the circumstances font), but the object font of this one act has one proximate end: reroute the train.

CCC 1753 is irrelevant to any point I have so far made. We all accept what it says. The whole issue is whether throwing the switch in this situation is intrinsically disordered, not whether an intrinsically disordered action can be justified.

 

[o_mlly]

No, the PODE requires that the bad effect not be directly willed or intended. If your contention was correct then there would be no such thing as a valid operation that caused the death of a fetus.

True. But directly willed is synonymous with intended. Indirectly willed is synonymous with deliberated and tolerated. The surgeon who performs a valid operation deliberates the outcomes and tolerates but does not intend the death of the child.

Please, as requested now numerous times, defend your position with arguments and citations, not just assertions that show:

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.

 

[Elf01]

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 bystanders act is different from the moral surgeons act.

 

[o_mlly]

Show that the bystanders act is different from the moral surgeons act.

Perhaps you can help Ender out.

Show how the bystander’s does not directly kill the innocent person.

CCC#2258 … no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.

 

[Elf01]

Show how the bystander’s does not directly kill the innocent person.

Show how the moral surgeons act does not.

 

[Ender]

But directly willed is synonymous with intended. Indirectly willed is synonymous with deliberated and tolerated. The surgeon who performs a valid operation deliberates the outcomes and tolerates but does not intend the death of the child.

Ah, more of the “direct/indirect” distinction. It would be helpful if your terms didn’t require adjustments after you used them. Your claim was that: “any doctor who excises the tube wills the death of the fetus.” Now you introduce the “indirectly wills” distinction so it no longer means willed but only tolerated. There are perfectly good verbs available; use one of them.

Please, as requested now numerous times, defend your position with arguments…

I laid out my position and supporting arguments in #551. It was the part under “Here it is in a nutshell:…”

 

[o_mlly]

Show how the moral surgeons act does not.

Read Pius XII, USCCB, Fr. Tad citations I provided in this thread.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Elf01:

Show how the moral surgeons act does not.

Read Pius XII, USCCB, Fr. Tad citations I provided in this thread.

Since Pius XII, USCCB, and Fr. Tad did not also comment on the trolley problem, their citations do not prove anything about it. It is quite possible, for instance, that these sources all used a different sense of the word “directly”, in which case you can’t compare your use of the word to theirs.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah, more of the “direct/indirect” distinction. It would be helpful if your terms didn’t require adjustments …

These are not my terms but terms from Catholic morality. Please add them to your vocabulary. You’ll find them most helpful in improving your understanding of the teachings.

https://opusdei.org/en-us/article/topic-27-morality-of-human-actions/

An effect can be said to be “willed indirectly” when it is not willed either as an end or a means for anything else, but it is something that necessarily accompanies the desired action.[11] This is important in the moral life, because at times actions can have two effects, one good and another bad, and it may be licit to carry them out in order to obtain the good effect (willed directly), even though the evil one cannot be avoided (which, therefore, is willed only indirectly). These situations at times require great moral discernment, where prudence dictates seeking advice from someone able to give sound guidance.

(Another citation from o_mlly. But whose keeping score?)

And now back to your arguments that are necessary to support your assertion. Why are you dodging them?

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]

I laid out my position and supporting arguments in #551. It was the part under “ Here it is in a nutshell: …”

Your post #551 did not 1) explain how the bystander’s physical act only indirectly kills the innocent one, 2) does not identify the direct cause of the innocent one’s death, 3) did not explain why the innocent one has no right of self-defense against the bystander’s act, 4) nor provide citations in support that would make those arguments certain which is the requirement in conscience before killing an innocent person.

 

[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.)

These are not comparable acts since you have explicitly excluded a reason for the gunman to shoot an innocent person, but we do know why the bystander throws the switch.

• Show that the innocent person has no right to self-defense as that right is proper only against an unjust aggressor.

Irrelevant, therefore nothing needs to be shown about it to support the act of the bystander.

• 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.)

The definition of the word “indirect” provided was only in reference to “indirectly willed” and is therefore a different sense of the word than is normally used in purely physical acts. In that case the death of the innocent has do “direct cause” because no one is directly willing his death.

• 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.

The first sentence, as a generalization, is a false premise. Therefore anything that follows from it is irrelevant.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ender:

I laid out my position and supporting arguments in #551. It was the part under “ Here it is in a nutshell: …”

Your post #551 did not 1) explain how the bystander’s physical act only indirectly kills the innocent one,

But you explained it by the definition of “indirectly willed” that you presented.

1. does not identify the direct cause of the innocent one’s death,

That’s because there is no direct cause in the sense of “directly willed”, which is the working definition of “direct”.

1. did not explain why the innocent one has no right of self-defense against the bystander’s act,

Because the need for such an explanation has not been established. It is an irrelevant point.

1. nor provide citations in support that would make those arguments certain which is the requirement in conscience before killing an innocent person.

Because it isn’t a requirement.

 

[Ender]

And now back to your arguments that are necessary to support your assertion. Why are you dodging them?

I gave you my arguments. Deal with them.

Regarding your concerns:

• The gunman’s act is irrelevant to the trolley question.
• The question of self defense is irrelevant.
• The question of direct cause is interesting; I’ll think about this one. Perhaps I should just use your terms and say it has only an indirect cause.
• The question of certainty is irrelevant.

 

[o_mlly]

I gave you my arguments. Deal with them.

Regarding your concerns:

• The gunman’s act is irrelevant to the trolley question.
• The question of self defense is irrelevant.
• The question of direct cause is interesting; I’ll think about this one. Perhaps I should just use your terms and say it has only an indirect cause.
• The question of certainty is irrelevant.

Well, that’s interesting. You now assert emphatically that your assertions have the force of argument with authoritative citations.

Definitions of assertion

n a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

You might look up “irrelevant” as well.

irrelevant

not relevant; not pertinent; not to the point; not relating to the subject

As you can see, irrelevant does not mean, "As I have no good arguments, I will ignore the relevant questions put to me.

 

[Gorgias]

I accept that this is the legal definition; I just don’t think it is the way JPII used the term in his encyclical.

What are you citing (document and paragraph, please)? I’d like to take a look at it.

You apply a standard to this act you don’t apply to the operation.

I don’t think so. Again, we’re circling around the notion of “is it ok to let die a person who is dying?” I’m not gonna make the assertion that Niggle wants me to, but there is an element of the situation that’s relevant: the baby isn’t an “innocent”, in terms of not being involved in the situation, because he’s already entangled in the situation – after all, it’s his life that’s at risk here, too! So, the two situations are distinct, and I’m not applying unfairly different standards: rather, I’m recognizing that the two situations themselves are different, which requires us to treat them with different approaches.

You simply repeat aphorisms with providing an argument as to how they apply.

I think you’re not understanding what I’m trying to say.

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

The Catechism. That’s already been established.

I know that. So you are entitled to say: “In my opinion (and according to the church’s current teaching) abortion is always wrong…” but that is only your opinion (and shared with a sizeable portion of catholics).

Wow. Just… wow.

You go from “the teaching of the Church” to “only your opinion and only shared by some Catholics”? Yeah. Nice goalpost-shifting, there…

By the way, you might believe that you can meet all my criteria, and that every rational and reasonable person will agree with you , but I rather doubt that you can live up to it.

Umm… that’s the whole problem with your proposition (which, by the way, I’ve already pointed out to you): there’s no way to meet that final requirement (that everyone will agree). That’s why the request isn’t made in good faith.

 

[o_mlly]

… so (for the church) as this [understanding of proximate end] would eliminate the possibility of a final end, a concept we know she accepts.

The Church teaches the final end, as in all things, is a will conformed to God’s will. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good.

If one of the proximate ends cannot be judged to conform then the act is immoral. Direct killing of an innocent never conforms to the will of God.

 

[Elf01]

If one of the proximate ends cannot be judged to conform then the act is immoral. Direct killing of an innocent never conforms to the will of God.

You still haven’t shown why the killing in the trolley problem is direct and in the tube removal is indirect.