Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Gorgias]

It would be nice if you did not misrepresent what I said.
I said: “and shared with a sizeable portion of catholics”
And you misquoted: “only your opinion and only shared by some Catholics”… this extra “only” shows that you do not argue in “good faith”.

Nah. You moved from “Catholic Church” to “opinions of folks”. That’s the real shift here. Numbers of folks are immaterial. You eliminated the authority of the Church. More careless readers would’ve missed it. We’re not careless readers here…

Pointing out basic truth and reality makes my argument to be not in “good faith”??

No – what makes it “not in good faith” is that your proposal requires agreement by all in order for you to accept the argument. Since you know, a priori, that this will never happen, you therefore know – as you type the words in the post – that you’ll never accept any answer to your proposal. Therefore: not in good faith.

I just don’t know any such propositions, and I asked you to present even one. So far you declined.

Because you’ve stacked the deck. Feel free to play the game with anyone who doesn’t realize that you’re playing with loaded dice, though.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ender:

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.

The assertion that something is irrelevant is not an assertion that calls for authoritative citations. Indeed, the one arguing that it is relevant has the burden of providing the authoritative citations. That has not happened.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t think so. Again, we’re circling around the notion of “is it ok to let die a person who is dying?”

But that is not what is happening in the operation by the surgeon. The baby’s imminent death was indefinite. The surgeon’s actions accelerated that death and made it definite. That is exactly what happens in euthanasia. When a person is suffering from a terminal illness, it is licit to give that person medical treatment to ease the pain as long as that treatment does not bring about the immediate death of the patient. So the justification that “the baby was going to die anyway” is invalid.

 

[John10]

I do not think utilitarianism works. The end (even if it is a good end in itself) never justifies the means, I think history clearly has proven that point.

For something to be good, both the ends and the means have to be good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The best example of how utilitarianism is irrational and unworkable is MAGA-huelye’s explanation of why it is “moral” for everyone to steal small amounts from bank accounts to fund charities. Any society that accepts that premise is doomed.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Yes, I have – several times. But you choose to ignore the responses.

The question is not “why”. The question is “how”. Examine the cases and answer the question “how” does each one die and you’ll have your answer. Re-read Fr. Tad’s article.

 

[Elf01]

Examine the cases and answer the question “how” does each one die and you’ll have your answer.

Baby starvation
Person on track being hit by a trolley

Still not seeing a difference.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Elf01:

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

Yes, I have – several times. But you choose to ignore the responses.

The question is not “why”. The question is “how”. Examine the cases and answer the question “how” does each one die and you’ll have your answer. Re-read Fr. Tad’s article.

The “how” in the case of the baby is starvation and cold. It is somewhat slower than blunt force trauma, but that distinction is immaterial. The immediate cause (in the ordinary sense) of the baby’s death is starvation and cold, both of which were immediately caused by (in the ordinary sense) the surgeon’s decision to cut out the tube. Absent that, the baby might have gone on living for several more days at least.

 

[Latin]

Re-read Fr. Tad’s article.

Where is Fr. Tad’s article?

Thank you and God bless

 

[Ender]

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

Veritatis splendor #78.

I’m recognizing that the two situations themselves are different, which requires us to treat them with different approaches.

Any two different situations are different by the meaning of the term. What has to be established is not simply that they are different but in what way are the differences significant. I’m not comfortable with your use of “innocent” to make a distinction. You claim the baby isn’t innocent because it is already involved in the situation (which is not what the word means), but one could assert the same about the person on the second track. He is involved in the situation as well.

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

I would never discount this possibility.

The Catechism. That’s already been established.

The issue is not what the catechism says but whether what is cited is applicable to the points being discussed. No one is arguing with the catechism, but (e.g.) citing the comment saying "One may not do evil that good may come of it" is irrelevant if the argument is about whether evil is being committed in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

But that is not what is happening in the operation by the surgeon. The baby’s imminent death was indefinite. The surgeon’s actions accelerated that death and made it definite.

That sounds a bit like word salad. The death was “imminent”. Given existing medical technology, it was going to happen – and sooner rather than later! The doctor did not change that prognosis, nor did he create the situation: the baby would become detached from his source of nutrients, whether or not the doctor acted.

The trolley example, then, is night-and-day different: the man alone on the tracks isn’t in imminent danger. He is not going to be harmed. The guy who triggers the switch directly causes a death that would not otherwise occur. Therefore, the act is immoral.

So the justification that “the baby was going to die anyway” is invalid.

You keep asserting that this is what I’m saying. That isn’t what I’m saying!!!

Rather, I’m merely pointing out that the doctor is not causing a death. The baby’s imminent death is caused by the tubal pregnancy. The doctor is treating the mother.

In the trolley example, the person pulling the lever is causing a death that would not otherwise take place. The two cases are distinct, and thus, the analyses are distinct.

What you portray as the “authority of the church” is just the opinion of people.

No – what you mean is “in my personal opinion, what you portray as the ‘authority of the church’ is just the opinion of people.”

OK, I’m good with that! And I think your opinion here is mistaken.

That is NOT what utilitarianism asserts. It says that the “END IN AND OF ITSELF ” cannot justify the means. The end and the means together must be analyzed, and together they may or may not form a justifiable sequence of events.

It would be wonderful if that’s what you really meant. It’s not, though, and you betray that fact just a sentence or two later in your post:

When the reality forces you to choose between a “bad” and a “worse” action, it is rational to choose the “lesser of two evils”.

In other words, you’re not analyzing the ‘means’… you’re just weighing the consequences of the means against the result of the ends. That’s not ‘morality’, it’s ‘math’ – and you’re reducing lives to numbers in order to do so! If that’s “rationality”, I’ll take “irrational” any day!

 

[John10]

Either way, choosing the “lesser” of two evils does not make either of them good, it simply makes one “less” bad.

 

[Gorgias]

Veritatis splendor #78.

Thanks! IIRC, your question had to do with the way @Ender and I were using the term “proximate end” with respect to the way JPII uses it in VS, and especially how that he relates that to the human’s “ultimate end.” Is that about right?

Ender and I were using the term “proximate end” (in slightly different ways, IIRC) to mean something like “the thing that happens, due to the action taken.” I think Ender looked at it temporally, in terms of when it happened, and I looked at it causally. If I shot an arrow in the air parabolically and it took five minutes to travel to its destination and hit its target, I would label that hitting-of-the-target as “proximate end”, and I suspect that Ender might not be as willing to make that same assertion. (I’ll let Ender speak for himself, though.)

JPII wrote:

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.

Here, I think he’s using “proximate end” in the way that I’m thinking about it (even if I’m not doing a good job of explaining myself). The “moral object” isn’t just an event that occurs; it’s the actual result of the decision that a moral actor makes, based on the operation of his will.

So, the moral object cannot merely be “a lever got switched”; the moral object must be what happens because that physical event took place – in this case, the moral object is “an otherwise unthreatened innocent was killed”. (What makes the trolley problem so interesting is that there are two moral objects – “five saved” and “one killed”!)

What about JPII’s use of the term “ultimate end”, though? Here, he’s speaking to the telos of the human person, and not the outcome of one particular action. He writes:

To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love.

… The human act, good according to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive perfection when the will actually does order it to God through charity.

So, according to JPII, the object of an act is itself ‘moral’ when it points to our ultimate goal: pleasing God and attaining to eternal life.

The question, then, becomes, “does it please God that I killed a person who otherwise would not have been killed?” I think the answer to that is obvious. Catholic moral theology would explain that, even though you saved five lives, you committed murder in order to do so… and therefore, since murder doesn’t please God, and it doesn’t lead to eternal life, we can’t call that act in the trolley problem a “moral act.”

Is that what you were looking for, from me?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But that is not what is happening in the operation by the surgeon. The baby’s imminent death was indefinite. The surgeon’s actions accelerated that death and made it definite.

That sounds a bit like word salad. The death was “imminent”. Given existing medical technology, it was going to happen – and sooner rather than later!

That is exactly the kind of argument people use to justify euthanasia. It is invalid.

The trolley example, then, is night-and-day different: the man alone on the tracks isn’t in imminent danger.

Tied to the tracks is not in danger? If he is not hit by this trolley, he may very well be hit by the next one in 30 seconds. I would not feel very safe tied to the tracks in a trolley switch yard.

The guy who triggers the switch directly causes a death that would not otherwise occur.

The difference is immaterial, because that is the very difference that is used to justify euthanasia.

So the justification that “the baby was going to die anyway” is invalid.

You keep asserting that this is what I’m saying. That isn’t what I’m saying!!!

But it is. Right here you said it again:

Gorgias:

The death was “imminent”. Given existing medical technology, it was going to happen – and sooner rather than later!

How is that any different from saying the baby was going to die anyway?

Rather, I’m merely pointing out that the doctor is not causing a death. The baby’s imminent death is caused by the tubal pregnancy.

The baby’s immediate cause of death on the day he died was starvation from having his nutrient supply cut off. A day may come when the tubal pregnancy would kill the baby, but as King Elessar said “but it is not this day!”

The doctor is treating the mother.

Now you are using the correct argument! It has nothing to do with directness or indirectness. It has to do with the intention and purpose of the action as part of the principle of double effect. The doctor is treating the mother. The doctor is saving the mother’s life by removing a diseased tube. The purpose of removing the tube is not to kill the baby (even though that happens). It is to save the life of the mother. The death of the baby is not the means by which the mother’s life is saved, but is an unfortunate consequence. Therefore it is a licit procedure. That is the correct argument. And it applies equally to the trolley problem. The purpose of switching the trolley was not to kill the one man on the tracks. The death of the one man on the tracks was not the means by which the others were saved. Therefore it is a licit act.

 

[Inquiry]

Rather, I’m merely pointing out that the doctor is not causing a death. The baby’s imminent death is caused by the tubal pregnancy. The doctor is treating the mother.

I don’t think you are trying to say that the baby was going to die anyway so it is okay to kill it. It is important to note, though, that the doctor is causing the baby’s death. His actions create the situation that kills it. That another situation was going to kill it later doesn’t change that.

The way the analysis usually works on this situation is that the action itself (removing a damaged/injurious tube) is a moral good. The death of the baby is the inevitable but not intentional evil that results from the removing the tube. That the baby was going to die anyways doesn’t factor in.

 

[Gorgias]

That is exactly the kind of argument people use to justify euthanasia. It is invalid.

No – the justification for euthanasia is “let’s kill him before he dies naturally, in order to prevent suffering.” Apples and oranges, friend.

Tied to the tracks is not in danger? If he is not hit by this trolley, he may very well be hit by the next one in 30 seconds.

You’re adding narrative to the problem that’s not part of the context. Besides, one solution to the problem could be “go to the one guy and untie him”.

The difference is immaterial, because that is the very difference that is used to justify euthanasia.

“Directly causes a death that would not otherwise occur” is the justification for euthanasia? Umm… no.

A day may come when the tubal pregnancy would kill the baby

No: the context is that the tubal pregnancy is fatal to the child. Not “maybe”. Definitely.

The purpose of switching the trolley was not to kill the one man on the tracks. The death of the one man on the tracks was not the means by which the others were saved. Therefore it is a licit act.

You were doing so good right up till there!

There are two moral objects: “save the five” and “doom the one”. The death of the one actually is the proximate end of the act, and therefore, it is counted among the moral objects of the act. Therefore, it is not a morally licit act.

That is what analyzing means. Taking every available information into consideration.

Except that you’re not: you’re only doing a mental calculation of the consequences: “five is bigger than one” is not a moral analysis; it’s a fourth-grade math equation.

Losing one life is preferable compared losing two lives

Except that’s not what’s in play here. In this situation, it’s “taking one life is preferable to losing two lives”, and that’s why the choice is immoral.

Under no condition is it rational to choose the “greater evil”.

And I’d reply that “under no condition is it moral to choose an evil, whether it be ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’.” Rational immorality is not the goal, brother…

 

[John10]

Of course. If there is no “good” option, one should choose the less bad. Is that not obvious?

Is There a Lesser of Two Evils?

A persistent question arises every election cycle among Catholics: Is it ever justified to vote for the lesser of two evils, that is, for a candidate who...

www.ncregister.com

 

[o_mlly]

Baby starvation
Person on track being hit by a trolley

Still not seeing a difference.

If you see no difference then I submit it is logically inconsistent to think that tubal excision is immoral but the bystander throwing the switch is moral. ???

Anyone who thinks throwing the switch is moral must justify their act. They must show that the innocent man dies indirectly.

Bystander → throws switch → directs trolley at innocent man → squish. Where is the indirection? If you claim the act only indirectly causes the innocent man’s death then what is the direct cause? The innocent man on the track was in no peril before the bystander’s act.

Does the innocent man have a right to self-defense? If not, why not?

If your conscience is not certain about all the above then may you kill an innocent man?

Who gave the bystander permission to act as if he were God and decide who lives and who dies?

 

[o_mlly]

Where is Fr. Tad’s article?

Thank you and God bless

https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/9514/6984/9801/MSOB052_When_Pregnancy_Goes_Awry.pdf

 

[Inquiry]

There are two moral objects: “save the five” and “doom the one”. The death of the one actually is the proximate end of the act, and therefore, it is counted among the moral objects of the act. Therefore, it is not a morally licit act.

Unless you are making the claim that the foreseeable evil of an act must be an intended result of the act, that doesn’t work here. In this case, diverting the trolley is the intended end of the act. If the man were not there, pulling the lever would still save the five. His inclusion does not inherently change the intent of the act, only the results.

As opposed to the reformulated Trolley Problem. A trolley is bearing down on five people. You and one other person are up on a bridge above it. You can shove him off to knock the trolley off the track, but he will die in the process. Do you do it?

In that scenario his death is definitely the proximate end of the action. Saving the five results directly from that evil so it is not a morally licit act.

Oh yeah, and the act itself (murder) being morally evil makes it fail on two counts.