Catholic view on utilitarianism

[LeafByNiggle]

Moral object: Throw switch to direct the trolley at the innocent one saving the five and killing the one.

This description of the moral object is incorrect. It implies that the primary intent it to direct a trolley at the one and by means of that to save five. A more accurate way of saying it is that the moral object is to deflect the trolley away from the five. After that (and not by means of what follows) one man is struck. From the chronology and from the lack of the death of the one being the means to save five, the subsequent consequences of directing the trolley away from the five is not part of the moral object of the act of the bystander. The death of the one is not the means by which the five are saved. The death of the one does not precede the saving of the five. The death of the one is not intended. The only thing that can be said is that this death was foreseen, just as the death off the baby in the tube is foreseen in a tubal excision, and just as the death of innocent civilians can be foreseen in an act of just war.

 

[Ender]

• Moral object: Throw switch to direct the trolley at the innocent one saving the five and killing the one.
• Intent: Save the five.
• Circumstances: None.

Your moral object includes not only the proximate end (which has now become a catch-all term), but all of the ends including the final end, and the intent itself. You have thrown everything in this definition, but there is still the problem of defining the object and intent (you punted on the circumstances) of the operation such that it is morally different.

Object (operation): Remove that part of the tube containing the fetus saving the mother and killing the fetus.
Intent: Save the mother.
Circumstances: None (I’ll kick this one down the road as well)

I can only take you at your word which is clearly a consequentialist’s argument that the end justifies any means. Here’s your own quote:

This is just a breathtakingly bad interpretation of my comment. I explicitly said if the object is acceptable, the intent is good, and the PODE requirements are met then the action is good. I am at a loss as to how to communicate any clearer than that.

Your argument is that of a consequentialist: " … regardless of the fact that an innocent person dies as a consequence." Regardless? A mere circumstance glossed over by a good intention?

This exact same objection applies to the operation, yet you accept it as moral. Are you a consequentialist too? Nowhere have I ever suggested that a good intention is all that matters, or that the consequences are irrelevant. We are way too far into this discussion for there to be any justifiable doubt about that.

 

[o_mlly]

Your moral object includes not only the proximate end (which has now become a catch-all term), but all of the ends including the final end, and the intent itself.

Please read the moral object as stated again.

Moral object: Throw switch to direct the trolley at the innocent one saving the five and killing the one.

The “final end” is not there, the “intent” is not there. ???

What is there is the physical act verb “throw” and the moral effects as stated in the OP. No more, no less.

To insure no misunderstandings, the equivalent statement of the moral object could be:

Moral object: Throw switch that directs the trolley at the innocent one saving the five and killing the one.

 

[o_mlly]

You have thrown everything in this definition, but there is still the problem of defining the object and intent …

No, I specified the three sources of morality as separate fonts as the catechism teaches.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

 

[o_mlly]

… (you punted on the circumstances) …

No, I stated none. What circumstance do you think is missing. Remember, circumstance font reports things that stand around the act, i.e., who, where, when, etc.

The circumstances , including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act.

Object (operation): Remove that part of the tube containing the fetus saving the mother and killing the fetus.
Intent: Save the mother.
Circumstances: None (I’ll kick this one down the road as well)

No need to kick anything down the road. You’ve got it correct. The act is moral.

The act does not target the body-person of the child. The act targets the body-person of the mother. Therefore, the death of the child is indirect both in act and intent.

However, the bystander’s act targets the body-person of an innocent and directly kill him. Always immoral under any circumstances, fails the very first principle of the PODE. We need go no further.

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

This exact same objection applies to the operation, yet you accept it as moral. Are you a consequentialist too? Nowhere have I ever suggested that a good intention is all that matters, or that the consequences are irrelevant. We are way too far into this discussion for there to be any justifiable doubt about that.

No, the operation kills the child indirectly. The bystander kill an innocent directly.

As you would allow the act as moral, you must with certainty show how the bystander’s act kills only indirectly and what is the direct cause of the innocent one’s death.

May as well throw this in to test the coherency of your argument: explain why the innocent one may not defend his life against the bystander’s act. If the innocent one does have the right to self-defense then the bystander is necessarily an unjust aggressor. Good luck.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please read the moral object as stated again.

Moral object: Throw switch to direct the trolley at the innocent one saving the five and killing the one.

This statement of the moral object is not correct. The correct description is

Moral object: Throw switch that directs the trolley away from the five, saving them.

Including “killing of the one” first in this restatement instead of in its proper place as an unintended consequence assumes what was to be proven, and is thus circular reasoning.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, the operation kills the child indirectly. The bystander kill an innocent directly.

This distinction has never been proven, only asserted.

May as well throw in for the coherency of your argument, explain why the innocent one may not defend his life against the bystander’s act. If the innocent one does have the right to self-defense then the bystander is necessarily an unjust aggressor.

As has been stated many times, this aspect is irrelevant as it implies an argument that has not been made, namely the argument that one may not attempt self defense in such a case.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you a consequentialist too?

Do you mean like you? No. Does it not give you pause to note that all the atheist/consequentialists on this thread agree with you?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ender:

Are you a consequentialist too?

Do you mean like you? No. Does it not give you pause to note that all the atheist/consequentialists on this thread agree with you?

To be fair, the atheists and consequentialists do not all agree with Ender. Certainly not on the reasoning used. They only agree on the conclusion of this one problem. It matters how that conclusion is reached. And they do not agree with Ender on other consequentialist claims, such as the one that says it is moral to steal pennies from millions of accounts to donate to charity.

 

[Ender]

Moral object: Throw switch to direct the trolley at the innocent one saving the five and killing the one.

There is no justification for claiming the trolley is directed at the innocent one rather than what is surely on the mind of the person performing the act: redirect the trolley away from the five. This is rather significant in light of this:

For a movement does not receive its species from that which is its terminus accidentally, but only from that which is its “per se” terminus. (Aquinas ST I-II 1 ad 3)

The “final end” is not there, the “intent” is not there. ???

Object: throw the switch, redirect the trolley, save the five, kill the one.
Intent: save the five (which is also the final end)

As I said, you have assigned all the ends and the intent to the object.

What is there is the physical act verb “throw” and the moral effects as stated in the OP. No more, no less.

An “effect” is a consequence. Your definition assigns not only the intent to the object but the consequences as well.

No, I specified the three sources of morality as separate fonts as the catechism teaches.

True, there are three fonts, but you have bundled all of them into the object.

What circumstance do you think is missing. Remember, circumstance font reports things that stand around the act, i.e., who, where, when, etc.

The consequences are part of the circumstances.

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act.

The act does not target the body-person of the child. The act targets the body-person of the mother. Therefore, the death of the child is indirect both in act and intent.

However, the bystander’s act targets the body-person of an innocent and directly kill him. Always immoral under any circumstances, fails the very first principle of the PODE. We need go no further.

You’ve made this true by definition. This simply asserts that the bystander is “targeted”, the fetus isn’t, “targeting” is immoral and therefore one act is moral and the other isn’t. Nor is it possible for the act of throwing the switch to directly kill the bystander. If that was the case there could be no situation where the bystander could be saved. The act itself would kill him. But that clearly cannot be as any number of scenarios permit his rescue, therefore simply throwing the switch cannot be said to directly kill the bystander.

No, the operation kills the child indirectly. The bystander kill an innocent directly.

We’re back to assertions again.

 

[o_mlly]

No sense repeating valid and supported arguments that are dismissed conveniently without argument as “merely asserted”, “irrelevant”, (and my favorite!) “I chose to ignore that” and similar deflections.

So I will end my participation in this thread as I ended it the last time by citing your own complaint about others who used the same tactics that you complained about in your arguments to resurrect the validity of the death penalty:

If you’re going to simply ignore my citations then debate is useless. I just posted that very part of the catechism [and Vertias Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, etc| along with the endnote it referenced, which completely refutes your assertion, yet you respond as if I had said nothing at all. My citation was part of the catechism. How can you pretend it simply doesn’t exist?

 

[Ender]

No sense repeating valid and supported arguments that are dismissed conveniently without argument as “merely asserted”, “irrelevant”, (and my favorite!) “I chose to ignore that” and similar deflections.

You have returned to using undefined terms. Yes, you’ve used them before but nowhere have you explained exactly what they mean (to you).

the operation kills the child indirectly. The bystander kill an innocent directly.

Define direct. Does it mean any consequence that results from a specific act? An inevitable consequence? All of the consequences? An intended consequence? The immediate consequence? Without an explanation of what the word means there is no possibility of applying it except arbitrarily.

 

[o_mlly]

This simply asserts that the bystander is “targeted”, the fetus isn’t, “targeting” is immoral and therefore one act is moral and the other isn’t. Nor is it possible for the act of throwing the switch to directly kill the bystander. If that was the case there could be no situation where the bystander could be saved. The act itself would kill him. But that clearly cannot be as any number of scenarios permit his rescue, therefore simply throwing the switch cannot be said to directly kill the bystander.

No, the operation kills the child indirectly. The bystander kill an innocent directly.

The post above evidences why pursuing a discussion any further is pointless. Apparently, a few senior moments need to be pointed out.

… asserts that the bystander is “targeted” … directly kill the bystander … directly kill the bystander …

The bystander is the actor. The innocent one is the victim.

Nor is it possible for the act of throwing the switch to directly kill …

Now who is asserting.

The act itself would kill him.

Nonsense. An “act” is now your moral agent? “Your honor, that gun that went off killed that innocent man. All I did was pull the trigger.”

… any number of scenarios permit his rescue …

Only if you fantasize beyond the constraints specified in the OP’s scenario.

Define direct.

Why? You’ve rejected the explanations of Pius XII, Fr. Pacholczyk, USCCB, Monsignor Smith (if you read or watched the citations).

Lastly, as I claim the act is immoral I need not define anything. You claim throwing the switch is a moral act. Defend your claim. The only way any act that kills an innocent is moral is if the killing is indirect. Define indirect.

Oh, and if you contrive how the act (not the actor) of throwing the switch is not the direct cause that kills the innocent one, pray let us know what does directly kill him.

 

[Ender]

Lastly, as I claim the act is immoral I need not define anything. You claim throwing the switch is a moral act. Defend your claim.

Me: Clearly the innocent person is killed by the trolley, the trolley was sent down the track when the switch was thrown, and throwing the switch with knowledge of that consequence was deliberate. If my distinction between direct and indirect is valid then “ saving the five ” is the direct effect, and all subsequent effects - including running over the one - are indirect. The object of the action would be “ switching the trolley away from the five ”. The effect on the five is therefore direct since they are defined in the object. The effect on the one is indirect because he is not part of the object. (#455)

You: I disagree. All moral objects include the physical act and its effects on moral agents (Veritas Splendor p. 78). The five, just like the one, are all moral agents. The one is just as much part of the moral object that affects him as are the five a part of the other moral object that affects them.

Therefore, the objects properly stated always include the outcomes affecting moral agents. Directness is not determined by manipulating the phrasing of the moral objects. Directness is determined by the chain of causation. “Target” is the operative word that determines to what the act is directed. (#456)

First, the object cannot be defined by “the outcomes affecting moral agents” because (1) not all acts affect moral agents yet all acts have an object, and (2) this would preclude PODE acts since by your definition the harmful effect would be part of the object, which is intended, but for something to be an acceptable double effect it must not be intended.

Second, if “directness is determined by the chain of causation” then the death of the fetus would be direct since its death was unarguably caused by the operation, but we know this cannot be since its death is legitimate.

Finally, if “Target is the operative word that determines to what the act is directed” then the innocent one cannot have been targeted because in no sense of the word was the act directed at him. I may kill in self defense so long as that was not my intention and no other option was available. How is the trolley different? Killing the bystander was not the intent, but there is no other way to save the five that doesn’t result in his death. I can kill the fetus - who’s death proceeds “by the chain of causation” from the operation - yet its death is not direct, and is legitimate precisely because that effect was not intended and it was not the object of the operation, distinctions that apply equally to the trolley situation.

 

[o_mlly]

If my distinction between direct and indirect is valid …

Yes, your distinction between direct and indirect is in error.

Before commenting further on your argument, explain what is the direct cause of the innocent one’s death?

 

[Ender]

Yes, your distinction between direct and indirect is in error.

You haven’t told us what you mean by direct and indirect, and when I give you my definition your only response is “it’s wrong”. Either define your terms or don’t use them.

Before commenting further on your argument, explain what is the direct cause of the innocent one’s death?

I would say it was getting run over by a trolley car.

 

[o_mlly]

I would say it was getting run over by a trolley car.

The passive voice hides the subject. What caused the trolley car to run over the innocent one?

 

[Ender]

The passive voice hides the subject. What caused the trolley car to run over the innocent one?

Let’s take your definition: "directness is determined by the chain of causation." If this is true then throwing the switch is the direct cause of the person’s death.

That said, the operation would also be the direct cause of the fetus’s death. Your definition of direct makes both actions immoral, yet we know the operation is not immoral, therefore your definition cannot be valid.

 

[o_mlly]

Let’s take your definition: " directness is determined by the chain of causation." If this is true then throwing the switch is the direct cause of the person’s death.

Yes, we’re disclosing that direct chain of causation now.

What caused the switch to be thrown?

That said, the operation would also be the direct cause of the fetus’s death. Your definition of direct makes both actions immoral, yet we know the operation is not immoral, therefore your definition cannot be valid.

Let’s nail down the direct chain of causation in the trolley case. I will show in the tubal pregnancy how the cases are fundamentally different.

 

[Ender]

Yes, we’re disclosing that direct chain of causation now.

What caused the switch to be thrown?

Come on, don’t drag this out; say what you want said and let’s move on.

Let’s nail down the direct chain of causation in the trolley case. I will show in the tubal pregnancy how the cases are fundamentally different.

Then spell out for us what you think the direct chain of causation is. Give us your own explanations; I’ve given you mine now you do the same.