Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

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

I’m not the one dragging this out. It’s your claim that the innocent one dies indirectly. Tell us how he dies.

What caused the switch to be thrown?

 

[o_mlly]

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.

I did exactly that many posts ago. Now it is your turn.

The direct causation of the innocent person’s death is self-evident:

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

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

 

[whichwaytogo47]

You’re probably familiar with the trolley problem. A train is heading to a place where 5 people are on the rails. I can switch a lever and direct the train to another rail where only one person is. Should I do it even though I would be directly responsible for one death?

In my opinion, no, because saving 5 people doesn’t justify killing one.

During war, I might take a different stance

 

[Ender]

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

I let this pass when you wrote it despite the fact that it completely misstates the action. From the perspective of the actor here is what he is doing:

throws switch → directs trolley away from five innocent people → innocent people are saved

Both are partial descriptions of the complete action/effects. Mine describes the intended effect; yours describes the unintended effect. We can give the same treatment to the operation:

Doctor → removes part of tube with fetus → fetus dies
Doctor → removes part of tube with fetus → mother lives

Both are partial descriptions. The first describes the unintended effect, the latter describes the intended effect. The direct cause of the death of the fetus, however, is self-evident from the “chain of causation”. The fetus dies as a result of the operation just as surely as the bystander dies as a result of the trolley being rerouted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will show in the tubal pregnancy how the cases are fundamentally different.

o_mlly promises to “show how the cases are fundamentally different.” This was asked several hundred posts ago at least 20 times, but never addressed by o_mlly. So far the only difference that has been cited is the fact that the baby would likely have died in a few days or weeks anyway if the tube was not cut out, while the man on the track would likely go on to live a normal life-span if the switch was not thrown. But we know from the moral analysis of euthanasia that life must be respected for the terminally ill the same as for the healthy. The fact that the baby was terminal can in no way be used to mitigate the actions taken to shorten the baby’s life. So that difference is not “fundamental” but rather “incidental.”

 

[o_mlly]

I let this pass when you wrote it despite the fact that it completely misstates the action. From the perspective of the actor here is what he is doing:

And that is your fundamental error in your argument. The moral object is not determined by the perspective of a particular actor but from the perspective of any actor. The moral object is determined by “what” the act in itself (in se) does physically and what moral effects occur through the act itself (per se).

I brought this to your attention many posts ago which it appears you also chose to ignore. The moral object for the act does not change for the bystander who intends to kill the innocent one but in your argument a change in intention requires a change in the moral object.

Consequentialists neuter the moral object font. They believe there are no acts evil in se or per se… The only important fonts to them are intent and circumstance. JPII in VS warns strongly against such errors.

Your argument is the special case of consequentialism called Error of Intentionalism.

The Error of Intentionalism NCBQ

Some Catholic theologians are redefining the meaning of " direct " and " indirect " by including only the agent’s intention in defining the moral object, while simultaneously excluding the physical actions that the agent consciously and deliberately chooses. The net effect is that these theologians now approve of many kinds of abortions traditionally understood to be morally evil in situations of maternal–fetal vital conflict. Such an error has grave implications for Catholic bioethics and health care. When the intentionalist method is applied to other disputed questions in bioethics, however, it becomes clear that its ideology is fundamentally erroneous. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 17.3 (Autumn 2017): 399–408.

St. Thomas Aquinas states, “A circumstance is sometimes taken as the essential
difference of the object, as compared to reason; and then it can specify a moral act. And it
must needs be so whenever a circumstances transforms an action from good to evil; for a
circumstance would not make an action evil, except through being repugnant to reason.”
Summa theologiae I-II.18.5 ad 4.

The death of an innocent human being is always repugnant and cannot be left as merely an unwanted effect in the font of circumstance.

1753 A good intention does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as … [directly destroying an innocent human being]*. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

• CCC#2258

(continued)

 

[o_mlly]

Doctor → removes part of tube with fetus → fetus dies
Doctor → removes part of tube with fetus → mother lives

Both are partial descriptions. The first describes the unintended effect, the latter describes the intended effect. The direct cause of the death of the fetus, however, is self-evident from the “chain of causation”. The fetus dies as a result of the operation just as surely as the bystander dies as a result of the trolley being rerouted.

It appears you also chose to ignore Pius XII, Fr. Tad, the USCCB and others as well. How the child dies is critical. Yes the child dies and the operation is the indirect cause. As Fr. Tad explained:

Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child.

So, if you are trying to draw a parallel between the trolley and the tubal pregnancy, tell us how does the bystander only indirectly kills the innocent one? What is the direct cause of the innocent one’s death?

 

[Inquiry]

That was a lot of words spent not answering any of the questions you were asked. What is it that makes one direct and the other indirect?

 

[Ender]

It appears you also chose to ignore Pius XII, Fr. Tad, the USCCB and others as well. How the child dies is critical. Yes the child dies and the operation is the indirect cause. As Fr. Tad explained:

According to your own definition of direct (chain of causation) the operation is the direct cause of the fetus’s death. It is undeniable that the fetus dies as a result of the operation. That chain of causation satisfies your definition of direct.

I understand Fr. Tad’s distinction, but he uses “direct” in a very different sense than you do.

So, if you are trying to draw a parallel between the trolley and the tubal pregnancy, tell us how does the bystander only indirectly kills the innocent one? What is the direct cause of the innocent one’s death?

The direct cause of the innocent person’s death (by your definition) is that the bystander threw the switch rerouting the trolley. By that same definition, however, the direct cause of the fetus’s death is because the doctor removed it from the mother’s body. If your definition is used in both cases then both cases are immoral because in both the deaths are direct “chain of causation” results of the action.

 

[o_mlly]

According to your own definition of direct (chain of causation) the operation is the direct cause of the fetus’s death. It is undeniable that the fetus dies as a result of the operation. That chain of causation satisfies your definition of direct.

I understand Fr. Tad’s distinction, but he uses “direct” in a very different sense than you do.

No, Fr. Tad does not use “direct” in a different sense than I do. (Fr. Tad is my oft cited source. ?). And no, I do not think you do understand Fr. Tad’s distinctions on the difference between direct and indirect.

To save my fingers from retyping more posts you chose to ignore, search the thread for “person-body” and “body-person”. It begins way back at post #295.

It is self-evident as described in the OP’s scenario and the meaning of direct causation.

• The surgeon may not cause the scalpel to be the instrument that kills the child – that is a direct attack on the body-person of the child.
• The bystander may not cause the trolley to be the instrument that kills the innocent person – that is a direct attack on the body-person of an innocent person.

After reading, tell me how throwing the switch does not make the trolley the instrument of the innocent one’s death.

 

[o_mlly]

I did say I was leaving the thread. But here I am, still re-posting my arguments and citations that others ignored, did not read, or cannot/will not understand.

As soon as other interesting topics appear on CA I will be gone. So if I do not respond to a not-so-instant replay of what has already been asked and answered about trolleys-gone-wild, I’m in some other thread in some other forum.

 

[Inquiry]

Are you arguing to find the truth or so that you can win? You seem overly concerned that other people might think they beat you. I’ve fallen into that trap before, it’s not a good place to argue from.

 

[Ender]

No, Fr. Tad does not use “direct” in a different sense than I do. (Fr. Tad is my oft cited source. ?). And no, I do not think you do understand Fr. Tad’s distinctions on the difference between direct and indirect.

Fr. Tad used direct to distinguish whether the the fetus was the immediate object of the operation; you use it to mean in the “chain of causation” whether it was the immediate object or not. The operation is justifiable in Tad’s meaning, but would not be in yours because in his usage the death is not direct but in yours it is.

After reading, tell me how throwing the switch does not make the trolley the instrument of the innocent one’s death.

The trolley is the instrument of the death of the person on the track in exactly the same manner that the operation is the instrument of the death of the fetus. You assert that these are morally different yet both meet your own definition of direct in that both are “chain of causation” results from those two acts (switching and operating). As I said, your definition of direct is very different than Fr. Tad’s.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ender:

Doctor → removes part of tube with fetus → fetus dies
Doctor → removes part of tube with fetus → mother lives

Both are partial descriptions. The first describes the unintended effect, the latter describes the intended effect. The direct cause of the death of the fetus, however, is self-evident from the “chain of causation”. The fetus dies as a result of the operation just as surely as the bystander dies as a result of the trolley being rerouted.

It appears you also chose to ignore Pius XII, Fr. Tad, the USCCB and others as well. How the child dies is critical. Yes the child dies and the operation is the indirect cause.

We may shorten this to “the child dies and the operation is the cause.” In fact the operation is the only cause. Without that operation the child would surely have been alive a few hours more. If a patient has terminal cancer and someone starves the patient of food, we can rightly say that the only cause of the man’s death was starvation. So adding a dash of “indirect” modifiers does not distinguish between the two cases, but rather begs the question. We don’t know what Fr. Tad would say about the Trolley problem. Maybe he would also call the act of the bystander an indirect cause of the man’s death. Fr. Tad’s commentary is only relevant if it addresses both issues, or if there was some definitive connection between his use of the word “indirect” and the use made by o_mlly.

As Fr. Tad explained:

Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child.

And in the trolley problem the bystander is choosing to act on the trolley rather than directly on the man on the track. Same thing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

• The surgeon may not cause the scalpel to be the instrument that kills the child – that is a direct attack on the body-person of the child.

But the scalpel is the instrument that kills the child, because it starves the child of nutrition.

• The bystander may not cause the trolley to be the instrument that kills the innocent person – that is a direct attack on the body-person of an innocent person.

Once the trolley was diverted from hitting the 5 people on the track, the bystander’s act is over. What happens afterwords to that trolley is no longer of any concern to him.

 

[o_mlly]

Fr. Tad used direct to distinguish whether the the fetus was the immediate object of the operation; you use it to mean in the “ chain of causation ” whether it was the immediate object or not. The operation is justifiable in Tad’s meaning, but would not be in yours because in his usage the death is not direct but in yours it is.

Nope. Father Tad never uses the term “immediate object” in When Pregnancy Goes Awry. He does use the terms “target cells … vital organs” which the good priest used (as did I) to draw the physical distinction between direct and indirect. As I recall, you disagreed thinking incorrectly that “target” is a synonym for “intend”.

The trolley is the instrument of the death of the person on the track in exactly the same manner that the operation is the instrument of the death of the fetus.

Yes, the trolley is the instrument of death in the trolley case. Just as the surgeon’s instrument that “‘scoop out’ the living body of the child” is an instrument of death. Both directly act on and kill an innocent person and are intrinsically evil.

And nope, the surgeon’s scalpel that excises the mother’s diseased tissue is not the instrument of the child’s death as Fr. Tad explains:

Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, the trolley is the instrument of death in the trolley case.

And nope, the surgeon’s scalpel that excises the mother’s diseased tissue is not the instrument of the child’s death as Fr. Tad explains:

Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child.

Again o_mlly is using Fr. Tad to support that the surgeon acting on the tube is not direct in such a way that Fr. Tad may very well also say that the bystander acts on the trolley, not on the man on the tracks. If both problems are analyzed according to the same definitions and standards, both problems will yield the same result.

 

[Ender]

Nope. Father Tad never uses the term “immediate object” in When Pregnancy Goes Awry . He does use the terms “target cells … vital organs” which the good priest used (as did I) to draw the physical distinction between direct and indirect. As I recall, you disagreed thinking incorrectly that “target” is a synonym for “intend”.

The problem here is that you use Fr. Tad’s standard to approve the operation while you use your standard to disapprove of the trolley case. I don’t care which standard you use, I just want you to apply the same one in both cases.

Yes, the trolley is the instrument of death in the trolley case. Just as the surgeon’s instrument that “‘scoop out’ the living body of the child” is an instrument of death. Both directly act on and kill an innocent person and are intrinsically evil.

A scalpel is an inanimate object; it is the surgeon who acts. If the surgeon operates directly (Fr. Tad’s meaning) on the fetus his act is immoral; if he operates directly on the mother by removing part of the tube then he acts on the fetus indirectly and the act is moral. With your definition of direct (line of causation) then the operation would be immoral because it is the operation which causes the death.

Now, in what sense can one say the bystander acts directly on the person on the track? His direct act is clearly on the switch. Whether there is no one on the second track, someone is there but he doesn’t know it, or he knows a person is there, his direct action is the same in each case, or are you contending the object of a specific act somehow changes based on the actor’s knowledge of the consequences?

And nope, the surgeon’s scalpel that excises the mother’s diseased tissue is not the instrument of the child’s death as Fr. Tad explains:

What is the direct (line of causation) cause of the child’s death?

 

[o_mlly]

The problem here is that you use Fr. Tad’s standard to approve the operation while you use your standard to disapprove of the trolley case.

No, the standard is always the same.

Verb → instrument → physical action → direct moral effects of act → indirect moral effects

A scalpel is an inanimate object; it is the surgeon who acts.

The switch is an inanimate object, it is the bystander who acts.

If the surgeon operates directly (Fr. Tad’s meaning) on the fetus his act is immoral.

If the bystander acts directly (Fr. Tad’s meaning) on the innocent man his act is immoral. ???

With your definition of direct (line of causation) then the operation would be immoral because it is the operation which causes the death.

With Fr. Tad’s definition of direct (line of causation) then throwing of the switch would be immoral because it is throwing the switch which causes the death. ???

What is the direct (line of causation) cause of the child’s death?

I’ve answered this before. The direct cause of the child’s death in tubal excision is the lack of life giving elements from the mother caused indirectly by the excision of that part of the tube.

 

[Ender]

Verb → instrument → physical action → direct moral effects of act → indirect moral effects

Throw → the switch → reroute trolley → save the five → kill the one

If the bystander acts directly (Fr. Tad’s meaning) on the innocent man his act is immoral. ???

Yes, it would be immoral…but in no stretch of the imagination does the bystander act directly on the innocent man.

With Fr. Tad’s definition of direct (line of causation) then throwing of the switch would be immoral because it is throwing the switch which causes the death. ???

This is not Fr. Tad’s definition, if it was then both actions would be immoral as in both cases the line of causation includes the act and the death of an innocent person.

The direct cause of the child’s death in tubal excision is the lack of life giving elements from the mother caused indirectly by the excision of that part of the tube.

But this is not the line of causation. By that definition the operation is the direct cause of death since without it the child would not have died when it did. If lack of life giving nutrients is the direct cause here then being crushed by a trolley is equally the direct cause in that case. Both are in fact the literal causes of death, and either both go back to the original event or neither of them do.

It seems to me this situation is really not all that hypothetical, and that a variant of it has played out any number of times in real life. The situation is where a plane is over a crowded city and will imminently crash; all the pilot can do is pick his impact point. The argument being made is that it is immoral of him to do anything other than let the plane crash where it will without taking action, because if he directs the plane to hit here instead of there he is directly killing whoever he crashes on. Better to let it fly into the tenement building it is aimed at than redirect it to fly into the house next to it.

Does anyone really believe that?