Catholic view on utilitarianism

[LeafByNiggle]

Ender:

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. ???

Ender’s argument is a reductio ad absurdum since the conclusion (“tubal excision is immoral”) is already agreed to be a false conclusion. Therefore the premise ("‘direct’ means in a line of causation for purposes of deciding morality") must also be false. This shows that o_mlly does not apply that definition uniformly, but only selectively to the trolley problem and not to the ectopic pregnancy problem.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Yes, Intentionalism is the cause of much evil and used to justify direct abortion just as your argument also justifies the direct killing of an innocent.

The trolley case compares to salpingostomy, a direct abortion. The surgeon (bystander) directs the scalpel (trolley) at the person-body of an innocent person. The good intention of saving others never justifies the direct taking of even just one innocent life.

The trolley case dos not compare to salpingectomy, an indirect abortion. The essential difference as Pius XII, USCCB, Weigel, Fr. Tad and others have explained, is that the surgeon’s who controls his instrument never allows it to touch the person-body of the innocent child. The bystander simply cannot say the same as he directs the instrument he controls to decapitate the person-body of an innocent one.

Your plane scenario differs in that all the people in the range of the falling plane are at risk of the physical evil of that plane falling on their heads. Whatever the pilot does intending to mitigate the loss of human life does not put anyone into peril who was not already in danger. The innocent one on the track is in no peril until the bystander throws the switch.

 

[Paddy1989]

Coming onto this thread late i have heard this theory many times and it is for great debate although rather tiring sometimes. While it is true someone cannot do an evil so that a greater good may come of it one’s culpability would come into play here dictated by circumstance. This is quite similar to someone hiding Jews and then forced to lie, lying can never be good even if used for good however if one is put into a position where essentially their life or other peoples lives are under threat then surely they could not be held to the same accountability as someone who is free from coercion. For one to have committed a mortal sin then it must be committed with their full consent however it is obvious sometimes coercion comes into play.

Another example would be someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to shoot someone else or you will be shot instead. While yes we are told to be courageous in standing up for whats morally right and be examples of virtue truth be told we are weak individuals and if one decides to squeeze the trigger they certainly wouldn’t be culpable to the same degree as someone acting with their full consent and will. I actually therefore don’t think this experiment is that good at all. Killing anyone is wrong even to save others however if one is faced with this reality can they really be culpable for making a split decision to save lives without being able to give much thought about what the consequences are. For example if one is only given five seconds to decide compared to 30 minutes. There is alot of variables not fully defined at play that can change everything

 

[o_mlly]

Killing anyone is wrong even to save others however if one is faced with this reality can they really be culpable for making a split decision

Yes, the act in which the object directly kills an innocent person is always immoral regardless of intention. The culpability of that actor can be mitigated or even removed depending on the circumstances.

 

[Latin]

Whatever the pilot does intending to mitigate the loss of human life does not put anyone into peril who was not already in danger.

Congratulations o_mlly, very clever answer.

Let’s see another hypothetical scenario.

The pilot by carefully choosing his impact point would kill only one single person who was not in any danger, by choosing this impact point the pilot saves one million lives.

If the pilot do nothing the plain kills one million lives.

If he chooses a different impact point he kills one innocent person who was not in any danger and he saves one million lives.

What should the pilot to do?

Should the pilot by his inaction to kill one million innocent lives?
Or should the pilot by his action to kill one innocent life?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

I’m a Catholic. If I would be that pilot I would kill one innocent life and I would save one million innocent lives.

Then again:
I would count and I believe rightly so, the mechanical failure of the plain is the direct killer and as I cannot even stop the killing, I’m the indirect killer, same as the surgeon (the baby’s position is the direct killer) or the bystander (the runaway trolley is the direct killer, the bystander cannot even stop the killing).
.
The direct line of causation is not always the direct killer.

If the direct line of causation would be always the direct killer then the surgeon would be directly kill the baby. – The same principles are true with the bystander.
.
God bless

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your plane scenario differs in that all the people in the range of the falling plane are at risk of the physical evil of that plane falling on their heads. Whatever the pilot does intending to mitigate the loss of human life does not put anyone into peril who was not already in danger. The innocent one on the track is in no peril until the bystander throws the switch.

This objection to the airplane comparison is not valid. It is not true that everyone in the range off the falling plane are at risk of the physical evil of that plane falling on their heads. Assuming the pilot takes no diverting action, the only people at risk are the ones straight ahead where the plane is headed (in this case, an apartment building). The people 20 degrees to the right are not in any risk until the pilot makes the decision to turn the plane 20 degrees to the right. If we consider everyone in range to be at risk because the pilot might turn the plane in their direction, then all six people on the tracks are at risk because the bystander might divert the trolley or allow the trolley to continue in the direction it is going. It is analogous and illustrates the point quite well.

The trolley case compares to salpingostomy, a direct abortion. The surgeon (bystander) directs the scalpel (trolley) at the person-body of an innocent person.

The essential difference between these two is that in salpingostomy, the removal of the baby is the means by which the mother’s life is saved. In the trolley problem, the death of the one man on the track is not the means by which the five are saved.

 

[Inquiry]

The trolley case dos not compare to salpingectomy, an indirect abortion. The essential difference as Pius XII, USCCB, Weigel, Fr. Tad and others have explained, is that the surgeon’s who controls his instrument never allows it to touch the person-body of the innocent child. The bystander simply cannot say the same as he directs the instrument he controls to decapitate the person-body of an innocent one.

I really want to see you think this one out. By this logic starving someone to death by locking the room he is in and leaving is only indirectly murder. He dies due to lack of food, and while your actions are responsible for the circumstances of that lack of food you never touched him.

In fact, lets carry this one out. New problem: There’s a space station with two modules. In one module are five people, in another is just one. The module with one person is getting oxygen, the one with five is not and the people are suffocating. You can redirect the oxygen to the five, but the one will die. The one is not in any danger unless you act. It is the exact same problem as the trolley problem except people die through deprivation.

To clarify: There are many cases where lethal deprivation is indeed not murder at all (thus passing the first requirement of DE), and the ectopic pregnancy is one of them. However, the reasons go beyond a mere technicality of never touching the person.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is quite similar to someone hiding Jews and then forced to lie, lying can never be good even if used for good however if one is put into a position where essentially their life or other peoples lives are under threat then surely they could not be held to the same accountability as someone who is free from coercion.

This is not quite analogous. For one thing, telling a lie to save a Jew violates the “Means” condition of double effect. The lie is exactly the means by which the Jew is saved, and not merely a consequence. This is unlike the trolley problem where the death of the one man on the tracks is NOT the means by which the five are saved.

By the way, the moral analysis of the “lying to save a Jew” problem can be justified on entirely different grounds. It can be argued that the Nazi looking for the Jew does not have a right to that truth. But that is for a different argument.

Another example would be someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to shoot someone else or you will be shot instead. While yes we are told to be courageous in standing up for whats morally right and be examples of virtue truth be told we are weak individuals and if one decides to squeeze the trigger they certainly wouldn’t be culpable to the same degree as someone acting with their full consent and will…

Maybe not as culpable, but certainly culpable, for this is a very clear case of doing evil so that good may come of it. The only mitigating factor would be the lack of time to consider what one is doing so that one is not fully aware of the morality of what he is doing. But if he had plenty of time to think about it, and still did it, he would be very culpable for pulling the trigger, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Ender]

Your plane scenario differs in that all the people in the range of the falling plane are at risk of the physical evil of that plane falling on their heads. Whatever the pilot does intending to mitigate the loss of human life does not put anyone into peril who was not already in danger.

That a person is “already in danger” does not change what we may morally do to him. This is what you assert in #710 (your emphasis):

Yes, the act in which the object directly kills an innocent person is always immoral regardless of intention .

Nothing about being in danger changes the object of the action. If your second assertion is accurate then your first one cannot be; if an act is per se immoral it remains so regardless of circumstances. You approve of acting in the plane scenario even as you disapprove of acting in the case of the trolley, yet there is no moral distinction between the two. Either we are allowed to act in such cases or we aren’t.

 

[IQ170]

I really want to see you think this one out. By this logic starving someone to death by locking the room he is in and leaving is only indirectly murder. He dies due to lack of food, and while your actions are responsible for the circumstances of that lack of food you never touched him.

A very good analogy, not that there is a need for it. The problem is so very simple, and still the amount of the (virtual) ink spilled over it would float a cruise ship.

All this nonsense about direct and indirect killing only detracts from an analysis of the actual problem. The problem is that sometimes the circumstances FORCE you to choose between two unpalatable options. (Usually one of the options is non-action) Both of them will cause harm to someone else, one greater harm, the other lesser harm. Or one of them will cause harm to more people, the other one will cause to fewer people. It is not necessary that this hypothetical harm should be death, but it is useful to separate the goats from the sheep.

There is no deus-ex-machina allowing you to select a THIRD option, which would not harm anyone. What will you do, and why? In a sense this problem has no “solution”. It is useful to measure the ethical system of the responder. And since ethical systems are dime a dozen there will be no consensus. But it is fun.

 

[o_mlly]

I really want to see you think this one out. By this logic starving someone to death by locking the room he is in and leaving is only indirectly murder. He dies due to lack of food, and while your actions are responsible for the circumstances of that lack of food you never touched him.

Best to start a new thread for new situations.

 

[lelinator]

Inquiry:

I really want to see you think this one out. By this logic starving someone to death by locking the room he is in and leaving is only indirectly murder. He dies due to lack of food, and while your actions are responsible for the circumstances of that lack of food you never touched him.

Best to start a new thread for new situations.

Copout. Seems like a perfectly legitimate question to me. Of course, since it seems to completely destroy your position I can understand why you’re hesitant to respond.

 

[o_mlly]

Let’s see another hypothetical scenario.

Better to start another thread.

 

[o_mlly]

That a person is “already in danger” does not change what we may morally do to him. This is what you assert in #710 (your emphasis):

Yes, the act in which the object directly kills an innocent person is always immoral regardless of intention .

OK. However, just to be clear, the status of one who is not in danger does restrict actions that are morally permissible. Remember, the innocent man on the track is in no danger.

CCC#2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

You approve of acting in the plane scenario even as you disapprove of acting in the case of the trolley, yet there is no moral distinction between the two.

Yes, there is a moral distinction. Unless your pilot sabotaged his own plane, the evil in play, as I noted, is a physical evil.

The direct cause of all deaths in the plane case is the physical evil of a malfunctioning plane.
The direct cause of all deaths in the trolley case is the moral evil in the act of the bystander (assumes he throws the switch).

 

[o_mlly]

Copout. Seems like a perfectly legitimate question to me. Of course, since it seems to completely destroy your position I can understand why you’re hesitant to respond.

It’s a fine case. As I wrote before, I prefer finishing the trolley case. Others can come out of lurking mode and use this thread to respond if they have any insights worth noting.

 

[Inquiry]

I’ll take that under advisement if we get to a new situation. In the meantime, this one is a direct response to your argument.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

OK. However, just to be clear, the status of one who is not in danger does restrict actions that are morally permissible. Remember, the innocent man on the track is in no danger.

CCC#2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

This does not apply to the trolley problem for the bystander has no intention of bringing about the death of the one man on the track.

o_mlly:

Ender:

You approve of acting in the plane scenario even as you disapprove of acting in the case of the trolley, yet there is no moral distinction between the two.

Yes, there is a moral distinction. Unless your pilot sabotaged his own plane, the evil in play, as I noted, is a physical evil.

The direct cause of all deaths in the plane case is the physical evil of a malfunctioning plane.
The direct cause of all deaths in the trolley case is the moral evil in the act of the bystander (assumes he throws the switch).

The distinction noted is related to actors other than the bystander, and therefore irrelevant. You could as well assume in the plane case that the plane was sabotaged, but by someone else other than the pilot. In that case it is exactly like the trolley case. The evil person who sabotaged the plane is analogous to the evil person who tied people to the tracks. It will be very hard to find a moral distinction between these two cases because there isn’t one.

 

[Ender]

CCC#2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death.

There is no caveat there that permits “doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death” if that person is already in danger. Such action is forbidden whether he is in danger or not.

Unless your pilot sabotaged his own plane, the evil in play, as I noted, is a physical evil.

The direct cause of all deaths in the plane case is the physical evil of a malfunctioning plane.
The direct cause of all deaths in the trolley case is the moral evil in the act of the bystander (assumes he throws the switch).

This is not accurate. The pilot is choosing where to crash the plane, and it seems his choice is exactly analogous to that of the bystander. If the pilot takes no action he can see that his plane will crash into a high rise apartment building. His choice is to let that happen, with the inevitable large loss of life, or pick a less populated target. In his case (where you approve his action) he is actually selecting his target, an option not open to the bystander (of whose action you disapprove). In both cases an intentional action is taken that leads to a loss of life that would not have been lost if no action was taken. How can one act be valid and the other not?

 

[o_mlly]

There is no caveat there that permits “ doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death ” if that person is already in danger. Such action is forbidden whether he is in danger or not.

Why did you not quote all of CCC#2269 as I did? My post clearly referred to the sentence you conveniently chose not to quote. ???

The pilot is choosing where to crash the plane, and it seems his choice is exactly analogous to that of the bystander

No, the bystander choice, as I wrote, is to directly kill an innocent, or not. Big difference. No matter what the pilot chooses, the pilot’s act does not directly kill anyone.

[The pilot] is actually selecting his target, an option not open to the bystander …

No. The bystander’ option is to directly kill an innocent human being, or not.

God is not offended by physical evils. The pilot does nothing to offend God. The pilot can order his act to goodness.

The bystander (who acts) does offend God. The direct killing of an innocent can never be ordered to goodness.

The reason intentionalists and other consequentialists don’t get it is because their highest good is this life. No God, no problem. For them, no act is evil in se.

To the contrary, Catholics ought order their acts to the true good. That does not mean Catholics do not respect human life. It means that human life is not our highest good. Only acts evil in their object, intent or circumstance are prohibited even “to save a nation.”

The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. 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.

 

[o_mlly]

Oh my, “locking someone in a room” and a “space station.” Why not stay on planet earth.

Here’s one for you:

A madman has roped together 4 people and levels his 12 gauge at them. You are a quadriplegic in your wheelchair next to the madman. A bystander comes on the scene, assesses what is going on. Foresees that if he does not act, 4 will die. If he pushes the wheelchair only 1 will die. He pushes your wheelchair in front of the madman’s shotgun. The madman proceeds in his attempt to kill the 4 but kills you instead. Did the bystander act morally?

For those who will try to wiggle out, change the ordinance to a grenade launcher.