Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

Ok, you think it moral to target someone only if they are already at risk of dying.

No, I think it is immoral to directly kill an innocent “even to save a nation.”

 

[Ender]

And, does not your bystander indirectly will to kill the innocent one?

Whether he does or doesn’t, his will and his act are exactly the same as the pilot’s. They both chose to act in a way that leads to the death of an innocent person. They are morally identical.

I posted CCC#2269 as a clarification to your broad claim noting that neither the inverse or converse were true but, in fact false. Persons not in danger have natural rights to remain so.

And I cited the other part of that same section to point out that there is no “already in danger” exception to the prohibition about not intending to indirectly bring about a person’s death, a prohibition you are willing to overlook for the pilot but not for the bystander.

As I wrote, your pilot is acting to mitigate the bad effects of a present physical evil. Your bystander chooses to commit a moral evil.

Yes, you asserted this. You have just not provided any explanation. The pilot is acting to mitigate bad effects. The bystander is acting to mitigate bad effects. In both cases they are choosing to save many of these at the cost of fewer of those. They are both choosing who will live and who will die. They may both be acting morally or immorally, but their acts are morally identical.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether he does or doesn’t, his will and his act are exactly the same as the pilot’s. They both chose to act in a way that leads to the death of an innocent person. They are morally identical.

The cases are not parallel. If the bystander, like the pilot, acted to mitigate the bad effects, the bystander would be doing what is morally permissible to save the lives of the four on the track onto which the trolley is headed just as the pilot acts to save the lives in the area within the plane’s possible crash zone. The cases are significantly different in that the pilot does not have, thankfully, an option to directly kill any innocent person outside the possible crash zone.

No matter who dies in the plane crash, the pilot’s act indirectly kills them. The direct cause of any and all deaths in the plane crash is the physical evil of a malfunctioning airplane.

But if the bystander throws the switch then he directly kills an innocent person. Such an act is intrinsically evil.

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

Now one for you. Rather than a trolley coming down the track, the rails are wired to conduct lethal levels of electric current. The switch presently directs the current to the five. The switch will redirect the current form the five to the one. May the bystander throw the switch and electrocute the one?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The cases are significantly different in that the pilot does not have, thankfully, an option to directly kill any innocent person outside the possible crash zone.

Of course this is wrong. Obviously the people 20 degrees to the right were not in the crash zone because the plane would not turn 20 to the right unless directed to do so by the pilot. The pilot puts them in danger they were not in when he turns 20 degrees to the right. They were just as safe as the one man on the trolley track.
( But o_mlly will not see this because I am on o_mlly’s ignore list. So feel free to use it.)

 

[Elf01]

As for the lying to the Nazi scenario, yes the Nazi wouldn’t be entitled to the truth but then how should one respond? I’ve heard a few unrealistic answers by individuals such as replying to the Nazi ‘‘and why would i hide any Jews’’ so technically this type of answer they give isn’t lying. These type of answers are nonsense and so out of touch with reality, obviously from individuals who fortunately have never been faced with such a traumatic scenario. What would happen almost in all cases is that faced with the interrogation from the Nazi at the door someone without thinking to avoid death of themselves and others would instantly lie, they would not retreat into their own minds to try and formulate an answer that technically isn’t lying when there is a scenario where every second delayed suspicion increases ten fold. Any hesitation in ones answer such as trying to formulate an answer that technically isn’t lying could lead to an indirect admission to the interrogator.

Put on the spot, yes. But somebody agreeing to hide Jews would have time to consider their response.

No matter who dies in the plane crash, the pilot’s act indirectly kills them. The direct cause of any and all deaths in the plane crash is the physical evil of a malfunctioning airplane.

But if the bystander throws the switch then he directly kills an innocent person. Such an act is intrinsically evil.

I don’t see the difference. You will have to explain why one is direct and the other is indirect.

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t see the difference. You will have to explain why one is direct and the other is indirect.

If you want to understand the difference then setup the two cases as the catechism teaches.

Moral object:
Intention:
Circumstances:

If you have as a circumstance in either case that a human being dies then that you have made an error as that would be “repugnant to reason” as the Angelic Doctor taught. Search the thread for “repugnant” to find the citation I gave some posts ago.

 

[Elf01]

If you want to understand the difference then setup the two cases as the catechism teaches.

Moral object:
Intention:
Circumstances:

If you have as a circumstance in either case that a human being dies then that you have made an error as that would be “repugnant to reason” as the Angelic Doctor taught. Search the thread for “repugnant” to find the citation I gave some posts ago.

What is the moral object in each case, and why are they different?

 

[o_mlly]

What is the moral object in each case, and why are they different?

Read the citations provided in this thread about the moral object of an act and post what you think they are. Then do the same for intention and circumstance. Learning is better when it is a hands-on experience.

 

[Gorgias]

I envy your ability to simultaneously play 3-dimensional chess with some and checkers with others on this thread. I stopped playing those checker matches to maintain my sanity.

LOL!

I did step away from the thread for a week or so, just because the checker match was getting annoying. Just popping my head back in, to see if we’ve solved the world’s problems here, yet…

 

[Gorgias]

Do you realize what you are saying? You are implying that almost every bombing campaign in the last 100 years has been immoral.

Yup.

To maintain your position on this silly trolley problem you would now go on record as saying that every one of those bombing raids in WWII was immoral. Are you sure you want to imply that?

Yup. Immoral, but effective in meeting the tactical needs of the armed forces. Inasmuch as a bombing campaign targets civilians, you got it: not the most moral act out there.

So you meant ‘the church’ and not ‘a church’ as posted.

And you asked “which church”, and so I informed you which one.

I was hoping, but not expecting, for something a little more nuanced than an appeal to authority.

LOL! That’s rich! You opened with the precise converse – that is, that churches cannot make claims of morality merely because they’re not authorities – and then you cry ‘foul’ when I make the same kind of claim!

Point being that most of the arguments being presented are just that. Snippets of the catechism, quotes from authority, citations from church leaders. What I have been reading while this thread has developed is not much more than ‘this is what it says so it must be right’.

On the other hand, the opposing arguments have merely parroted philosophers’ assertions from years gone by. So… you’re just arguing from authority, as well – but either you don’t realize it or you’re just ignoring that fact!

If only you could provide evidence for those “claims”.

Eyewitness evidence, brother. Written down. Assented to by contemporaries. You can choose to ignore it… but what you can’t do is say “it isn’t there”.

 

[Gorgias]

Note to self: this thread started on August 28. By now, the trolley has long since squished either five people or one person, the criminal trial has started and concluded (with a hung jury), and the relatives of the dead have sued the putative switch-puller and the trolley company and won a judgment for $25 million.

And we’re still standing by the tracks, arguing.

Gotta love philosophy…

 

[Elf01]

Read the citations provided in this thread about the moral object of an act and post what you think they are. Then do the same for intention and circumstance. Learning is better when it is a hands-on experience.

They haven’t helped me so far.

 

[Inquiry]

Elf01:

What is the moral object in each case, and why are they different?

Read the citations provided in this thread about the moral object of an act and post what you think they are. Then do the same for intention and circumstance. Learning is better when it is a hands-on experience.

Last time @o_mlly tried to explain this they said killing someone by deprivation was not direct because you never touched them. That would mean that murder by starvation is not actually murder if you never laid a hand on them, which doesn’t work. I asked for clarification, but didn’t get it.

 

[Ender]

The cases are significantly different in that the pilot does not have, thankfully, an option to directly kill any innocent person outside the possible crash zone.

You make a distinction between inside and outside the possible crash zone that is irrelevant. The pilot does what he can to kill the fewest people possible, but it is unarguable that he is making the choice of who will die. Obviously the pilot cannot put the plane down outside of the crash zone, as that zone is defined by the limits of where it can come down.

No matter who dies in the plane crash, the pilot’s act indirectly kills them. The direct cause of any and all deaths in the plane crash is the physical evil of a malfunctioning airplane.

You blame everything on mechanical failure which entirely ignores the pilot’s actions. It is not the plane that chooses to land on the small house instead of the high rise, it is the pilot. Suppose the pilot chose to miss the house and hit the apartment building instead? Would you assert that all those deaths were indirect and attributable solely to the physical evil of a malfunctioning airplane? No one would accept that, and no one should accept the other version either.

Now one for you. Rather than a trolley coming down the track, the rails are wired to conduct lethal levels of electric current. The switch presently directs the current to the five. The switch will redirect the current form the five to the one. May the bystander throw the switch and electrocute the one?

I don’t see a distinction in any of these scenarios. Whether the lethal force is electricity, a trolley, or a plane the situations are identical: an individual is faced with an event which he cannot eliminate but can only mitigate the consequences.

 

[Ender]

What is the moral object in each case, and why are they different?

As explained by JPII in Evangelium Vitae: “…that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person.”

As I understand this it is the physical action plus the immediate result it is intended to achieve (which is different from the final end). Applied to the trolley situation the object would be “throw the switch (act) to reroute the trolley away from the five (proximate end)”. The final end of course would be to save the lives of the five.

The consequences of that act (which are aspects of the circumstances) are that five people are saved, and one person dies.

 

[o_mlly]

You make a distinction between inside and outside the possible crash zone that is irrelevant.

Your pilot case is irrelevant to the trolley case because the kill zone of the trolley case has another element not present in your pilot case. An innocent one outside the kill zone in the trolley case is exactly why the pilot case has nothing instructive to add to the debate regardless of what you assert.

The pilot does what he can to kill the fewest people possible, but it is unarguable that he is making the choice of who will die.

Nonsense. There is no “who” in your pilot’s choice; his only goal is to kill the “fewest” who are in peril. The bystander can and should do the same. But instead you would, as any consequentialist would, have the bystander do an a immoral act under the error of intentionalism that anything goes as long as a good will is present. Face the fact that your bystander directly kills an innocent one.

Obviously the pilot cannot put the plane down outside of the crash zone, as that zone is defined by the limits of where it can come down.

But the bystander can put the trolley outside the kill zone if, and only if, he commits an intrinsically evil act. You make my point.

You blame everything on mechanical failure which entirely ignores the pilot’s actions.

It’s your scenario. Is it as you specified the mechanical failure of the plane that creates the dilemma? You said so, therefore the case is a simple matter of managing a physical evil and no one is to blame. Its irrelevant to the trolley case.

Suppose the pilot chose to miss the house and hit the apartment building instead?

Why would the pilot do that?

Would you assert that all those deaths were indirect and attributable solely to the physical evil of a malfunctioning airplane? No one would accept that, and no one should accept the other version either.

You’ve just changed the act, tell us nothing about the moral object of that act, told us nothing about intent or circumstances surrounding that act and then tell us no one would believe a judgement never made about the morality of that act exactly because you have not offered the essentials necessary to judge the act’s morality. What is your point?

(Continued)

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t see a distinction in any of these scenarios. Whether the lethal force is electricity, a trolley, or a plane the situations are identical: an individual is faced with an event which he cannot eliminate but can only mitigate the consequences. How about you supporting your assertions with citations from authentic Catholic teachers.

Mitigate, Yes. By moral means only, absolutely Yes.

Here’s your reply to @Rau a couple of years ago admitting that electrocution directly kills the innocent one and astonishingly claiming that the the trolley does not. At least now you are consistent in your error.

Ender:
What is the cause of death in the two situations? In one it is electrocution; in the other it is massive trolley trauma. Throwing an electrical switch is the direct cause of the electrocution; I’m sure we can agree on that. Throwing a track switch puts a person in a position to get run over, but throwing the switch doesn’t actually kill someone.

Let’s skip the high school debating tactics and the sophomoric logic of those whose morality training comes from the last rerun they watched of Star Trek. Your argument hinges on the fact of whether or not the bystander’s act directly kills an innocent one. You say no and rather than address the fact in the moral object, you place the unpleasant fact in the circumstance font. JPII, St. Thomas disagree. I’m with them. Who stands with you besides the atheist consequentialists and those who cling to the error of intentionalsim?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your pilot case is irrelevant to the trolley case because the kill zone of the trolley case has another element not present in your pilot case. An innocent one outside the kill zone in the trolley case is exactly why the pilot case has nothing instructive to add to the debate regardless of what you assert.

Of course this is wrong. If the innocent one on the tracks is outside the “kill zone” of the trolley, then so are the people who are not on the flight path of the plane outside the “kill zone” of the plane. But by turning the plane, the pilot places them in the kill zone in exactly the same way as the bystander puts the one on the track in the kill zone by “turning” the trolley. Would someone please explain this to o_mlly, since o_mlly does not see my posts.

 

[Latin]

No matter who dies in the plane crash, the pilot’s act indirectly kills them. The direct cause of any and all deaths in the plane crash is the physical evil of a malfunctioning airplane.

You are absolutely correct o_mlly in both cases, the case of the airplane and in the case of the indirect killing of the baby by the surgeon.

Of course the core of the matter in both cases is to exactly know the reasons of the indirect killing of the pilot and the indirect killing of the surgeon.

If two agents acting in a killing case FIRST WE MUST KNOW which agent is the direct killer and which agent is the indirect killer.

In the case of the pilot, the direct killer is the malfunction of the airplane (malfunction acts as the direct killer agent), this fact makes the pilot indirect killer.

In the case of the surgeon, the direct killer is the position of the baby (position of the baby acts as the direct killer agent), this fact makes the surgeon indirect killer of the baby.

In both cases, the case of the pilot and the case of the surgeon are both plain and simple.
.
Where is the confusion then?

Ronald L. Conte, Roman Catholic theologian on the subject: (Helpful for us to see the truth.)

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

For the act of pulling the lever:

(1)The intention is to save four lives. The death of the one innocent is not intended. So the first font is good.

(3)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.

(a) This switch is inherently ordered to save four lives, which is a good moral object.

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

When an act has more than one object, any evil in the object makes the act intrinsically evil, despite other good moral objects.”

.
In the above Ronald’s article are two agents acting (agent malfunction trolley or who arranged it, direct killer + agent bystander, indirect killer).

In my view, Ronald’s mistake is: He credited the evil act of the agent direct killer to the second agent the bystander INDIRECT KILLER.
.
Same as there are two agents in the case of the pilot (agent malfunction, direct killer + agent pilot, indirect killer). – With Ronald’s concept the pilot would be direct killer, so as the surgeon.

When there are two agents acting in a killing case, we CANNOT credit the evil act of one agent to the other agent.
.
God bless

 

[o_mlly]

The consequences of that act (which are aspects of the circumstances) are that five people are saved, and one person dies.

Heresy, (from the Greek – haíresis, to pick or choose) begins with lifting out of context (and twisting) one sentence and elevating that misinterpretation as the controlling thought of the entire document.

A correct reading of VS precisely discloses the many errors of your argument. To wit:

[Adherents to Physicalism] would not be able to constitute reference points for moral decisions, because the finalities of these inclinations would be merely “physical” goods, called by some “pre-moral” (p. 48).

While it is always morally illicit to kill an innocent human being, it can be licit, praiseworthy or even imperative to give up one’s own life (cf. Jn 15:13) out of love of neighbour or as a witness to the truth (p. 50).

The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person (p. 52).

[S}ome authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law (p. 56).

If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality (p. 60).

[O]n the other hand specific kinds of behaviour, which are judged to be morally right or wrong only on the basis of a technical calculation of the proportion between the “premoral” or “physical” goods and evils which actually result from the action. This is pushed to the point where a concrete kind of behaviour, even one freely chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process, and not according to the criteria proper to a human act (p. 65).

(Continued)