Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

The trolley running over him.

I refer you to my post #680. I understand if new comers to the thread are not willing to read the 800 + posts, but it is not fair to the rest of us to go over old territory because newbies jump in late.

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.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The trolley running over him.

OK, I see. No, today I don’t have time to read 800+ posts. Maybe later.

I have to wonder, then, if the man who ran his motorcycle into certain death to save others committed suicide, or gave his life heroically through a death foreseen but not wanted. But I will leave that for another time.

 

[Inquiry]

I think we are getting bogged down in ambiguity not equivocation.

Equivocation is a specific type of ambiguity.

What else is needed that is missing?

Something to show that foreseen lethality is a necessary and sufficient condition of direct killing. You’ve only shown that the bystander knows a diverted trolley will kill the man, you haven’t shown that makes it direct given the conditions of the trolley problem.

And I ask again, What is the direct cause of the innocent person’s death? Will no one give me an answer other than “the trolley” did it which is nonsense.

Oh it is definitely the trolley that was adjusted by the bystander. The question at hand is if that the direct effect or the indirect effect of his actions.
And while we are on the subject what saved the five men is the lack of a trolley because it was adjusted by the bystander. The question at hand is if that is the direct effect or the indirect effect.

Inquiry:

No, there is no such presumption, especially since the distinction between direct, indirect, and killing in general has been a major topic of the thread.

Well, maybe not for you but for JPII and me it is.

Don’t even try. JPII is not backing up your inexact terminology. That is possibly the most pointless appeal to authority I’ve seen.

Inquiry:

Also note that even in VS p 80 is about things that are intrinsically evil, and so already established the context was already narrowed down by the time we get to your quote.

I have no idea what that means.

My fault. That should have read:
Also note that VS p 80 regards things that are intrinsically evil, and so the context was already narrowed down by the time it gets to the part you quoted.

I messed that one up.

 

[Inquiry]

I will make no more replies on the plan scenario until the case is fully explained by anyone who cares to do so showing act, moral object, intent, circumstances.

I did a comparison of the Trolley problem to the Plane problem back in #790. As far as I can tell the two have no significant difference morally.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

HomeschoolDad:

The trolley running over him.

I refer you to my post #680. I understand if new comers to the thread are not willing to read the 800 + posts, but it is not fair to the rest of us to go over old territory because newbies jump in late.

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.”

Of course o_mlly did not ask the question, “what is the moral agent”. o_mlly asked “what was the direct cause of the death of the one on the track.” And of course HomeschoolDad’s answer was exactly right. But now o_mlly tries to belittle him by changing the question after he answered it. Not nice, o_mlly!

I will make no more replies on the plan scenario until the case is fully explained by anyone who cares to do so showing act, moral object, intent, circumstances.

There’s an artificial pre-condition if I every saw one. Clearly o_mlly cannot distinguish between the two scenarios.

Analyzing examples in terms of differences and similarities is a good way to illuminate general principles. The plane scenario is one such example.

 

[o_mlly]

I have to wonder, then, if the man who ran his motorcycle into certain death to save others committed suicide, or gave his life heroically through a death foreseen but not wanted. But I will leave that for another time.

Start a new thread. Sounds like a good morality question.

 

[o_mlly]

Equivocation is a specific type of ambiguity.

Please cite where a have used any key term in one way and then in another in this thread.

Something to show that foreseen lethality is a necessary and sufficient condition of direct killing. You’ve only shown that the bystander knows a diverted trolley will kill the man, you haven’t shown that makes it direct given the conditions of the trolley problem.

Tell me what you think is missing? Did you give me your definition of “direct” yet showing how mine is insufficient? Until you do debating will not be productive.

Oh it is definitely the trolley that was adjusted by the bystander. The question at hand is if that the direct effect or the indirect effect of his actions.

Nonsense. “Adjusted”? Really? “Your honor, the boulder killed the man. All I did was adjust it so’s it fell on his head.”

I’m retracing old territory here so I’m going to hold off replying to any posts until @Ender’s replies to my last post. We may have a breakthrough. If so, I hope to wrap this one up. But no worries. The trolley case comes up here every couple of years. Stay tuned.

@Ender?

Is this a fair analysis of your argument on the morality of the bystander’s act?

Moral object: Throw the switch to divert the trolley.
Intent: Save five.
Circumstances: Foresees five saved.
Foresees one killed.

 

[Elf01]

Tell me what you think is missing? Did you give me your definition of “direct” yet showing how mine is insufficient? Until you do debating will not be productive.

Your definition would also classify removing the tube as a direct killing.

 

[Inquiry]

Tell me what you think is missing?

Do you know what I’m talking about when I say necessary and sufficient conditions? I had assumed so, but it doesn’t sound like it now.

A necessary condition is one that is required to meet a definition, but is not enough on its own. Sufficient conditions are ones that if you have them you know you meet a definition. The set of all necessary conditions would be a sufficient condition, though sometimes something can be sufficient on its own.

You have said on multiple occasions that foreseeable lethality is enough to show direct killing. It is trivial to show that this is not the case since we have cases where the killing is foreseeable but indirect. You’ve even stated some of them. Clearly there is at least one other necessary condition. What is it?

You haven’t even given your full definition.

Inquiry:

Oh it is definitely the trolley that was adjusted by the bystander. The question at hand is if that the direct effect or the indirect effect of his actions.

Nonsense. “Adjusted”? Really? “Your honor, the boulder killed the man. All I did was adjust it so’s it fell on his head.”

You misunderstand. The bystander definitely changed the trajectory of the trolley, but that isn’t a sufficient condition to show that he directly killed the man.

Also, in your sarcastic (I presume) “Your honor” remark you once again removed the presence of other potential victims.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please cite where a have used any key term in one way and then in another in this thread.

Here is a key concept that was used in one way and then in another. It the concept of who is in danger. When comparing the plane case and the trolley problem, o_mlly says everyone in range of the plane was in danger, including people who were not dead head on the current flight path. But o_mlly says of the trolley problem that only the five people on the first track are in danger and not the one man on the other track. Ender has pointed this out too. It is an important concept because it is the grounds on which o_mlly tried to distinguish the two cases. Either that danger zone includes people who are only in danger if the actor makes a change, or it doesn’t.

 

[o_mlly]

@Ender?

Is this a fair analysis of your argument on the morality of the bystander’s act?

Moral object: Throw the switch to divert the trolley.
Intent: Save five.
Circumstances: Foresees five saved.
Foresees one killed.

Looks like @Ender is either AWOL or MIA.

Others are needlessly flying/crashing planes, killing babies, adjusting trajectories and the like. In deference to them, please reply. It is a “Yes” or “No” question. If your answer is “No” kindly correct the analysis I suggested as representing your position. Unlike some, I do not wish straw man another’s argument

 

[Inquiry]

Unlike some, I do not wish straw man another’s argument

This is a slight tangent but oddly relevant to this thread: If you do not wish to, but you do it anyways is that a direct strawman or an indirect one?

 

[o_mlly]

This is a slight tangent but oddly relevant to this thread: If you do not wish to, but you do it anyways is that a direct strawman or an indirect one?

Do you mean like?

You have said on multiple occasions that foreseeable lethality is enough to show direct killing.

Whether you intended to straw man is a subjective consideration Objectively, though, still a straw man.

 

[Inquiry]

Yes, that’s a fantastic example. I’ve asked you multiple times for a more complete definition of direct killing because I know you have one. Yet here you are truncating what I said to make it look otherwise.

So, is that a direct or an indirect strawman?

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve asked you multiple times for a more complete definition of direct killing because I know you have one.

Clairvoyant? If so, then use your supernatural power and tell us all the complete definition.

 

[Inquiry]

Okay, you got me. I am aware of the possibility that you don’t have a better definition, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[o_mlly]

Okay, you got me. I am aware of the possibility that you don’t have a better definition, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It is your doubt so you must try harder to overcome it.

While we wait for @Ender would you care to give us your definition of “indirect”? Ender has so far dodged the question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

While we wait for @Ender would you care to give us your definition of “indirect”? Ender has so far dodged the question.

It doesn’t really matter what our definition of “indirect” is because it was o_mlly who is depending on that concept to support his/her view of the trolley problem. So while o_mlly continues to try to make Ender the issue, I think we can all agree that in the trolley problem, the decision to switch the trolley is not an immoral one.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Okay, you got me. I am aware of the possibility that you don’t have a better definition, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It is your doubt so you must try harder to overcome it.

I’m sure there’s a reason you said this. I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure it exists.

While we wait for @Ender would you care to give us your definition of “indirect”? Ender has so far dodged the question.

We? I am not waiting for Ender, I’m waiting for you. Your explanations for the direct/indirect divide thus far don’t make sense, and they aren’t going to start just because you try to shift attention.

 

[Inquiry]

o_mlly:

While we wait for @Ender would you care to give us your definition of “indirect”? Ender has so far dodged the question.

It doesn’t really matter what our definition of “indirect” is because it was o_mlly who is depending on that concept to support his/her view of the trolley problem. So while o_mlly continues to try to make Ender the issue, I think we can all agree that in the trolley problem, the decision to switch the trolley is not an immoral one.

This is, I think, the way to go. I’m open to the possibility that flipping the switch is inherently wrong, but I haven’t seen a convincing explanation of why yet.