Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Wozza]

1. When that innocent bystander makes the choice of picking a room or throwing a switch they have gone from observing evil, or trying to stop it, to participating in evil.

I think this scenario is completely different. In throwing a switch you are physically (yet indirectly) causing the death of someone. In the case of the fat guy, you are directly causing a death. More people baulk at the second scenario.

But what if the question in my two room scenario was ‘Pick a room and we’ll set the people free’.

Now you are actively saving 5 five people. It’s a similar situation whereby operating on a mother saves her life but indirectly causes the death of the child she is carrying.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. Which you denied first, and when it became convenient, you embraced. That is the bad faith.

Seriously? No. Let’s try again: you echoed the sentiment that said “hey, there was only one option for action!” and I replied “excuse me: you said ‘inaction’ was ‘action’, so clearly, there are two options.”

If you don’t want to live by the implications of your assertions, then don’t expect that we won’t remind you of the claims you made and are now backing away from. And please: don’t think you’ll be able to blame your waffling on others.
MAGA-huelye:

If you wish to obfuscate, you can call it the “object”.

The context of our discussion is the Catholic approach to moral theology, isn’t it? Then we should use the terms that are used in that context. Which, as it were, includes “object”, not “physical action.”
MAGA-huelye:

Objective is fine, absolute is NOT. (If you understand the difference. Many don’t.)

This might be a direction for an interesting discussion. It would be a statement of objective morality to say “it is immoral to kill an innocent against his will”, wouldn’t it?
MAGA-huelye:

because the word “innocent” is not just undefined, it is irrelevant - tries to skew the problem with some emotionalism.

Hardly. It’s part and parcel of the context. If the actor being killed was an aggressor, we wouldn’t call him an “innocent”. If there’s a different term you’d prefer to use, I’m game. By-stander, perhaps?
MAGA-huelye:

Every ethical system endorses self-defense (or the defense of others), as long as the defense is less than or commensurate to the danger, and cannot be avoided.

Close. Not quite, but close. It’s immoral to kill a by-stander in the act of defending myself. Heck, it’s immoral to kill an aggressor in the act of defending myself. (Unless, of course, my intent is “self-defense”, rather than “killing”.)
MAGA-huelye:

some level of utilitarianism is unavoidable.

The Catholic Church disagrees with you.

I fail to see any better morality in not flipping the switch.

The “better morality” is you aren’t the cause of the death of an innocent bystander.

Either what I wrote is “Not true” or we’re “saying the same thing”. Which is it?

It’s not true that “we cannot know objectively whether a human act is sinful”. It’s is true that we appear to be saying the same thing regarding the subjective dimension of sin.

Shall we organize a few runaway trolley scenarios with different number of possible victims?

LOL!
Not ten posts after I pointed out that this is precisely the intent of the trolley thought experiment (namely, to push a person into admitting that they are actually an adherent to utilitarianism), you verify that assertion with this question. Bravo!

Is a cup half empty or half full?

Depends. Did you half-kill the person holding the cup?

 

[goout]

What if one of the five people is a psychopath, and let’s say he is diagnosed with a condition that making it likely he will kill many people.
But it won’t happen for a few years.
And in the meantime a vaccine is available to cure this man of his propensity to potentially murder, but it’s not 100% sure if that vaccine will be ready before he commits the potential murders.

Then what, huh?

 

[o_mlly]

It’s not true that “we cannot know objectively whether a human act is sinful”.

Again you assert without citing an authority in support. I gave you the CCC# that supports my
CCC**[1793]** If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.

CCC**[1860]** Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.

So, only mind readers can know the other’s sin. There is only one mind reader – God.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I talked about something like this a couple of years ago. I was dismayed that I was the only one who said they would not kill a person to save multiple people. That person is going along, not in danger of dying soon, and if I come along and murder him, well, that would be murder. I couldn’t believe I was the only one who saw that. So, I asked our priest about the problem. He said you can’t quantify human life like that. You can’t kill the one person to save five or a hundred. Try to stop or slow the train, try to signal, whatever, do whatever you can, but you don’t kill a person in your zeal to stop an accident. So I felt vindicated in my assessment of the problem, having my priest agree with me.

 

[Gorgias]

Again you assert without citing an authority in support.

sigh

You’re citing passages that talk about the subjective nature of sin. We’re in agreement that humans cannot know this about each other.

But, you’re making claims about the objective nature of sin which can be observed and known. If you bash me over the head with a rock, I know you’ve sinned. (I have no idea whether it’s mortal or venial, but I know you’ve sinned.)

By the way… ask a few more priests.

What her priest told her was the Catholic teaching on moral theology. If she asks more priests, she should get more confirmation of the answer.

Besides, you don’t kill the person , the trolley does.

Right: you don’t kill the person, the bullet does.

I was wondering if changing the parameters would make you understand that there IS a difference, and that the difference is highly significant. The choice is either directly killing one atheist heathen (not merely redirecting a trolley) and thereby preventing the death of ALL the Catholics in the world (from the pope, down to every cardinal, bishop, priest, laymen…) thereby eradicating the whole Catholicism from the Earth.

Again, you’re supporting my point: the goal of the thought experiment is to push a person to the point where you hope they say, “oh, ok… I’m really a closet utilitarianist.” sigh.

 

[o_mlly]

sigh

You’re citing passages that talk about the subjective nature of sin. We’re in agreement that humans cannot know this about each other.

But, you’re making claims about the objective nature of sin which can be observed and known . If you bash me over the head with a rock, I know you’ve sinned . (I have no idea whether it’s mortal or venial, but I know you’ve sinned.)

Sighhhhhhhhh …

Apparently, you have no authority to support what is merely your opinion. That’s fine but that is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

Apparently, you have no authority to support what is merely your opinion.

Seriously?

From the Catechism:

[1853] Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.”

OK, so: take a minute and think about this. If sins can be distinguished, and the means by which they can be distinguished is their objects, and we can classify them and list them… then they’re objectively discernable. QED.

 

[o_mlly]

From the Catechism:

[1853] Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.”

Friend, your citation does not teach what you claim. The heading for 1853 is III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS. The the characterization of the kinds and roots of sin first requires that a sin has been commited.

Tod determine the nature of win, read on to 1859 and 1960. Sin always requires as, I cited, knowledge and free will.

[1859] Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

[1860] Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense …

I don’t think I can make the teaching any clearer to another unless the other claims to be invincibly ignorant.

Perhaps this will help. All sin involves evil acts. But not all evil acts are sinful. Agree?

 

[Gorgias]

Friend, your citation does not teach what you claim. The heading for 1853 is III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS . The the characterization of the kinds and roots of sin first requires that a sin has been commited.

Whatever.

 

[Gorgias]

But it is not certain.

No, it’s not.

Another priest might be more rational give her the wrong answer about Catholic moral teaching.

There we go. Fixed that for ya.

What it comes down to is that the answer I’m giving you isn’t one I’m choosing merely because it’s my personal opinion. It also happens to be the teaching of the Church in terms of morality.

You have to aim the gun and pull the trigger (and you can choose not to go ahead)… on the other hand the trolley is already in motion, and your only choice is to let it mow down five people, or only one.

And in that case, you have to “aim” the trolley by switching the track (and, you can choose not to go ahead with that action, too!). It boils down to the same choice in either scenario: decide to take an action which will kill a person, or decide not to do so.

I have very little hope to see an open admission, but maybe they will start to THINK for themselves.

Ahh, yes. That old red herring: Catholics only think the way they do because they don’t think for themselves. If only they were more honest and actually did their own thing!!!

If those 5 people would be your five children, would you just stay without interfering? Honestly?

Either way, whether it were my children or five strangers, I’d be committing murder by toggling the track at the switch.

 

[Asinner]

The part of “double effect” that you’re ignoring in order to make your argument tenable is the part that says that the action cannot cause the bad effect.

That is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. It’s driving me nuts how you misunderstand the principle of the double effect. The whole point is that an action can have two effects, a good one and a bad one, and the principle of the double effect allows us to discern when we can take the action irrespective of the bad effect.

I think the part you’re confused about is that the double effect principle does not allow you to take the action if the bad effect is the direct cause of the good effect. That is not the case in this hypothetical situation. The five people are saved regardless of whether the one poor soul is crushed or not.

In my estimation, the principle of the double effect allows someone to save the five people by flipping the switch, but it doesn’t require it, and I personally wouldn’t do it.

 

[Gorgias]

The whole point is that an action can have two effects, a good one and a bad one, and the principle of the double effect allows us to discern when we can take the action irrespective of the bad effect.

I think the part you’re confused about is that the double effect principle does not allow you to take the action if the bad effect is the direct cause of the good effect.

Let me think about that for a minute. I might have been misstating the argument in this respect…

In my estimation, the principle of the double effect allows someone to save the five people by flipping the switch

That’s the part that I still think is incorrect, though. “Double effect” doesn’t equate to utilitarianism, and “five or one?” is precisely that kind of argument…

 

[Asinner]

“Double effect” doesn’t equate to utilitarianism, and “five or one?” is precisely that kind of argument…

Right, this is the part we have to be careful with. Catholics should reject utilitarianism; morality is not a math equation. I think the way I’m looking at it is that the double effect allows you to save a life (or in this hypothetical, five) even if it leads to loss of life. This is because the DE requires the desired good outcome to proportionate to the bad, and saving human life is propotionate to the loss of human life.

 

[o_mlly]

If those 5 people would be your five children, would you just stay without interfering?

Would it make a difference to you if the one was your infant child?

I think the part you’re confused about is that the double effect principle does not allow you to take the action if the bad effect is the direct cause of the good effect.

Any violation of the four principles negate the permit allowed in the double effect. The first principle is the act itself must not be intrinsically evil.

The direct attack on an innocent human being is ceteris paribus intrinsically evil. (An indirect attack on innocents may be permissible if the act is a direct attack on unjust aggressors with the required intent and proportionality. There is no unjust aggressor in the trolley scenario.)

 

[Gorgias]

Get off your high horse. You are not qualified.

Have a lovely day. If you need me to shout that greeting so that you can hear it from your high horse, I will.

One more time, under the stipulated circumstances.

Think real hard for a second. Do you really think there’s a manual out there that lists each of these by every possible permutation of possible scenarios? (And when you, we hope, recognize that this is a silly request, you’ll realize that what is expressed, authoritatively and by the Church, are the general guides that we’ve been discussing.)

expressed in some dogma or an ex-cathedra proclamation of the pope. Nothing else will do.

You’ll be waiting quite a long time, I’m afraid. “You need to answer my personal question on this minor point of law” doesn’t fly with organizations.

I was hoping that you understand. The bullet must be sent on its way by you . You have a choice to do it, or not. The trolley is already in motion. You have no option to stop the trolley.

And I was hoping that you understand. Although the trolley is in motion, it’s your option to direct it at the innocent bystander. You have a choice to direct it there, or not. It’s. The. Same. Thing.

I hope that you are different from Gorgias, who avoids the answers.

Nah. I’ve given you the answer. You just hate it. (The answer is “thou shalt not murder”. Period. Full stop.)

 

[Gorgias]

Sneaky NON-answer. The question was, what would you do, not how you would evaluate the deed.

Just saw this… kinda skipped over it, earlier.

Of course the point is to see if you would have a “breaking point”, where allowing the five (or more) people to die (or erasing the whole Catholic faith) becomes unacceptable to you.

So, in other words, the whole point of the argument is to try to dissuade people from staying true to the Catholic belief system to which they wish to be members? Striking honesty in that assertion, there…

 

[Wozza]

Either way, whether it were my children or five strangers, I’d be committing murder by toggling the track at the switch.

That wasn’t the question. You were asked if you’d sacrifice the one to save your five children. If what you have been arguing is true then the identity of the five shouldn’t matter. Your action should be the same - although your reaction might be different.

 

[Gorgias]

Your action should be the same - although your reaction might be different.

Correct.

Now, let’s get back to the real question at stake: it’s not “what would I do”, but “what is the morality of the act” that’s at stake.

Would a parent blanch at an outcome that affected his children? Of course! Would a parent condemn himself to hell for eternity to save the life of his children? Perhaps! (After all, doesn’t St Paul say much the same thing?) The only interesting question is “would it be moral for me to do this?”…

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Your action should be the same - although your reaction might be different.

Correct.

Now, let’s get back to the real question at stake: it’s not “what would I do”, but “what is the morality of the act” that’s at stake.

Would a parent blanch at an outcome that affected his children? Of course! Would a parent condemn himself to hell for eternity to save the life of his children? Perhaps! (After all, doesn’t St Paul say much the same thing?) The only interesting question is “would it be moral for me to do this?”…

The hypothetical is ‘What would you do?’ irrespective of your views on the morality of the action. The scenario is not occuring in a week’s time so that you can mull it over and discuss it with others. It’s a snap decision. The question is then not ‘Would it be moral?’ but a post hoc ‘Was it moral?’

There’s a natural follow up to the question for all those who pulled the lever: ‘Will God send me to hell for what I did?’