Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Gorgias]

In the scenario of shooting the gun, there is an option to avoid the deaths altogether by not shooting at all.

Fair enough.

If you don’t understand the difference, that is a huge problem.

By the same token, if you don’t understand the difference between “my actions directly cause a death” and “I choose not to cause a death”, that is a huge problem.

I am just amazed.

Hey… I’m amazing.

“Murder” of 5 by omission is fine.

It’s not murder. You can’t stop death from occurring, so you can choose to not cooperate in the murder of one.

Inaction is just as problematic as action. Don’t you understand it?

I do. Life is problematic. No getting around it.

Murder, on the other hand, is a choice to take an action. Don’t you understand it?

If you have an opportunity to prevent an “immoral” action, and you fail to take advantage of this opportunity - then you are EXACTLY as guilty as the one who actually performs the deed.

Thank you for this insight!

The thing is, you don’t have the “opportunity to prevent an ‘immoral’ action.” What you do have, on the other hand, is the opportunity to refuse to participate in an immoral action.

What would you do? And no evasion this time, please.

I would hope that I do not participate in murder.

“ Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right! ”

Non sequitur, unless by it, you mean “don’t let your faulty sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right”…!

 

[Gorgias]

The hypothetical is ‘What would you do?’ irrespective of your views on the morality of the action.

Nice try. The question is getting at morality, pure and simple. Without the question of ‘morality’, the scenario is nothing more than a Wes Craven horror script.

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?’

I think there’s a more important question: “why or why not?”. That would get at the foundations of your belief system.

 

[Wozza]

I would hope that I do not participate in murder.

I think most people would save their children and ask God for mercy.

 

[Gorgias]

I think most people would save their children and ask God for mercy.

That’s a reasonable response. I think it betrays the understanding that ‘mercy’ would be necessary for having committed an act of murder.

(I also am not trying to assert that it would necessarily rise to the level of a mortal sin. Even without the ‘children’ dynamic present, the ‘duress’ factor would be present in sufficient force, I think, that it wouldn’t have been a completely freely chosen act.)

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I think most people would save their children and ask God for mercy.

That’s a reasonable response. I think it betrays the understanding that ‘mercy’ would be necessary for having committed an act of murder.

(I also am not trying to assert that it would necessarily rise to the level of a mortal sin. Even without the ‘children’ dynamic present, the ‘duress’ factor would be present in sufficient force, I think, that it wouldn’t have been a completely freely chosen act.)

I think that what it comes down to is not whether we are all utilitarians, but to what degree we are.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Supposedly illegalizing abortion would lessen the number of abortion. Would it be utilitarian reasoning to allow less number of abortion happens in back alley clinics?

Are ‘prolife’ people okay with this reasoning?

 

[o_mlly]

Now would it be different for you? Let’s see your analysis.

The point of identifying the relation of the victims to the actor reveals whether one’s argument is based on emotion rather than reason. Changing the decision reveals one is more emotive than rational.

Read my posts in this thread. I agree with @gorgias that Catholic teaching prohibits and cite the authority in support. You disagree. That’s fine but the mission of the forum is to disclose Catholic teaching. Your opinion is not.

 

[o_mlly]

There is nothing wrong with either of them. Obviously being related to the possible victim cannot be disregarded, and it makes the decision partially rational, partially emotional - just like EVERY decision. But you still avoided the direct question (just like @Gorgias did): “what would YOU do if the five default victims are your children? Would YOU redirect the trolley?”

I didn’t avoid the question because my answer does not change – No.

He is unable to quote the official teaching …

The question is: May one commit evil to do good. The answer is clear as I already cited: CCC#1753 “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.”

 

[Gorgias]

If you see someone drowning and you could save him, and you don’t, then you are EXACTLY as responsible for the death as if you would push him under the water. Is it possible that you don’t understand this? Answer?

I answer that "if you see someone drowning and you could save him without killing an innocent bystander, and you don’t, then you have committed a sin of omission. Not “exactly as responsible for his death as if you had pushed him under water,” but there’s responsibility there.

However, if you have to kill a bystander to save him, then no. That’s not a sin of omission.

No answer. And none will come.

Like I said, I hope I would do what is moral. Since this is a thought experiment, my answer remains “not kill anyone.”

My sense of morality is very simple.

I’ve noticed. It appears to be the same as the condemnation in Judges 21:25. Mine is simple, too: “do no harm.”

If I am unable to make that choice - due to some external circumstances - then I am obliged to minimize the damage.

That’s the whole point: the “external circumstances” are what prevent a moral actor from pushing the lever. By the very terms of the set up of the experiment, there is no other act which you can take to “minimize the damage”. Therefore… no action.

But you still avoided the direct question (just like @Gorgias did):

I’ve answered it twice now. Reading skills, maga…

He is unable to quote the official teaching to this specific problem.

And again: there is no specific teaching for this specific formulation of the question. Asking for it demonstrates your unreasonableness.

The question is: May one commit evil to do good. The answer is clear as I already cited: CCC#1753 “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.”

He’s already seen that, IIRC. He wants a citation in the Catechism that literally says, “you can’t push the lever in the trolley problem, even if the five in the trolley are your own children.”

 

[Gorgias]

Again, only half of the question. It must be followed by: “but if harm cannot be avoided, then cause as little as possible.”

That’s not what Catholic moral teaching prescribes…

Sure there is. One person to die is less than five persons to die.

And that’s precisely the kind of arithmetic that’s an improper application of double effect.

How would you use the catechism to decide the course of action in this case?

I wouldn’t. I’d leave the decision to the doctor, expecting he’d make the decision on the basis of medical principles, not raw utilitarianism.

 

[o_mlly]

So you would let your five children die. It was not obvious, but now you clarified it. I am glad that you will not have to live through this scenario, but - with all due respect - I don’t believe you.

Your lack of faith in my sincerity is understandable. But faith, or its absence, is a often matter more of feeling. We are lost if we govern our behavior with our feelings rather than our reason.

Just like with cannibalism.

I think not. I may never kill you to eat you.

There are many counter examples, sacrificing people in a war is being one of them. The other ones are self-defense, AND/OR defending others! And the “attacker” does not have be a foaming mouth beast…

I agree that the end does not justify the means, but you cannot separate the end from the means. Such a generic expression cannot be accepted. There are many counter examples, sacrificing people in a war is being one of them. The other ones are self-defense, AND/OR defending others! And the “attacker” does not have be a foaming mouth beast

The self-defense justification. whether in war or not, is always predicated on the presence and lethal action of an unjust attacker. As I wrote, their is no unjust attacker present in the trolley exercise.

… it is possible that his simple existence presents a lethal danger to others.

The mere existence of one who poses a potential lethal threat is not sufficient to kill them.

The problem with the catechism is that it does not pay attention to the details. That is why it is unacceptable. And, of course what is “evil” is not defined. And finally, whether an action is morally good or not depends on the ethical system one uses. The same action, performed under the same circumstances will have a different evaluation depending upon the ethical system being used.

That you disagree with the catechism is clear. But your arguments as to why the catechism is wrong are not rational but emotional. I cannot argue with how you feel, only with how you think

 

[Gorgias]

That is not my problem.

When you come to a Catholic web forum, and enter into a discussion on “apologetics” and “philosophy”, you should kinda realize that you’re going to be discussing things in a Catholic context. So… yeah: kinda is your problem.

It should be intuitively obvious.

For anyone who believes in a particular construct, the tenets of that construct seem “obvious” (and those of other constructs seem “bizarre”). Too much navel-gazing, though, gets you nowhere…

Evading, again? Either the Catechism contains the guiding principle, or it does not.

Not evading. The Catechsim does describe the guiding principles. And, they’ve been quoted to you in this thread, over and again.

Have you read the novel “Alive” about the plane that went down in the Andes and where the passengers had to resort to cannibalism?

Chose to resort to cannibalism. Big difference.

 

[o_mlly]

Did you sit down and ponder what would you do in the specific scenario of your children begging you to save them?

Did you not sit down and imagine the face of the innocent infant on the track whom you would kill, the faces of her mother and father? Did you wish selfishly to spare your grief by being the instrument of theirs?

Cannibalism can be eating the already dead.

Which is exactly why cannibalism does not apply to any analysis of the trolley scenario.

No, it is not. The foreseeable lethal outcome is sufficient to invoke it.

The mere existence of a lethally contagious person justifies murder? Once again, your opinion but not Catholic teaching.

if an innocent person unknowingly spreads a lethal infection …

An “unknowing spreading” person is still an innocent person and may not be directly attacked. You miss the underlying principle that your right to life is no greater than their right to life.

Are you really expected to “roll over” and just let it happen? This is serious enough to demand that the catechism be vocal about it. The silence is unpardonable, and it allows to make one their own rational decision.

The catechism is quite vocal about direct attacks on innocent persons – No, you may not. Imagine the contagious person is your infant daughter. If that changes your decision then you disclose your emotion and not your “rational decision” on the matter.

The problem is that the catechism is deficient. It does not contain the necessary details. Remember, the devil is in the details. And life is sufficiently complicated that dilemmas cannot be “solved” with a few sound bytes.

On this thread, as I’ve cited the catechism is not deficient but teaches the principles(not “sound bites”) necessary to judge the act good or evil. You reject the principles to arrive at your conclusion.

 

[o_mlly]

Can you point out some authoritative writ which explicitly says that you must roll over and accept a lethal infection just because the already infected person does not intentionally try to infect you?

Sure. CCC#[2258] Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

56 CDF, instruction, Donum vitae , intro. 5.

On its part, the Magisterium of the Church offers to human reason in this field too the light of Revelation: the doctrine concerning man taught by the Magisterium contains many elements which throw light on the problems being faced here. From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has "wished for himself " (16) and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God; (17) his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves “the creative action of God” (18) and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.(19) God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being.

No wonder that we have an unbridgeable difference in opinion.

I think we have a difference but mine is a reasoned position from Catholic principles whereas yours is an opinion without principles or reasons.

 

[Wozza]

I wouldn’t. I’d leave the decision to the doctor, expecting he’d make the decision on the basis of medical principles, not raw utilitarianism.

The definition of triage, which all doctors deal with on a daily basis is ‘medical utilitarianism’. Glad that you agree with it.

 

[Wozza]

The mere existence of one who poses a potential lethal threat is not sufficient to kill them.

I guess we’re lucky you never joined the forces.

‘Sorry sir, I can’t fire at them until they fire at us. Yes sir, I know they’re moving into a superior position. Yes sir, I can see their guns trained on us. Yes sir, I can see them moving their artillery into place. Yes sir, I agree that they pose a potential threat. No sir, that’s not sufficient reason for me to shoot.’

 

[QwertyGirl]

It’s a nice dodge, but nevertheless, the direct action kills an innocent against his will. How many innocents are you willing to kill, anyway

One to four, if that is how many it takes to save five.

Not a pleasant situation to be in. But I would need to do what is right, under the binary circumstance.

 

[o_mlly]

Fortunately the catechism is NOT an infallible document, just a human concoction. Since it is not a dogma, it can be changed.

Implied in your comment is a reversal of your claim that the catechism is deficient. Now, we agree: Catholic teaching proscribes the observer from throwing the switch but you now claim that you may dismiss the teaching. I guess that’s an improvement.

Until he actively threatens you, he is supposed to be considered “innocent”.

Yes, please seek the advice of Catholic authorities as you are woefully informed on Catholic morality as the above comment shows.

 

[o_mlly]

‘Sorry sir, I can’t fire at them until they fire at us. Yes sir, I know they’re moving into a superior position. Yes sir, I can see their guns trained on us. Yes sir, I can see them moving their artillery into place. Yes sir, I agree that they pose a potential threat. No sir, that’s not sufficient reason for me to shoot.’

Another uninformed poster’s weak attempt at sarcasm on Catholic morality. I fear your depth on the matter would suggest you could drown in a bird bath.

 

[o_mlly]

I suspect you wanted to say “woefully UN informed”.

No. You are woefully, that is very badly, informed. Uninformed would apply only to the ignorant.

Where are they? And who are they? How can I get answers from them?

I fear you, like most Protestants, have itchy ears and go from church to church until they hear what they want to hear. Good luck.