Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

Not just WHAT is the Catholic thinking, but WHY is the Catholic thinking “better” or “superior” or “more preferable” to the secular method. And that is what is sorely missing . Why is choosing the death of one person in the trolley example is “immoral”, while choosing the death of five people is not immoral? Sure, we hear that this is what the church teaches, but there is no argument for it. It is all: “because the church says so”.

I refer you to post#41 from August:

The end never makes moral an act evil in its object. Only in the abstract may one consider a human act as neutral. In the concrete, all human acts are moral or immoral. To be a moral human act the act must be good in all three of its sources – object, intent and circumstances.

Your description of the train trolley dilemma may be considered concrete if no other circumstances than those given exist bear on the determination of the morality of the act.

The direct effect of the act is the unintended killing of an innocent life. Is this ever permissible? No, “the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation” (CCC#1753).

The teaching seems counter intuitive to a consequentialist. This may be so if the consequentialist believes the highest moral good is human life. But if one sees that minimizing moral evil, the offenses against God, is a higher good then the teaching makes sense.

The moral evil that is already present was caused by the one who tied the innocents to the track. There is nothing the observer can do to reverse this moral evil. The observer can prevent the physical evil of death of five but physical evil does not offend God. If preventing the physical evil can only be accomplished by an increase in moral evil, the killing of one innocent, then such an act is not permitted.

The argument hinges on whether one may offend God to prevent physical evils. I think not.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you expected to “roll over” and let many people die just because you did not do what was necessary to prevent this outcome?

Would you do anything rather than “roll over”?

 

[Bender]

Would you do anything rather than “roll over”?

Obviously, I would protect the people who are put into lethal danger - even if that happened involuntarily and unknowingly. And if the only possible protection would include to kill the responsible party, then that is what needs to be done. Even if the person is “innocent”.

What does the church say about this scenario? Nothing?

 

[o_mlly]

Would you do anything rather than “roll over”?

Not an answer. Let me rephrase the question. What would you not do rather than “roll over”?

For instance, the madwoman who tied everyone to the tracks is present. She has a remote control that will stop the trolley. She says to the bystander, “Kill yourself and I’ll stop the trolley and nobody but you will die”. What should the bystander do?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

In a just war, you are allowed to kill the enemy. But you must also be willing to sacrifice the lives of some of your own combatants to save the lives of many.

Self-defense against an unjust aggressor is long been held as permissible by the Church. No one “sacrifices the lives” of anyone in a just war. All homicides are evil.

As per the trolley and plane scenarios, you don’t want anyone to be killed but the lives of many versus the life of one can be a simple calculation.

There is no unjust aggressor in the trolley case so no comparison to a just war can be made. The communist adage that a few must be sacrificed for the good of the many is not Catholic thinking. You may, of course, believe what you will but the forum’s mission is to explain Catholic thinking.

If you think that no sacrifices are made during war then that comes across as something of a naive view. It’s a given that officers send men into given situations knowing full well that they will be killed. They will sacrifice a platoon for the sake of the battallion. They will sacrifice a battalion for the sake of the division. And that of the division for the sake of victory.

I’m aware of the church’s view on killing during a just war. But is there a pisition on sacrificing lives? I’m unaware of it.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m aware of the church’s view on killing during a just war. But is there a pisition on sacrificing lives? I’m unaware of it.

Define what you mean by “sacrifice” as I take it you do not mean the word’s normal meaning.

sac·ri·fice

/ˈsakrəˌfīs/

noun

noun: sacrifice ; plural noun: sacrifices

1. an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m aware of the church’s view on killing during a just war. But is there a pisition on sacrificing lives? I’m unaware of it.

Define what you mean by “sacrifice” as I take it you do not mean the word’s normal meaning.

sac·ri·fice

/ˈsakrəˌfīs/

noun

noun: sacrifice ; plural noun: sacrifices

1. an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure.

Are you serious? I explained exactly what I meant using examples in the last post. Please don’t be obtuse.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you serious? I explained exactly what I meant using examples in the last post. Please don’t be obtuse.

Yes, I am serious. As I wrote, “No one is sacrificed in war.” Please don’t be ignorant and sloppy in your use of words.

It appears you do not understand just war theory and, as it does not apply to the trolley case, start another thread.

 

[o_mlly]

Did you swallow the cyanide pill as the madwoman required in order to save all the others? If you do, the live body count at the end is better than throwing the switch (6 to 1 instead of 5 to 1).

That’s is the “preferred action” according to your stated principle …

… the killing of one person to save many is the preferred action.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you serious? I explained exactly what I meant using examples in the last post. Please don’t be obtuse.

Yes, I am serious. As I wrote, “No one is sacrificed in war.”

But as I explained, and gave examples, that is what exactly happens in combat situations. In a just war. By those who are justified in waging it.

You can choose to address that or not as you wish.

 

[Bender]

Did you swallow the cyanide pill as the madwoman required in order to save all the others? If you do, the live body count at the end is better than throwing the switch (6 to 1 instead of 5 to 1).

I asked you a question, and you refused to answer. Once you answer it, I will give my response to your question.

 

[o_mlly]

I answered the question and I don’t have time to play checkers right now.

So, if you took the pill then RIP. At least you followed your own principle.

If you did not then apparently you have no principle in this matter.

 

[Ender]

“If I direct the train to the one, or I switch the electricity flow to the one, or I switch the rifle to the one, do I attack the one?”

I think all this does is substitute one undefined term for another.

I thought you might have bookmarked that on-line resource, read it a bit, given it was given to you (more than once) because it was quite on-point for a discussion of just these issues.

I did, and I have. I didn’t find it helpful. You are welcome to cite whatever comment you find clarifying.

The death is one step away, but still caused by the act. But that’s not the right moral analysis because to act on the woman’s body in the circumstances is right and proper.

For me, the minimum criterion that must be satisfied in this discussion is that whatever argument is applied in one case be applied equally in all of them. In this argument you justify the death of the fetus by focusing on what is just for the mother, but if you apply that same argument to the trolley case then you would have to justify throwing the switch because it is proper for the five. If you can ignore the death of the fetus because of what is proper for the mother then you should equally ignore the death of the one because of what is proper for the five.

But physical knock on effects don’t necessarily change the moral directness. Eg. A sabotage that results in foreseeable (inevitable?) death is likely more properly deemed a homicide than vandalism with an incidental death.

We’ve been debating “moral directness” for some time now and are no closer to a definition than we were 500 posts ago. I agree with your example, but I don’t find it relevant. That a consequence is foreseen does not mean it is intended; that’s the whole premise of double effect.

Why is choosing the death of one person in the trolley example is “immoral”, while choosing the death of five people is not immoral? Sure, we hear that this is what the church teaches, but there is no argument for it. It is all: “because the church says so”.

Letting the five die in this case is not church teaching. It is an opinion on what the church teaches. My opinion on the matter is just the opposite and is what has been debated since the thread was started.

 

[Rau]

For me, the minimum criterion that must be satisfied in this discussion is that whatever argument is applied in one case be applied equally in all of them. In this argument you justify the death of the fetus by focusing on what is just for the mother, but if you apply that same argument to the trolley case then you would have to justify throwing the switch because it is proper for the five. If you can ignore the death of the fetus because of what is proper for the mother then you should equally ignore the death of the one because of what is proper for the five.

It is just for mum to direct medical treatment at herself. It is not just form mum to attack her child. It’s about what is done, not about effects.

 

[Rau]

That a consequence is foreseen does not mean it is intended; that’s the whole premise of double effect.

Double effect does not countenance evil in the object. It is necessary to come to grips with the conclusion that the act to throw the lever is in itself evil. There’s a good object and an evil object. They can’t be traded off like mere consequences. I know, I know, just an assertion…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Double effect does not countenance evil in the object. It is necessary to come to grips with the conclusion that the act to throw the lever is in itself evil. There’s a good object and an evil object. They can’t be traded off like mere consequences. I know, I know, just an assertion…

That’s right. It is just an assertion. The whole argument is over whether there is evil in the object, which of course depends on what the object actually is. Since that is also a point of disagreement, you cannot assume it is settled and move on as if it were.

The two main points in double effect that are most relevant here are (1.) whether the act itself is evil in and of itself, and (2) whether the desired effect is accomplished by means of an evil outcome. Which one do you think you can show is being violated?

 

[Rau]

The two main points in double effect that are most relevant here are (1.) whether the act itself is evil in and of itself…

There is no opening for double-effect reasoning here since it relies on a good object. You can’t choose an act that directs a train at one innocent because that act simultaneously saves others. Can you show that act is wholly good?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The two main points in double effect that are most relevant here are (1.) whether the act itself is evil in and of itself…

There is no opening for double-effect reasoning here since it relies on a good object.

Again with the unresolved object! The 4 conditions for double effect do not even mention the term “object”. Here is the formulation from Aquinas:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

Now can you show this does not apply without referring to terms not mentioned in this formulation?

 

[Rau]

Now can you show this does not apply without referring to terms not mentioned in this formulation?

Can you show “the act itself” is wholly good. That’s the act that directs the train at the one innocent? Leaf, you mentioned you “don’t understand this moral object stuff”. That makes the analysis of the morality of human acts difficult. The term warrants use in the Catechism even.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Now can you show this does not apply without referring to terms not mentioned in this formulation?

Can you show “the act itself” is wholly good. That’s the act that directs the train at the one innocent? Leaf, you mentioned you “don’t understand this moral object stuff”. That makes the analysis of the morality of human acts difficult. The term warrants use in the Catechism even.

The act itself does not include consequences, some of which might be evil and some might be good. The act itself is the act of throwing a switch. That’s all. It is morally neutral. You will have to look to the other 3 conditions to find anything about consequences, means, etc.