Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Rau]

But you have raised one point I agree with: you say the proximate end is the immediate effect of the act. OK: what is the immediate effect of the act of throwing the switch?

Time-frames are not relevant. The evil in throwing the switch is done as it is thrown. At the same moment, 5 are saved and the other doomed. The (moral) evil is done when the bullet is fired, not when it strikes the target. [ It is done even if it misses.]. I think this is where our essential difference may lie Ender - you are ascribing a time-frame to “proximate end” and thus see the saving as standing alone - in contrast to the later death of the one. But that time gap is irrelevant.

 

[o_mlly]

The thread is about utilitarianism. The discussion has been about whether you can sacrifice one life for the sake of saving many. There have been various scenarios proposed. The one I have proposed isn’t a hypothetical. It has ocurred very many times and will do again. It’s a real life trolley problem.

How do you respond?

You’re persistent. The discussion has been about whether you can directly kill one innocent life for the sake of saving many. The Catholic answer is “No.”

In war, one may throw oneself on the live grenade to save comrades if that is the intention but one may not push another onto the grenade against his will.

One may throw oneself onto the track to save the many but one may not push another onto the track against their will.

 

[o_mlly]

So please, whether you agree with me (and Akin), let’s at least have no more nonsense about my believing that this intention has anything to do with the actual intention font.

I agree with Akin but not you. The English language has words that describe the few intrinsically evil human acts that include intent. Murder is the special case of directly killing an innocent person with intent and is all the more malicious because of it. However, directly killing an innocent person is still intrinsically evil regardless of intent as is arson, adultery, fornication, stealing, etc. Our case involves the direct killing of an innocent not murder. There is no intent component in the object font although it seems your argument requires it.

As to “no more nonsense” about you injecting intent into the object font, we can only take you at your word.

It was to demonstrate that there is an intent included in the object.

since the object included the proximate end, and an end is in fact intended, there is an intent in the object.

What he did not say was that there is no degree of intent in the object.

 

[o_mlly]

But you have raised one point I agree with: you say the proximate end is the immediate effect of the act. OK: what is the immediate effect of the act of throwing the switch?

Me: The proximate end of throwing the switch is to directly kill an innocent one and save five.

You: The proximate end of throwing the switch is to save five.

Why the difference? Because you wrongly impose the subjective intent to define and limit the definition of the object font.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, this reference may be helpful:
Handbook of Moral Theology by Dominic M. Prummer, O.P. – Sensus Fidelium

Really? Cite a book, with no page reference - anything? Your condescending attitude is not helpful.

 

[Ender]

The saving and the killing are simultaneously objects.

No, neither one is the object. Again, the act is throwing the switch: what is the proximate end of that act? There is in fact one proximate end (per JPII and Aquinas), so what is it?

Your goal in acting is surely only to save, but your choice of act entails both objects.

You’re playing with the meaning of the word object. As we all know, the morality of an action is determined by the intention, the object chosen, and the circumstances. The object, according to JPII, consists of an action and its proximate end. What is the immediate consequence of throwing the switch? The proximate end does not include all subsequent consequences; it is the immediate consequence only.

 

[Ender]

Me: The proximate end of throwing the switch is to directly kill an innocent one and save five.

You: The proximate end of throwing the switch is to save five.

Why the difference? Because you wrongly impose the subjective intent to define and limit the definition of the object font.

Why the difference? Because you misquote me; that is not what I said. The intention is to save the five, but that is not the proximate end of the action. The immediate consequence (proximate end) of throwing the switch is to reroute the train. Subsequent to that the five are saved and the one dies, but neither of those consequences is the proximate end.

The intent is to save the five. The means chosen to save them is to reroute the train so it doesn’t hit them. The object is (as I said a long way back) throwing the switch (action) to reroute the train (proximate end).

 

[Rau]

Your condescending attitude is not helpful.

Not condescending at all Leaf. You come to a discussion conceding you don’t understand “this moral object stuff” the core of the debate, and push on not bothering to address that matter, as though it’s a minor issue. The reference I gave you has s clear Table of Contents which directs you in moments to relevant topics.

 

[Rau]

(A) The proximate end of throwing the switch is to directly kill an innocent one and save five.

(B) The proximate end of throwing the switch is to save five.

It is remarkable that one can claim (B) and not think this has anything to do with the fact that one’s act was born of the desire to save 5!

I believe Ender believes timescales matter. He may see the saving as immediate and the killing (he’d say death) as later. This is wrong of course and not necessarily determinative of anything relevant.

 

[Rau]

The object, according to JPII, consists of an action and its proximate end. What is the immediate consequence of throwing the switch? The proximate end does not include all subsequent consequences; it is the immediate consequence only.

Timescales are irrelevant. However, the saving and condemning are simultaneous. Does it help if you image that what is being switched is 10,000 volts? Or the aim of the rifle?

The immediate consequence (proximate end) of throwing the switch is to reroute the train.

The term is “MORAL” object. Not railway mechanics. What is the moral meaning of directing a train away from 5; and toward one? Do we have good, evil or both present in that? Ans: Both.

 

[EndTimes]

So, utilitarianism.
You’re probably familiar with the trolley problem. A train is heading to a place where 5 people are on the rails. I can switch a lever and direct the train to another rail where only one person is. Should I do it even though I would be directly responsible for one death?
I know Catholics aren’t utilitarians and in most cases this coincides with my “moral gut feeling”. I for example think that Raskolnikov in “Crime and Punishment” shouldn’t kill the old lady (that everyone hates) to take her money and save poor people with it. But for some reason, in the trolley problem I feel like I should choose ‘the lesser evil’. Both scenario’s aren’t really that different. What’s the Catholic perspective on this?
Does the rule “the ends don’t satisfie the means” always apply?
Thanks for answers

It took forever to scroll to this first post and I’m sorry I did for it’s lame as in False

YES… It’s just another logic/shmolgic
in-cred-ible / unbelieveable - outside the realm of reason - requires a miracle - speculation …
of which any person wiser than yours truly - would instantly walk away from - with nary a shrug…

But I’m here. I’m driving that train. SomeHow, amazingly - I know what lies ahead - 5 on the track that I’m on - one on that other track - and I’ve also been given the foreknowledge that no matter what I do - they shall die… As In: What The Hay!? Where am I? Dreamland. ?

So, Knowing that it would nonetheless, be easily for one person to likewise miraculously live than five - as I switch to the track of one I Pray to God to save that person in spite of this False scenario that I’m in…

VOILA! God Hears My Prayer and No One Dies . even within this impossible phantasm.

The False Paradoxical Conumdrum has been Solve - Obliterated!

The end justifies the means? So saith the anti-Christian Karl Marx was it?

The Ends Never Justify any Means!

Karl Marx was a known Satanist - according to Pope Pius XII

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your condescending attitude is not helpful.

Not condescending at all Leaf. You come to a discussion conceding you don’t understand “this moral object stuff” the core of the debate, and push on not bothering to address that matter, as though it’s a minor issue. The reference I gave you has s clear Table of Contents which directs you in moments to relevant topics.

I meant I do not understand your use of moral object with respect to the trolley problem, not that I am a moral ignoramus, which your condescending post implies. The fact that you cannot distinguish the trolley problem from the several valid examples of double effect shows that your recourse to “moral object” is a deflection. I doubt if you understand the term any better than I do. The difference is I admit what I don’t understand. You continue to pretend that you do.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The thread is about utilitarianism. The discussion has been about whether you can sacrifice one life for the sake of saving many. There have been various scenarios proposed. The one I have proposed isn’t a hypothetical. It has ocurred very many times and will do again. It’s a real life trolley problem.

How do you respond?

You’re persistent. The discussion has been about whether you can directly kill one innocent life for the sake of saving many. The Catholic answer is “No.”

In war, one may throw oneself on the live grenade to save comrades if that is the intention but one may not push another onto the grenade against his will.

One may throw oneself onto the track to save the many but one may not push another onto the track against their will.

In the trolley problem you are sacrificing one life for the sake of many. That is the problem. Any talk about whether it is directly or indirectly killing that one person is sophistry. No-one WANTS to have that person die.

There is an addendum to the classic problem when, rather than throwing a switch, you actually push someone on the tracks to stop the trolley. An addendum which was conceived to investigate the differences in opinion between having to indirectly or directly cause the death of one to save many.

Throwing the switch is killing indirectly. Throwing someone onto the track is killing directly. Whichever course of action is taken, the one life is sacrificed for the sake of many.

In the case of soldiers being ordered to fight in situations when it is undeniable that many, if not all, will die, those (innocent) lives are undoutedly being sacrificed for the sake of saving others. Clearly and explicity against any moral position you have been arguing.

In fact, it is almost impossible to conceive of a war situation when you don’t have to risk the lives of your own men and in many cases actively decide that men will need to be sacrificed. And we are not just talking of blindly (and immorally) sending men from First World War trenches into a hail of bullets to gain a few meteres of ground.

These hypothetical are meant to highlight one’s moral position on real life situations. It seems that most who argue against what appears obvious to many cannot (or will not) come to terms with what these problems actually mean in real, concrete life or death situations. It appears always to be references to what someone has written or the opinion of this person or that person or this section of the catechism.

Yes. We KNOW what is written. We KNOW the opinions of members of the church. We KNOW what the arguments are. But I don’t see many responses that reflect life with all it’s murky, grey, messy and confusing situations. It’s all black and white. One or the other. Good versus evil.

It has me beat, I can tell you.

 

[Rau]

The difference is I admit what I don’t understand.

But go on all the same to arrive at positions depending on that understanding

I’ve not been condescending. I don’t want to converse with you if you’re going to personalize the debate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I depend only on what I do understand. And I understand when morally identical scenarios are being treated differently.

 

[Rau]

Throwing the switch is killing indirectly. Throwing someone onto the track is killing directly.

Really? In one case you send the train directly at the person and in the other case you send the person precisely where the train will soon be.

Would you say that to set a fire under a man is to indirectly kill him and to throw a man into a fire is to directly kill him?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Throwing the switch is killing indirectly. Throwing someone onto the track is killing directly.

Really? In one case you send the train directly at the person and in the other case you send the person precisely where the train will soon be.

Would you say that to set a fire under a man is to indirectly kill him and to throw a man into a fire is to directly kill him?

As I said, when the problem was devised to find people’s reaction to sacrificing one person to save many, there were two scenarios. One where throwing a switch was an indirect cause of the death and one where you actively pushed the person onto the tracks thereby directly causing his death.

These scenarios have been accepted for many years as being a standard methods of measuring people’s reaction to both scenarios. If they were the same you’d get the same answers for both. But you don’t. More people reject the second option because it requires one to directly cause the person’s death.

Arguing that they are both direct always comes across as an attempt to avoid facing the reality of the answers that the scenarios prompt. It would be superfluous to have the second scenarion if they were both considered direct action. Your interpretation is therefore rejected.

 

[Rau]

One where throwing a switch was an indirect cause of the death

You assume the point you’re trying to establish. Your argument is rejected.

If they were the same you’d get the same answers for both.

You assume that everyone applies the same moral analysis and does so correctly? Very brave assumption indeed.

More people reject the second option because it requires one to directly cause the person’s death.

Or perhaps that it’s just more obvious? Perhaps we should be seeing that we chose to kill the innocent one in both cases?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

One where throwing a switch was an indirect cause of the death

You assume the point you’re trying to establish. Your argument is rejected.

I’m not making an argument. I’m explaining why two scenarios were developed. You are free to accept the explanation or to ignore it. Rejecting it is not an option.

 

[Rau]

I’m not making an argument. I’m explaining why two scenarios were developed. You are free to accept the explanation or to ignore it. Rejecting it is not an option.

That’s quite humorous Fred!