Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

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

Really? All human death is evil. All evil effects have evil causes. What is the evil cause of the innocent one’s death? Physical evils by definition have no moral agency in their cause.

If another bystander whose spouse was the innocent one threw the switch back then did the second bystander indirectly kill the five? No, neither bystander’s intent can change the moral object of the act which is to directly kill.

Exhausting the physics between the hand of the moral agent and the foreseen evil outcome does not change the directness of the evil effect to the act. What is using a broomstick to push someone onto the track, direct or indirect? What is throwing a rock at his head to cause him to fall onto the track? All are the direct causes of the innocent one’s death because there is no mediating moral cause.

The fetus dies directly of starvation, not by trauma at the hand of the surgeon. The surgeon is the indirect cause having excised diseased tissue with the fetus in situ. Unlike the indirect abortion, the innocent one dies directly at the hand of the bystander.

 

[o_mlly]

What is the immediate consequence of throwing the switch? The proximate end does not include all subsequent consequences; it is the immediate consequence only.

The reason some have difficulty following your argument is because you use terms with precise moral meanings interchangeably varying their meaning as suits your argument. The above is an example of one such term – “consequences”. Here you claim something you call the “immediate consequence” as being in the moral object. Earlier you claimed:

All of the consequences, good and bad, are together in the same moral font, and that is the circumstance font. A consequence cannot go in the object font …

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

Really? All human death is evil. All evil effects have evil causes. What is the evil cause of the innocent one’s death? Physical evils by definition have no moral agency in their cause.

Throwing a switch is treated differently to actively pushing the guy. There are different responses when the two questions are asked. Well, three if you are included (do nothing at all whatever the question).

It’s like Leaf’s mentally deranged person gunning people down. You’d stand and stare and wait for someone else to do the dirty work. You’d be the officer in charge umming and ahhing about sending a platoon to fight a suicidal rearguard action to save the company because you don’t want to act immorally. You’d sit in the cockpit and let the plane fly ino the building because you think it’s better to do nothing than take action to reduce the death toll.

O: You can’t shoot him. It’s immmoral.
F: Quite possibly.
O: And a mortal sin.
F: I hear you.
O: You are putting your mortal soul in danger.
F: I think I might be.
O: He is an innocent man.
F: I can’t argue with that.
O: So what are you going to do?
F: I’m going to go for a head shot I think. Pray for us both.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Freddy:

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

Really? All human death is evil. All evil effects have evil causes.

Says no one ever - except o_mlly here. Really, that last sentence is patently false.

The fetus dies directly of starvation, not by trauma at the hand of the surgeon.

Not by trauma, but by starvation - caused by the hand of the surgeon. There is more than one way a surgeon’s hand can cause death.

 

[Inquiry]

LeafByNiggle:

And the “nature of the act” is no less inclusive of the death of the baby as the nature of switching the trolley is inclusive of the death of the one man.

No Leaf. The knife was not directed at the baby, the trolley was directed at the one.

This is the fundamental issue of this entire debate. You and others insist that this distinction is self evident. It is not self evident. I’ll certainly admit that intuitively the death of the baby seems indirect, wheras the death of the man in the trolley problem is less clear by design, but intuition can only be a starting point.

Unless the bystander has heretofore unknown motives (such as hating the one man) his actions are clearly to save the five. We know that the Catholic Church recognizes the permissibility of putting someone in mortal danger (indirect killing) for proportionate and grave reasons. We know from the ectopic pregnancy case that the mortal danger can include certain death, because that is what is in store for the baby if the tube is removed and it is still considered indirect killing. So it is entirely possible to describe the trolley situation as the act of directing the trolley away from the five, which has the undesired consequence of putting the one man in mortal danger.

If, as you say, the killing of one man is unequivocally direct there must be some reason why, and that reason cannot apply to the ectopic pregnancy case. So far, I’ve only seen definitions of direct that would apply equally to both, or which have strange consequences.

For instance, the most commonly cited reason - that in the ectopic pregnancy case the surgeon is targetting the mother and not the child - indicates that the search for an end of the action stops when the first person is affected. That would seem to indicate that if the bystander did not pull the switch himself, but instead shoved a pedestrian into the switch to flip it then death of the man on the track would now be indirect.

So, my question for you is, do you have a definition of direct that clearly demonstrates the man on the track is directly killed and the baby is not?

 

[Rau]

the search for an end of the action stops when the first person is affected.

In the trolley, all persons are affected at the same time (though time is not the central issue, but rather the directness from act to moral end.). The 5 are saved by an act that (simultaneously) directly attacks the one - that being the somewhat perverse (in this case) nature of train tracks. (The good and the evil are done when the lever is thrown; it is not the case that evil is done only when the train hits the one.). The killing is direct when it is inherent to the act done. A knife to the baby (as opposed to a mother requiring surgery); pointing the rifle and squeezing the trigger, a grenade to a small room with both abductor and hostage; pointing a train at a man fixed to the track. Certainty of death (ectopic pregnancy) does not imply directness; that characteristic lies in the act itself.

 

[Inquiry]

You are not actually solving the problem, you are just restating it. In fact you undermine your point. I do agree that the knife to the baby is inherently direct. However, the doctor condemns the baby to death the moment the tube is cut free, his action is the clear cause of that death. By what you just said, the death of the baby should be direct killing. We know that death is indirect, though, so that means there is another element.

Now you seem to be alluding to two things that make a difference: You are either arguing that the baby’s death is indirect because the mother somehow comes first as the target, or that physical interaction is the determining factor for directness (or I suppose some other argument I missed, in which case please let me know).

If you are arguing that the baby’s death is indirect because you act on the mother, then see my previous point about shoving someone into the lever.

If you are arguing that physical interaction is what makes something direct, what about murder by deprivation?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Inquiry:

the search for an end of the action stops when the first person is affected.

In the trolley, all persons are affected at the same time (though time is not the central issue, but rather the directness from act to moral end.).

Well, that isn’t necessarily true, but as you said, time does not matter we can skip it.

The 5 are saved by an act that (simultaneously) directly attacks the one - that being the somewhat perverse (in this case) nature of train tracks.

I could just as well say that the somewhat perverse nature of the way the baby is receiving nutrition and warmth means that when the tube is cut out, the baby immediately begins to starve. That seems just as direct as directing a trolley to a track that will eventually strike one man. No difference noted.

The killing is direct when it is inherent to the act done.

And as I have said, it is inherent to the act of cutting the tube that the baby begins to die of starvation.

 

[Rau]

However, the doctor condemns the baby to death the moment the tube is cut free, his action is the clear cause of that death. By what you just said, the death of the baby should be direct killing. That means there is another element.

Causation does not equate to directness. The mum needed surgery and received it. The surgery causes the death, but indirectly - given it is surgery on the mother which mother required.

I can’t see a difference based on how the lever is pushed. Commanding a line of elephants, tail to trunk to lever is still the same act.

 

[Inquiry]

Precisely! Pushing someone into the lever shouldn’t make a difference. It is absurd. More precisely it is a reductio ad absurdum. That’s why it was a rebuttal.

When you operate on the mother, she is the direct target of your action. The baby is affected by that action, but because it was not the target it is killed indirectly.

If you push someone into the lever, you act upon them. They are the direct target of your action. The man on the tracks is affected by that action, but because he was not the target he is killed indirectly.

In one you want the moral end to stop at your first target, in the other you think the moral end should be somewhere after your first target. That’s not consistent. So either we live with the apparent absurdity, or we look elsewhere for what makes one killing direct and the other indirect.

 

[Rau]

If you push someone into the lever, you act upon them. They are the direct target of your action. The man on the tracks is affected by that action, but because he was not the target he is killed indirectly.

We don’t morally analyse shooting a man as an act on a trigger, which acts on a bullet, which pushes air out of the way and eventually strikes the man and kills him indirectly. We look through the mechanics to what is being done.

In one you want the moral end to stop at your first target, in the other you think the moral end should be somewhere after your first target.

Not quite. The circumstances/relationship of the mother to the surgeon’s actions fix the object as the healing of the mother, and the death of the child as a “consequence”. In the trolley, there are 2 objects of the act. There is no “first” target, but two targets - train tracks and a 2-position switch make it so. The 5 may be in our mind first because we see their plight first and wish to save them (motive). But then we see the full picture - and choose an act (or not).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The circumstances/relationship of the mother to the surgeon’s actions fix the object as the healing of the mother, and the death of the child as a “consequence”. In the trolley, there are 2 objects of the act. There is no “first” target, but two targets.

An entirely arbitrary decision on your part on how to view these results. You claim a distinction without supporting it.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

If you push someone into the lever, you act upon them. They are the direct target of your action. The man on the tracks is affected by that action, but because he was not the target he is killed indirectly.

We don’t morally analyse shooting a man as an act on a trigger, which acts on a bullet, which pushes air out of the way and eventually strikes the man and kills him indirectly. We look through the mechanics to what is being done.

Yes, but the man you push isn’t an object, he is another human being. As is the mother. Shoving him alters the path of the trolley towards the man on the tracks. Cutting her alters the flow of blood away from the baby. If we are looking through the mechanics to what is being done we need to do it for both.

That or the reason that one is direct and the other is indirect is elsewhere.

Inquiry:

In one you want the moral end to stop at your first target, in the other you think the moral end should be somewhere after your first target.

Not quite. The relationship of the mother to the surgeon’s actions fixed the object as the healing of the mother, and the death of the child as the Un willed consequence. In the trolley, there are 2 objects of the act. There is no “first” target, but two targets. The 5 may be in our mind first because we see there plight first and wish to save them. But then we see the full picture - and choose an act (or not).

In the surgery the saving of the mother and the death of the child proceed from the same act. In the trolley problem the saving of the five and the death of the one proceed from the same act. What is is that makes the two different. It can’t be time, you already said that wasn’t a central issue. It can’t be intent to save lives, because both the surgeon and the bystander have that. You say there is a relationship/circumstance issue, what is it?

 

[Rau]

Yes, but the man you push isn’t an object, he is another human being.

That’s not the context for the word “object” in moral theology. The man pushed onto the lever has no bearing on the “human act” in play.

To your other question the mother stands in need of surgery and the surgeon directly (and properly) treats her body (only) with the unintended but inevitable consequence to the baby’s future (arising because of the baby’s dependence on the mother).

With the trolley, there is no equivalent to “directly treats her body (only)”. The switch throwing (given the railway track setup) is no more direct in saving than it is in killing. Thus the two moral objects.

 

[Freddy]

Inquiry:

However, the doctor condemns the baby to death the moment the tube is cut free, his action is the clear cause of that death. By what you just said, the death of the baby should be direct killing. That means there is another element.

Causation does not equate to directness. The mum needed surgery and received it. The surgery causes the death, but indirectly - given it is surgery on the mother which mother required.

I can’t see a difference based on how the lever is pushed. Commanding a line of elephants, tail to trunk to lever is still the same act.

Ah well. Here’s goes another attempt.

There are now two switches. One to redirect the trolley and save the five but sacrifice the one. And another which will remove a section of the track. Let’s say it’s blown up. Which will save the five. However, by blowing up a portion of the track you trap the one man in his section of it. He cannot be rescued and will definitely die.

Removing the track is directly equivalent to the surgeon’s operation. ‘Let’s remove this and save some lives’.

So now we have a situation where if you pull Lever A you save five people and sacrifice one. And if you pull Lever B you save five people and sacrifice one. And you are trying to say that one is moral and the other is not. That you would pull the one lever and kill the man but not pull the other. And kill the man.

Really?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

With the trolley, there is no equivalent to “directly treats her body (only)”. The switch throwing (given the railway track setup) is no more direct in saving than it is in killing. Thus the two moral objects.

There doesn’t have to be an equivalent to “directly treats her body.” It is a description that fits this specific instance of double-effect. It is not a general characteristic that all valid instances of double effect must have. So I would say you are pointing to an irrelevant difference. I could just as well say that throwing the switch directly saves the 5 people (only).

 

[Rau]

And you are trying to say that one is moral and the other is not. That you would pull the one lever and kill the man but not pull the other. And kill the man.

Some killing is not immoral and some killing is. I’m not going to go down the rabbit hole of ever more contrived structures. We have all the scenarios needed to expose the differences among posters.

 

[Rau]

Here are some other external treatments of topics in this thread:
https://ronconte.com/2015/01/11/intrinsic-evil-and-the-moral-object/

https://ronconte.com/2017/09/29/the-trolley-problem-and-the-three-fonts-of-morality/#comments

This author has posted on CAF in the past and I have debated with him. I agree with him on this subject, but not on others.

 

[Rau]

From the “Handbook of Moral Theology” by Dominic Pruemmer O.P.

1. The object under consideration is not the physical but the “moral object” and is defined as: that to which the action tends of its very nature primarily and necessarily.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Yes, but the man you push isn’t an object, he is another human being.

That’s not the context for the word “object” in moral theology. The man pushed onto the lever has no bearing on the “human act” in play.

Shoving him is a human act. It is a form of minor assault. The point is that if what comes after has to be counted in his case (and it should be, because we shouldn’t be able to bypass difficult moral dilemmas through cheap tricks) then we have to consider that in the case of the ectopic pregnancy.

To your other question the mother stands in need of surgery and the surgeon directly (and properly) treats her body (only) with the unintended but inevitable consequence to the baby’s future (arising because of the baby’s dependence on the mother).

With the trolley, there is no equivalent to “directly treats her body (only)”. The switch throwing (given the railway track setup) is no more direct in saving than it is in killing. Thus the two moral objects.

And here it is again. Why do you count the Doctor as treating her body (only) but not pulling the switch as saving the five (only)? Why is that not an equivalent? Removing the tube sets into motion two things, saving her life and the death of the baby. Pulling the switch sets into motion two things, saving the five and the death of the one. The only two differences seem to be that the mother is acted upon first (which as we’ve already seen should not be the sole factor), and that the man is killed by physical violence rather than deprivation.