R
Rau
Guest
I’ve explained why ectopic treatment is indirect and the trolley direct. More contrived scenarios won’t help and I’ve said I won’t go there.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I know that is the sole justification that some have used, but not all. Some of us have recognized that the “minimizing the harm”, while a good thing, is not sufficient justification in and of itself to throw the switch. So characterizing all arguments for throwing the switch as Consequentialism is not accurate. We recognize, for instance, that other scenarios where one may save more lives have the opposite judgement. Any scenario in which the evil effect (of killing someone) is the means by which the good effect is achieved is immoral, regardless of the numbers involved. We understand that. Really, we do. So don’t leave out such arguments when you characterize the “thrown the switch” arguments as mere Consequentialism.
Also, notions of directness and indirectness are very misleading, as they can be twisted to produce any moral result you want. It is notable that such terms and others that mean essentially the same thing are utterly absent from Aquinas’ 4 conditions for valid double effect. Their introduction into the discussion can only serve to obfuscate the real issues.
I
Inquiry
Guest
Possibly leaving him directly in it’s path? Either way, as far as I can tell that doesn’t take it out of the range of “exposing someone to lethal force,” something that is allowable in specific circumstances.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
How is the second trolley problem not indirect when it exactly matches the conditions of the ectopic treatment? You save someone and condemn someone else to die.Freddy:
I’ve explained why ectopic treatment is indirect and the trolley direct. More contrived scenarios won’t help and I’ve said I won’t go there.
You remove the track/tube thereby saving the five people/woman and the man/baby dies as a result.
Now we examine both trolley problems. Pull a lever and you save five and kill one. Pull another and you save five and kill one. Sounds pretty similar to me. But we have reached a point where you can try to convince me that your action in redirecting the trolley is morally unnacceptable whereas condemning him to death by blowing up the track is just fine.
I think we’ve reached a point where the arguments for the decisions that some say they would make are so threadbare that they make no sense.
R
Rau
Guest
That sounds passive, but really the act itself embodies “directly” attacking the one. Forcing the train to “not go right” (saving) is identically ”forcing it to go left” (killing).
O
o_mlly
Guest
I think those Catholics who persist in arguing the morality of throwing the switch are of three kinds. The first tend to be more emotional than rational, the second simply do not understand Catholic morality (or are lazy), and the third have an undisclosed motive to endorse the errors of consequentialism but do not want the label assigned to them.
F
Freddy
Guest
I don’t think that the officers who send men to die in order that the company may live are acting emotionally. It’s as pragmatic a position as you could take. Even switching the lever needs to be done unemotionally. Likewise redirecting the plane or shooting the deranged killer. Cool, clear heads are needed in such situations.Rau:
I think those Catholics who persist in arguing the morality of throwing the switch are of three kinds. The first tend to be more emotional than rational, the second simply do not understand Catholic morality (or are lazy), and the third have an undisclosed motive to endorse the errors of consequentialism but do not want the label assigned to them.
And yeah, we do understand Catholic morality. Catholics and atheists alike. Your interpretation of which allows you to stand by and let many people die rather than directly or indirectly sacrificing one (you’d never make officer grade - you’d fail the psychological tests). We appreciate your point of view. We just don’t agree with your interpretation.
Last edited:
I
Inquiry
Guest
And I would actually agree with you, except the problem of the ectopic pregnancy makes it clear things are more complex. In the ectopic pregnancy the surgeon not only exposes the baby to the mortal danger, he creates it. He creates it and he directs it at a location that includes the baby. The bystander in the Trolley problem does not create the mortal danger, he only exposes the one man to it.
You’ve used the analogy of pointing and firing a gun before, but that analogy actually applies more to the surgeon than to the bystander. The bystander can only point the gun, but it is firing on its own. The surgeon, because he both creates and directs the mortal danger, is aiming and pulling the trigger. That doesn’t mean the person who can only aim his gun can’t directly kill, but it does mean there is more to the explanation.
I fully agree that the death of the baby when the tube is removed should be considered indirect. I am open to the possibility that the death of the one man in the trolley problem is direct. Thus far, though, every definition of direct and indirect either makes the baby’s death direct or the man’s death indirect.
You’ve used the analogy of pointing and firing a gun before, but that analogy actually applies more to the surgeon than to the bystander. The bystander can only point the gun, but it is firing on its own. The surgeon, because he both creates and directs the mortal danger, is aiming and pulling the trigger. That doesn’t mean the person who can only aim his gun can’t directly kill, but it does mean there is more to the explanation.
I fully agree that the death of the baby when the tube is removed should be considered indirect. I am open to the possibility that the death of the one man in the trolley problem is direct. Thus far, though, every definition of direct and indirect either makes the baby’s death direct or the man’s death indirect.
F
Freddy
Guest
When you have difficulty in addressing any argument you seem quite keen on deriding the poster rather than addressing the points being made. It was worthy of a new thread at one time. Now it’s a comic book mentality.Freddy:
Good marks for consistency – comic book mentality about war and morality – but failing grades on substance.
Point noted.
R
Rau
Guest
Not so much complex as subtle - the direct vs indirect distinction. The surgeon’s knife could go anywhere at all on mum and create danger (for baby or mum) but mum is entitled to surgery that mum needs. Cutting mum’s tube or blood vessel or whatever when mum needs that treatment is not a direct attack on the baby. Regarding the trolley, the bystander does create the danger for the one (who was perfectly safe). He did not create it for the 5. He chooses to swap the targets.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
When was that?
I did reply concisely: No one is “sacrificed” and no officers “send men to die” in war.
Last edited:
I
Inquiry
Guest
Yes, we are both looking for how the direct vs indirect applies and what makes something one or the other.
The mother is indeed entitled to the surgery, but that’s not what makes the baby’s death indirect. Firstly because the five are also entitled to be saved; leaving someone to die is wrong. Secondly, because even though the mother is entitled to be saved the doctor still can’t directly kill the baby to save her. It’s the same for the five, they are entitled to be saved but they only can be if the one man’s death is indirect.
I would still say that the bystander does not create the mortal danger itself, he only exposes the man to it. But note that even if we go with the idea that he creates it for the one man- that the mortal danger to the five and the mortal danger to the one are substantively different mortal dangers- that’s still equivalent to the ectopic problem. The doctor also creates a mortal danger that is directed towards the location of the baby. Creating the mortal danger clearly isn’t enough to call something direct.
The mother is indeed entitled to the surgery, but that’s not what makes the baby’s death indirect. Firstly because the five are also entitled to be saved; leaving someone to die is wrong. Secondly, because even though the mother is entitled to be saved the doctor still can’t directly kill the baby to save her. It’s the same for the five, they are entitled to be saved but they only can be if the one man’s death is indirect.
I would still say that the bystander does not create the mortal danger itself, he only exposes the man to it. But note that even if we go with the idea that he creates it for the one man- that the mortal danger to the five and the mortal danger to the one are substantively different mortal dangers- that’s still equivalent to the ectopic problem. The doctor also creates a mortal danger that is directed towards the location of the baby. Creating the mortal danger clearly isn’t enough to call something direct.
E
Elf01
Guest
Unless the argument is that the baby will die anyway, but we all know (or should), that that fact is not morally relevant.
F
Freddy
Guest
That’s not addressing anything. That’s a blanket denial. And a monstrously ridiculous one as well. There are simply too many examples to give that I shan’t even bother to link to any. I’ll just let your comments stand as an example of your denial of the obvious.Freddy:
When was that?
I did reply concisely: No one is “sacrificed” and no officers “send men to die” in war.
R
Rau
Guest
Words “the location” seem superfluous. As I said, any manner of (necessary) medical treatments could be directed at mother and regrettably prejudice her ability to sustain the child. In the trolley, by which I mean in the Circumstances of the trolley, I see no way to say that the bystander’s action does not directly attack the one.
Last edited:
B
BearingCross
Guest
OK, philosophy aside, this situation is VERY RARE. The reason for this is that historically, industrial development only takes place when there is a LARGE portion of society that can fund innovation, and “market forces” would be sufficient to discourage people from acting against their owm self-interests.
R
Rau
Guest
How do you judge the “directness” of administering methotrexate or surgically “removing” the baby from the tube vs Removal of tube (about to rupture).
How do you see any indirectness in directing a speeding train precisely at a man fixed to the railway tracks?
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
Why haven’t you answered my question?
I see throwing the switch the same as steering a car that cannot avoid killing someone so that it kills the least amount of people. I don’t see the fact that there are only two tracks as relevant.
I see methotrexate as the equivilent of pushing someone in front of the trolley. I see removing the baby as direct because it would not deal with a tube that there was no baby in going to rupture. Redirecting the trolley saves the five, regardless of whether there is anybody on the other track.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Because I’ve made many attempts to do so and repeating myself is not likely to help. Drawing on my own experience suggests coming to grips with the moral principles requires personal thinking.
How do you see indirectness in directing a speeding train directly at a man in no danger? I think that needs to be thought about without drawing on assumptions about what a car driver may/may not do licitly.
The tracks make the situation clear (for me anyway). There is no room for doubt or hope. And the killing is direct. You’re yet to explain why it’s indirect; that is why the death of the one is not a moral object.
They are direct because of their inherent nature. Methotrexate acts directly on the baby. Removal goes the same. Yes - these are clear cut. Cutting the tube acts on mum’s body, is necessary for mum’s survival and indirectly leads to the baby’s death. The baby’s death is not in the object nor the intention.
Last edited:
- Status