Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Elf01]

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.

In the car scenaro we can also remove any hope that the person the car is directed at will survive. The baby has no hope of survival. I don’t see the distinction you are trying to make.

 

[Rau]

In the car scenaro we can also remove any hope that the person the car is directed at will survive. The baby has no hope of survival. I don’t see the distinction you are trying to make.

I only raise hope to hint that in all practical likelihood, with a car, more than one adjustment to steering is likely/possible which suggests the driver may not be so clear on what he is doing or where it leads. There is no such doubt as to the directness from lever throw to dead man, so the bystander knows what he does, and the result is direct. In the ectopic case, the death is also certain, but not direct.

 

[Elf01]

I only raise hope to hint that in all practical likelihood, with a car, more than one adjustment to steering is likely/possible which suggests the driver may not be so clear on what he is doing or where it leads. There is no such doubt as to the directness from lever throw to dead man, so the bystander knows what he does, and the result is direct. In the ectopic case, the death is also certain, but not direct.

And it’s more practical for one person to get free thsn 5. Anyway certainty of death clearly is not what makes it direct. What is?

 

[Rau]

And it’s more practical for one person to get free thsn 5. Anyway certainty of death clearly is not what makes it direct. What is?

The scenario invites no allowance for escape. If you change the vehicle from a train to a car you clearly change nothing. It isn’t the case that a car driver can do as he pleases in the interests of saving lives. And while the scenarios involving cars become a bit uncertain and contrived for the reasons I gave above, a scenario involving a self-driving vehicle does become more realistic.

I provided a definition of moral object earlier from a moral theology handbook. I think we are down to plain language, which is why I don’t know how to make it any clearer.

You’ve not answered my question about how you see indirectness in directing a train at a man fixed to the tracks?

 

[Elf01]

You’ve not answered my question about how you see indirectness in directing a train at a man fixed to the tracks?

I did. If I can steer a car to minimize the loss of lives I can direct a trolley. Allowance of escape is not relevant. The baby can’t escape in the etopic scenario, or to really contrive my car scenario would the morality change if all the people were immobile or unconcious?

I’m certainly answering more of your questions than you are of mine.

I provided a definition of moral object earlier from a moral theology handbook. I think we are down to plain language, which is why I don’t know how to make it any clearer.

I’m not going to read back through 1000+ posts to find it. Could you please repost or link your original?

 

[Rau]

If I can steer a car to minimize the loss of lives I can direct a trolley.

This isn’t an answer. It sidesteps the question. It also tends to justify the act based on reduction in the death toll, which we know is not of itself justification. Remove assumptions about what you believe you can do with a car and address the actual question. Where is the indirectness in directing a train directly at an innocent man?

I’m not going to read back through 1000+ posts to find it. Could you please repost or link your original?

I’m on my way out - will address later. Btw - It was only a day or 2 ago! You seem to have joined the thread quite recently - maybe some pre-reading on your part is also a reasonable request.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s not addressing anything. That’s a blanket denial.

Yes. You gave no argument. Your unsupported premise, gratuitously given, was just as gratuitously rejected.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s not addressing anything. That’s a blanket denial.

Yes. You gave no argument. Your unsupported premise, gratuitously given, was just as gratuitously rejected.

Are you stating that no men have been sacrificed in war?

 

[Inquiry]

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.

I think that if you are going to comment about passive voice in describing the Trolley problem, you should probably not describe removing the baby and surrounding material as ‘prejudicing the mother’s ability to sustain it’. The Doctor is cutting off the baby’s blood supply, that’s the only way the procedure could even work. It is an inescapable element of his action to remove the tube.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you stating that no men have been sacrificed in war?

Show us the paragraph in the military manual that directs officers to “sacrifice” their men.

 

[o_mlly]

Redirecting the trolley saves the five, regardless of whether there is anybody on the other track.

If the bystander’s act directly saves five then one and the same act cannot be said to merely indirectly kill the innocent one. Either both or neither effects are the proximate end to the act.

In a tubal pregnancy there exists a physical evil – an “out-of-control” fetus jeopardizes the life of the mother.

In the trolley case, there exists a physical evil – an out-of-control trolley jeopardizes the lives of 5 people.

What are the parallel human agencies in the two cases?

• Fetus and innocent one on the track (Presently not in jeopardy).
• Mother and the five people on the track (Presently in jeopardy).
• Surgeon and bystander (Instrumental agents).

All have a right to their own life.
All have a duty to protect the lives of others.
All have a greater right and a duty to protect their own life than the lives of others.

As to the principles in the case:

• May the mother grant permission to the surgeon to act on her body? Yes.
• Does the mother have a right to lethally act on the body of the fetus? No
• May the mother grant permission to the surgeon to lethally act on the body of the fetus? No.
• May the innocent one grant permission to the bystander to act on his body? Yes.
• Do the five have a right to lethally act on the body of the innocent one? No.
• (If the five do not have a right to lethally act on the body of the innocent one then the instrumental agent – bystander – absolutely has no right.)

As to the instrumental agents in the case:

• May the surgeon act on the body of the mother w/o permission? No.
• May the bystander act on the body of the innocent one w/o the innocent one’s permission? No.

The moral object is the proximate end of the physical act, i.e., the direct foreseeable effects with moral content. Proximate means unmediated, that is no other cause than the act itself (in se) brings about the effects.

The moral object and circumstance:

The mother/surgeon excise diseased tissue. The proximate end of the act itself is the saving of the mother’s life. (It is coincidence that the proximate end and the intention are the same.)

• The fetus’ death is not proximate to the act itself.
• The direct cause of the fetus’ death is starvation.
• The death of the fetus is indirect to the excising of diseased tissue.
• The act indirectly causes the fetus’ death.

The ?/bystander throws a switch. The proximate end of the act itself is the saving of five lives and the death of one innocent.

• The innocent one’s death is proximate to the act itself.
• The direct cause of the innocent one’s death is the act.
• What mediating cause stands between the act and the death of the innocent? None.

 

[Inquiry]

I appreciate the breakdown. That was very clear and concise. I have one and a half places I differ with you, though.

The half is something I suspect is not actually a disagreement. If the death caused would be indirect the bystander could have a right to act (there are other conditions that would have to be met too).

The second is that if the moral object must be all the direct foreseeable effects with no other causes, that clearly includes the death of the child. The Doctor removes the baby’s oxygen supply. The child would not be suffocating were it not for the actions of the Doctor. The Doctor easily foresees this. Nothing else is removing the Baby’s oxygen supply.

Unless there are other factors, this argument shows the baby’s death to be a moral object. We know that it is not, so there must be other factors.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Freddy:

Are you stating that no men have been sacrificed in war?

Show us the paragraph in the military manual that directs officers to “sacrifice” their men.

Of course this is a deflection, because things happen that are not directed in a military manual.

 

[Rau]

Unless there are other factors, this argument shows the baby’s death to be a moral object. We know that it is not, so there must be other factors.

Of note is that your response was not to suggest there is anything indirect in the death of the one on the tracks.

Also - starvation is not “in” the surgical act itself. The death is “indirectly caused” by the surgical act”.

 

[Inquiry]

I considered it more important to deal with the issue of the baby’s death as a moral object. Again, I’m open to the possibility that the man’s death is direct, I’m just looking for a way of determining directness that doesn’t also include the child.

The doctor cuts off the baby’s oxygen supply. It’s only possible oxygen supply. It’s hard to imagine how death by deprivation could be more direct than that.

 

[Rau]

The doctor cuts off the baby’s oxygen supply. It’s only possible oxygen supply. It’s hard to imagine how death by deprivation could be more direct than that.

It is a reality that baby is dependent on mother. But proper acts on mother (Eg. properly motivated surgery) have direct effect on mother and indirect effect on baby.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Also - starvation is not “in” the surgical act itself. The death is “indirectly caused” by the surgical act”.

Just saying that doesn’t make it true. When you cut the one and only supply of nutrition and hydration from a baby, starvation is “in” the act of cutting as much as anything could be. Can you think of a more direct way to starve someone to death?

But proper acts on mother (Eg. properly motivated surgery) have direct effect on mother and indirect effect on baby.

Be careful using the word “motivated”. You are mixing intention, which I am told is a different font.

 

[Rau]

The focus of posts seems to be shifting into a question as to whether the heretofore licit treatment of ectopic pregnancy is actually licit at all. If one believes the baby’s death is directly caused by the surgery, then this is to rule out this treatment. Direct vs indirect is the issue and I don’t believe the discussion to date has failed to identify some other “factor”.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are you stating that no men have been sacrificed in war?

Show us the paragraph in the military manual that directs officers to “sacrifice” their men.

My word. Is that your argument? That it doesn’t happen because it isn’t written down somewhere?

To deny that it happens is an admission of defeat. It shows that it contradicts your views on utilitarianism so you must avoid accepting it. You may as well have said ‘You have a good point there so I’m going to pretend it doesn’t exist’.

 

[o_mlly]

My word. Is that your argument? That it doesn’t happen because it isn’t written down somewhere?

That’s correct. All we got is just that, your “word”. No argument from me yet as you have not given anything but your opinion.

To deny that it happens is an admission of defeat.

Logic? C’mon, Fred.

It shows that it contradicts your views on utilitarianism so you must avoid accepting it. You may as well have said ‘You have a good point there so I’m going to pretend it doesn’t exist’.

You dreaming again, Freddy?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)