Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

That’s correct.

That’s good enough for me. You have denied that it takes place. I have nothing to add.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

Wrong. The the ectopic pregnancy case is used in a reductio ad absurdum argument. You really didn’t realize that?

 

[o_mlly]

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.

The trolley and tubal pregnancy case are not identical in two key respects. The bystander’s moral status and the fetus’ relation to the physical evil that jeopardizes lives.

To order the two cases alike, tie the bystander to the track, put a switch in his hand, and put the fetus in the runaway trolley. Now the bystander may throw the switch and send the trolley off a cliff.

The fetus in the trolley and the fetus in the mother are inseparably entwined in the physical evil that jeopardizes the bystander and the mother and both have a right to protect their own lives.

In the trolley case, the bystander’s life is not in jeopardy and the innocent one on the track is not entwined in the present physical evil. Does the bystander have a right to transfer the evil effect from the five to the innocent one? No, not at least without the innocent one’s permission and even then I’m not certain I would throw the switch.

 

[Inquiry]

@o_mlly, the bystander and the doctor are the equivalents, not the bystander and the mother. I would understand it if you focused on the element of the doctor having time to consult with the mother so that she had some say in his actions. Even then, we can always presume that the five want to be saved.

Also, this is putting the cart before the horse. If the killing is direct no one has the right to do it, whether their lives are threatened or not.

Also, the baby’s physical danger does not matter. That it is going to die anyway cannot be justification for killing it, directly or otherwise.

But to clarify, are you saying that redirecting an occupied trolley so it goes off a cliff only indirectly kills the passengers?

 

[Inquiry]

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.

‘Proper motivation’ seems superfluous in this case, unless you mean that motivation can determine whether something is direct or indirect. Based on the conversation thus far I am assuming you don’t.

 

[o_mlly]

@o_mlly, the bystander and the doctor are the equivalents, not the bystander and the mother. I would understand it if you focused on the element of the doctor having time to consult with the mother so that she had some say in his actions.

The surgeon may do nothing w/o the mother’s consent. The mother is in the moral dilemma.

If one wants to parallel the two cases then the bystander’s moral status must be the same as the mother’s.

An important distinction in drawing comparison’s in the trolley case to an ectopic pregnancy case is that the bystander’s life is not in jeopardy. The moral license to protect one’s own life from physical evil is not contested. What is contested is an onlooker’s right to transfer the effects of a physical evil from killing some by directing that evil to kill another.

Even then, we can always presume that the five want to be saved.

Whether the five want to live or not does not bear on the bystander’s decision to throw the switch. In either case, the bystander may not act.

If the killing is direct no one has the right to do it, whether their lives are threatened or not.

What is your point? I don’t follow.

Also, the baby’s physical danger does not matter. That it is going to die anyway cannot be justification for killing it, directly or otherwise.

Again, what is your point? The future of the baby’s life did not matter in the moral calculus given, only that the child is inexorably bound to the physical evil present to the mother.

But to clarify, are you saying that redirecting an occupied trolley so it goes off a cliff only indirectly kills the passengers?

No, truncating what I wrote misrepresents the moral case. This is what I wrote:

The fetus in the trolley and the fetus in the mother are inseparably entwined in the physical evil that jeopardizes the bystander and the mother and both have a right to protect their own lives.

 

[Inquiry]

I’m leaving aside the strange comparisons of the bystander to the mother for a moment to focus on this.

Inquiry:

If the killing is direct no one has the right to do it, whether their lives are threatened or not.

What is your point? I don’t follow.

The point is very simple. There is never a right to directly kill an innocent, even in self defense. All of your allusions to the right to protect oneself only matter if the killing is indirect. The mother’s danger doesn’t matter if the baby is killed directly. The five’s danger doesn’t matter if the one is killed directly.
That is why I asked you about occupied trolley, because it matters. So since you didn’t like the restatement let’s try a direct question:

If there is a man on an out of control trolley and you pull a switch that redirects that trolley over a cliff, did you just kill him directly or indirectly?

And please do answer this; it matters. Because if it is direct it is inherently evil and no motive or circumstance could ever make it permissible. And I remind you, you said this:

To order the two cases alike, tie the bystander to the track, put a switch in his hand, and put the fetus in the runaway trolley. Now the bystander may throw the switch and send the trolley off a cliff.

(emphasis added)

 

[o_mlly]

I’m leaving aside the strange comparisons of the bystander to the mother for a moment to focus on this.

Why leave aside? Why are they strange? Because they focus on the critical errors of those who throw out ectopic pregnancy cases as" allusions" that justify the bystander’s act. “And please do answer this; it matters.”

Now the bystander may throw the switch and send the trolley off a cliff.

When the “allusion” that the trolley case parallels the ectopic pregnancy case is removed, we now see truly parallel moral objects:

Moral Object: Steer a runaway trolley with an innocent on board to save one’s own life and kill the innocent one.

Moral Object: Excise diseased tissue containing a fetus from its mother to save the mother’s life and kill the fetus.

In both the adjusted trolley and tubal pregnancy cases, the death of the fetus is indirect, unintended, allowed and tolerated.

 

[o_mlly]

I have nothing to add.

Good. …

 

[o_mlly]

There is never a right to directly kill an innocent, even in self defense.

The claim is self-contradictory.

 

[Spaten]

There is never a right to directly kill an innocent, even in self defense.

That is news for me. Where did this come from?

 

[o_mlly]

I’m leaving aside …

I’ve run into this sidestep trick with other interlocutors as in “I chose to ignore that” as if that settled the point in question.

So I ask you:

In the OP’s trolley case:

Does the innocent one have a right to self defense against the bystander who attempts to act?

Does a bystander have a right to transfer the effects of a physical evil from killing some by directing that evil to kill another?

If you claim the death of the innocent is an indirect effect then identify the direct cause of death? (Remember that a physical evil causes harm only in the order of nature, that is without a moral agent’s initiation or intervention.)

 

[Inquiry]

If you’ll note, I only said I was leaving it aside for the moment. I’ll get back to it once we establish directness vs indirectness. But you said far more interesting things.

Inquiry:

Now the bystander may throw the switch and send the trolley off a cliff.

Moral Object: Steer a runaway trolley with an innocent on board to save one’s own life and kill the innocent one.
…
In both the adjusted trolley and tubal pregnancy cases, the death of the fetus is indirect, unintended, allowed and tolerated.

You didn’t answer directly, so I am going to point out what you just said and ask again. You just said that to save your own life you may redirect a trolley that contains an innocent away from yourself and off of a cliff, and that killing the man that way is indirect.

The only way that works is if redirecting the trolley is always indirect. Your own mortal danger cannot change direct killing into indirect killing. So you just made the argument that redirecting a trolley with an innocent off a cliff - mortal danger to yourself or otherwise - kills them indirectly. Is that what you mean, yes or no?

 

[o_mlly]

Is that what you mean, yes or no?

Equal time. Answer my three questions and you’ll see the answer to your own question.

 

[Rau]

Proper motivation’ seems superfluous in this case,

I actually had in mind another point at the time, but you right it’s not relevant to the point I actually made.

 

[Inquiry]

I mean, a one for one exchange of questions would make sense in another context, but you are trying to open up a new line of debate and I’m still looking over your last one. Can we make sure what you previously said was correct (and that I’m properly understanding you) before moving on? Plus, this is actually my third time asking this question.

My question was: Without considering any other factors, if there is an out of control trolley with an innocent man on board and you reroute it off a cliff, did you directly or indirectly kill the man?

 

[o_mlly]

Without considering any other factors, if there is an out of control trolley with an innocent man on board and you reroute it off a cliff, did you directly or indirectly kill the man?

Baiting me? If you are an intellectually honest poster then answer your own question (and mine).

 

[Inquiry]

@o_mlly I already did. Based on what you’ve said, it looks like you think that it is indirect. I asked because I want to make sure I understand you correctly rather than assuming.

I’m not sure why anyone would consider that baiting, but I can verify it certainly isn’t intended to be.

 

[o_mlly]

@o_mlly I already did. Based on what you’ve said, it looks like you think that it is indirect.

What do you think it is?

 

[Inquiry]

I think we’ve reached that phase of the discussion where talking with you isn’t productive anymore. We can pick this back up next week when you are actually discussing issues again.