Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

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.

Not surprised. We can pick this back up when you stop the high school baiting tactic and start honesty adding to the discussion. Here’s a couple of tips:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in facts.
2. pointing out errors or omissions in logic.

 

[o_mlly]

Looks like @inquiry can only ask for information.

Any other “switch throwers” have informed answers for us?

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?
(My answer: Yes)

Does a bystander have a right to transfer the effects of a physical evil from killing some by directing that evil to kill another?
(My answer: No)

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.)
(My answer: I reject the premise. The act directly kills the innocent one

)

 

[Rau]

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?

I agree it would be good for those who see pulling the lever as licit to answer these two questions. Depending on their answers, they might then answer my often put but not answered question; “where is the indirectness in the act by a bystander to direct a train at a man fixed to the track”.

I imagine you’ll happily answer the cliff scenario then (if an answer is required at that point).

 

[o_mlly]

I agree it would be good for those who see pulling the lever as licit to answer these two questions. Depending on their answers, they might then answer my often put but not answered question; “where is the indirectness in the act by a bystander to direct a train at a man fixed to the track”.

I imagine you’ll happily answer the cliff scenario then (if an answer is required at that point).

Yes, I will happily do so.

I readily admit that in this thread I have unfortunately used sarcasm and ill attempts at humor with my interlocutors. I apologize. It is a long thread and I could improve on my lack of patience.

I welcome the debate and will argue my claims but I will not argue with myself. To my good fellow debaters, let’s stop wasting time – please put something new up or shut up.

I think an important reason this thread is over one thousand posts is because some use debating tactics to avoid a resolution such as:

• redefining words to suit their argument,
• quoting out of context to misrepresent the author’s position,
• paraphrased straw men,
• badgering claiming well-defined words are vague or ill-defined,
• rejecting facts and logic as mere opinion,
• demanding a poster answer a question that he has already answered aiming only to put the other on the defensive in hopes of “straw manning” an inconsistency.

And, after 300 + posts, I believe I’m entitled to give the old PM response, “I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago” as a reply to future posters who join the thread late but will not read the prior posts.

 

[Inquiry]

I readily admit that in this thread I have unfortunately used sarcasm and ill attempts at humor with my interlocutors. I apologize. It is a long thread and I could improve on my lack of patience.

I appreciate that because I used to fall into that trap a lot. It’s easy to underestimate how much damage that does to a discussion. The way you label people, assume motivations, and liberally sprinkle your posts with ad hominems really kills any assumption that you are acting in good faith. Indeed initially, based on the way you acted, I assumed you were either too interested in personal glory or were some kind of sophisticated troll. I admit I spent more time than I should have trying to call you out on that a) because it apparently wasn’t true, and b) because even if it were, calling you out wouldn’t have been helpful.

It is a shame because in most of the other threads I’ve seen you in we tend to be on the same side. Though I sometimes doubt your methods I really do appreciate how you leap in to uphold the truth as you understand it. (Side note: I tried to send you a PM about that last week, you have them turned off).

Understand, my goal here is not to prove you wrong. My goal here is to understand. From what I can see of the Trolley problem, it looks like according to catholic teaching pulling the lever should be permissible. You insist that is not the case. One of us is wrong and it may very well be me. I want to know which of us it is, and more importantly, why.

To that end, I am willing to continue this with you, but only if it actually serves a purpose. No more accusations or labels. No more having to ‘earn’ your attention. I’ll answer your questions if you think the answers are legitimately important, but I will not play a game just to get you to clarify when you’ve been ambiguous. If we can’t actually discuss the issues there’s no point in continuing.

I’ll answer your questions in the next post…

 

[Inquiry]

Now in regards to your questions…

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

My understanding is that people always have the right to self defense provided the requirements of double effect are met, so yes.

That would also be the case in this scenario:

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

The innocent one should have the right to self defense against you trying to kill him even though, as you say, you kill him indirectly.

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

The answer to this depends on if rerouting counts as directly killing them or not. If yes, then no the bystander cannot do it. If no, then yes he can.

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.)

The direct cause of death in the Trolley case is the already extant threat of the Trolley. The direct cause of death in your modified Trolley case is blunt force impact from a long fall. The direct cause of death in the ectopic pregnancy case is lack of oxygen.

I bring up the other two cases to show that even though a moral agent (you and the doctor) initiate or otherwise intervene, that doesn’t make the killing direct.

Now my question to you is, if directing a trolley at an innocent man is directly killing him, but directing an occupied trolley off a cliff only indirectly kills them, what is the reason for the difference?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

o_mlly:

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?

I agree it would be good for those who see pulling the lever as licit to answer these two questions. Depending on their answers, they might then answer my often put but not answered question; “where is the indirectness in the act by a bystander to direct a train at a man fixed to the track”.

I imagine you’ll happily answer the cliff scenario then (if an answer is required at that point).

Several times I have answered the first question in the affirmative, along with the assertion that it is an irrelevant question, but I answered it anyway. So stalling until it is answered is just a deflection and delaying tactic.

The second question is too abstract to give an answer, as no process has been described by which the evil effects may be transferred. Any comparison with the trolley problem relies on assumptions that have not been accepted.

The last question is entirely up to you and o_mlly, since you introduced the concept of directness without giving an solid definition. This question too is irrelevant as the notion of directness is not referenced in the 4 conditions set forth by Aquinas for valid double effect.

 

[o_mlly]

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

If the innocent one has a right to self-defense then the bystander is an unjust aggressor.

That would also be the case in this scenario:

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

The act of self-protection through morally licit means from a physical evil (not self-defense, as there is no unjust aggressor) in which the body of another is inexorably entwined and dies is a moral act.

CCC#2264 “… one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

The innocent one in the mother’s tube or in the runaway trolley may act to disengage from the physical evil that threatens to kill them (if they can) but only through morally licit means.

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

We do not have to agree on whether the act is direct or indirect to determine its morality.

The permits to indirectly kill an innocent person are not manifold but strictly limited. We agree that direct killing is immoral.

In this thread the only instance cited that allows an indirect killing of an innocent one is that of the fetus whose body itself threatens the life of another. That fetus’ body is inexorably entwined within a mortally threatening physical evil to the life of the mother.

However, the innocent one on the track poses no threat to the bystander. Nor is the innocent one on the track entwined in the physical evil (runaway trolley) that mortally threatens the five (but not the bystander). The bystander may not directly or indirectly kill the innocent one.

The direct cause of death in the Trolley case is the already extant threat of the Trolley.

That does not answer the question. The “extant” physical evil threat is to the five. What causes the death of the innocent one? Answer: The hand of a moral agent who redirects that evil. By the act, the physical evil is immediately transformed from an unwilled event to a willed event and, ipso facto, from a physical evil into a moral evil.

 

[o_mlly]

Now my question to you is, if directing a trolley at an innocent man is directly killing him, but directing an occupied trolley off a cliff only indirectly kills them, what is the reason for the difference?

Is the fetus directly killed by the mother/surgeon’s act or because he/she is in the tube that threatens the mother’s life? It is the latter; the fetus dies indirectly.

Is the one in the trolley killed by the act of the one on the track or because he/she is in the trolley? It is the latter; the one in the trolley dies indirectly.

I’ve already explained the insignificance of direct or indirect killing as it applies to the OP’s trolley case.

 

[o_mlly]

No more accusations …

You seem overly concerned that other people might think they beat you.

Pot black? But fair enough as long as we do not take all the fun out of it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the innocent one has a right to self-defense then the bystander is an unjust aggressor.

Not true. Everyone has the right of self-defense, even against an unwitting aggressor.

We do not have to agree on whether the act is direct or indirect to determine its morality.

The permits to indirectly kill an innocent person are not manifold but strictly limited. We agree that direct killing is immoral.

If the first sentence is true, why does o_mlly insist on continuing to use the terms indirectly and direct?

 

[Inquiry]

If the innocent one has a right to self-defense then the bystander is an unjust aggressor.

CCC#2264 “… one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

I don’t see where 2264 specifies an unjust aggressor. In no way was I implying that the bystander was acting unjustly.

The act of self-protection through morally licit means from a physical evil (not self-defense, as there is no unjust aggressor) in which the body of another is inexorably entwined and dies is a moral act.

Also note, I did not say that you have the right of self defense against the innocent in the trolley, I said he had the right of self defense against you. While you are under threat from (presumably) happenstance, he is under threat from your actions. To be fair, I’m not sure that has any real relevance, but if you have a right to protect yourself so does he.

The permits to indirectly kill an innocent person are not manifold but strictly limited. We agree that direct killing is immoral.
…
However, the innocent one on the track poses no threat to the bystander. Nor is the innocent one on the track entwined in the physical evil (runaway trolley) that mortally threatens the five (but not the bystander). The bystander may not directly or indirectly kill the innocent one.

Limited, yes, but not as strictly as you say. The considerations that make indirect killing licit are gravity and proportionality, both of which the Trolley problem meets. They are not limited solely to times when one’s own life is in danger.

Inquiry:

The direct cause of death in the Trolley case is the already extant threat of the Trolley.

That does not answer the question. The “extant” physical evil threat is to the five. What causes the death of the innocent one? Answer: The hand of a moral agent who redirects that evil. By the act, the physical evil is immediately transformed from an unwilled event to a willed event and, ipso facto, from a physical evil into a moral evil.

It answers the question in one of only two ways that I can. Either I say the physical threats are the trolley, the fall, and the suffocation, or I say that the causes are the hand of the bystander, your hand, and the hand of the doctor. In all three cases the threats are either adjusted or created.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Now my question to you is, if directing a trolley at an innocent man is directly killing him, but directing an occupied trolley off a cliff only indirectly kills them, what is the reason for the difference?

Is the fetus directly killed by the mother/surgeon’s act or because he/she is in the tube that threatens the mother’s life? It is the latter; the fetus dies indirectly.

Is the one in the trolley killed by the act of the one on the track or because he/she is in the trolley? It is the latter; the one in the trolley dies indirectly.

I’ve already explained the insignificance of direct or indirect killing as it applies to the OP’s trolley case.

I think how you describe the second one is really telling. I can just as easily ask of the classic Trolley problem: is the one on the track killed by the bystander or because he is on the track? If it is the latter, the one on the track dies indirectly.

In fact, it sounds like we are both saying that the bystander kills the innocent man indirectly, we are just arguing about whether he has justification to do so. If so that is something that makes a lot more sense.

 

[Rau]

The direct cause of death in the Trolley case is the already extant threat of the Trolley.

I can imagine the Medical Examiner, on examining the remains of the one, concluding he was run over by a train. But absent the bystander’s will to pull the lever, there is/was no threat to the life of the One.

Had the Bystander consulted with the One before acting, I wonder how that conversation would have gone, particularly if the One had rejected the proposition that the Bystander should intervene and switch the train to run down the One rather than the Five. What would the Bystander’s parting words have been? To what lengths might the One go to stop the Bystander?

 

[Rau]

I can just as easily ask of the classic Trolley problem: is the one on the track killed by the bystander or because he is on the track?

That might be a better question to ask were it the Five redirecting the train (possessing a remote control device perhaps) - that is take bystander out of the equation.

 

[o_mlly]

In order not to diffuse the points made in these question-answers, let’s take your answers one at a time, focusing first on your admission of the innocent one’s right to self-defense.

I don’t see where 2264 specifies an unjust aggressor.

The phrase is somewhat redundant as Catholic morality does not recognize a just aggressor,; all acts of aggression are attacks and unjust. If you claim otherwise, that a just aggressor is recognized in some circumstance as a licit actor, cite the magisterial teaching in support of just aggression.

noun: aggression

1. hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
   the action or an act of attacking without provocation.

The point remains that if the innocent one has a right to self-defense then the bystander’s act is an act of aggression. If the innocent one must directly kill the bystander in self-defense then the bystander is not innocent.

CCC# 2264 "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

In no way was I implying that the bystander was acting unjustly.

You may not have wished to imply but your answer necessarily infers that the bystander is an aggressor.

The right to self-defense always and only involves an aggressor. As you correctly wrote, the innocent one on the tracks has the right to self defense, therefore, the bystander is necessarily an aggressor.

Since the bystander’s act cannot in the same circumstances be both just and unjust, a logical contradiction, the bystander’s act is rightly called an attack, an act of aggression on the innocent one and is immoral.

 

[Inquiry]

You may not have wished to imply but your answer necessarily infers that the bystander is an aggressor.

Interestingly enough, in my first draft I actually just accepted your distinction between self protection and self defense and amended my answer to say that the innocent man had the right to protect himself. Then I read over your answers more carefully and saw that you were using 2264 to cover yourself and the doctor’s actions and in neither case did you extrapolate an unjust action.

Now I realize that you were careful to specify self-protection instead of self-defense, but that distinction appears to be your wording and not something I see in that article of the catechism. Given that, I don’t see how it is reasonable to infer meaning in my words that was not intended. Indeed the rest of my answer makes it clear I was extending self-defense to situations that did not involve injustice.

 

[Inquiry]

I can imagine the Medical Examiner, on examining the remains of the one, concluding he was run over by a train. But absent the bystander’s will to pull the lever, there is/was no threat to the life of the One.

Had the Bystander consulted with the One before acting, I wonder how that conversation would have gone, particularly if the One had rejected the proposition that the Bystander should intervene and switch the train to run down the One rather than the Five. What would the Bystander’s parting words have been? To what lengths might the One go to stop the Bystander?

That’s an interesting question, but one that seems to be slightly removed from the actual morality of the event. After all, were the doctor to have a conversation with the baby before operating, what would that have gone like? Would it understand that it has no chance to survive, or would it try to hold on to those last few days of life with everything it could muster? Would it plead? Would it be stoic?

Humanizing the one who will die is a good thing. Despite these problems giving them no agency we should always presume that they really want to live and would do anything can to save themselves.

Inquiry:

I can just as easily ask of the classic Trolley problem: is the one on the track killed by the bystander or because he is on the track?

That might be a better question to ask were it the Five redirecting the train (possessing a remote control device perhaps) - that is take bystander out of the equation.

While being under threat may be justification for indirectly killing someone it does not play a role in determining if they are killed directly or indirectly. Indeed, if it matters whether it is one of the five or a bystander who pulls the lever that would imply the killing is indeed indirect.

 

[o_mlly]

Then I read over your answers more carefully and saw that you were using 2264 to cover yourself and the doctor’s actions and in neither case did you extrapolate an unjust action.

Another charge that I am intellectually dishonest?

Now I realize that you were careful to specify self-protection instead of self-defense, but that distinction appears to be your wording and not something I see in that article of the catechism.

So you see being careful in one’s wording as a fault and not a virtue?

Read your catechism, friend. Claiming self-defense against a physical evil is nonsensical. The flood, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, trolley whose brakes failed are not the deliberated acts of an aggressor. One protects, does not defend, against the effects of physical evils. Self-defense is only applicable to an unjust moral agent’s attack on an innocent.

The catechism in every teaching regarding the just use of self-defense – individual self-defense, societal self-defense in just wars, and self-defense against the convicted criminal – identifies a moral agent who is an aggressor.

Given that, I don’t see how it is reasonable to infer meaning in my words that was not intended. Indeed the rest of my answer makes it clear I was extending self-defense to situations that did not involve injustice.

The catechism and encyclicals make clear that all situations of self-defense involve an aggressor who attacks an innocent. What you may have intended, like the bystander’s intention, does not change the teachings. If the innocent one has a right of self-defense (and we agree does) then he defends against an immoral human agent, i.e. the bystander. Given that the bystander is evil in his act, we need not examine your other answers to determine that other reasons show that the bystander may not act but I will if you like. First, let’s settle this point.

Since you agreed that the innocent one has the right to self-defense then you agree that the innocent one is experiencing an unjust attack by the bystander. True?

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

Then I read over your answers more carefully and saw that you were using 2264 to cover yourself and the doctor’s actions and in neither case did you extrapolate an unjust action.

Another charge that I am intellectually dishonest?

Not at all, I meant it in the same sense as ‘covering your bases.’ Note: the you I was referring to as covered was the one from your adjusted trolley problem where ‘you’ were on the tracks. It isn’t the you that I am responding to now.

Read your catechism, friend. Claiming self-defense against a physical evil is nonsensical. The flood, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, trolley whose brakes failed are not the deliberated acts of an aggressor. One protects, does not defend, against the effects of physical evils. Self-defense is only applicable to an unjust moral agent’s attack on an innocent.

The catechism in every teaching regarding the just use of self-defense – individual self-defense, societal self-defense in just wars, and self-defense against the convicted criminal – identifies a moral agent who is an aggressor.

And yet you used the same entry, 2264, to cover people protecting themselves from physical situations that did not involve an aggressor. Clearly the same principles that allow someone to defend themselves from an aggressor also allow them to defend their lives in situations that don’t.

So you see being careful in one’s wording as a fault and not a virtue?

Almost any virtue can be a fault if taken too far. If you are so careful with your wording that you make distinctions that other people would not automatically follow then you really just made yourself more difficult to understand.

I can totally understand how the distinction was so clear in your mind that you did not feel the need to explain it. Now that you know that’s not how I was using the term, though, why are you still arguing as if I was?

If the innocent one has a right of self-defense (and we agree does) then he defends against an immoral human agent, i.e. the bystander.

Since you agreed that the innocent one has the right to self-defense then you agree that the innocent one is experiencing an unjust attack by the bystander. True?

False. You can’t say that we agree on something when we were clearly taking different meanings from it.