Catholic view on utilitarianism

[o_mlly]

As a matter of fact, I am simply looking for those “Catholic authorities” you find dependable. Who are better informed than the writers of the catechism. One would think that the authors of the catechism are the cream of the crop when it comes to present the best information about catholicism. As the examples show they were not very good.

The authority for the catechism is in the footnotes. Apparently, you do not read my posts. ? I gave you the footnote citation from Donum Vitae, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But I expect short of a personal letter from the pope, you’ll also dismiss the CDF as an authority.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course I read everything you wrote. It was not obvious that you consider CDF as authority. The problem is still the same. The lack of specifics concerning serious problems, and the contradictions emerging from this inadequacy.

On behalf of @gorgias and myself, we thank you in this thread for shortening our anticipated time in purgatory. Again, good luck and good-bye.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

‘Sorry sir, I can’t fire at them until they fire at us. Yes sir, I know they’re moving into a superior position. Yes sir, I can see their guns trained on us. Yes sir, I can see them moving their artillery into place. Yes sir, I agree that they pose a potential threat. No sir, that’s not sufficient reason for me to shoot.’

Another uninformed poster’s weak attempt at sarcasm on Catholic morality.

You have simply defined a position and expected everyone to accept it as covering all situations. And when an example is given when it patently doesn’t, I would expect you to address the point being made rather than hand-wave it away as sarcasm.

If you’d rather not then the post stands as an indication that what you stated only applies in some specific circumstances. A point that MAGA has been making constantly. And which is being ignored.

 

[Gorgias]

The definition of triage, which all doctors deal with on a daily basis is ‘medical utilitarianism’. Glad that you agree with it.

Actually, triage says something different, I think… and I think it says something that looks more like CMT than utilitarianism.

Triage says “I cannot possibly do anything to save you, and therefore, I will defer taking medical action.” (Sometimes, in a battlefield or catastrophe context, merely palliative measures might be taken.)

This is, in fact, making a medical decision that isn’t based on utility. It says the same thing that CMT says: “if I could help you, I would; but I cannot do so, so I will defer acting.” Now, if the doctor said, “I think I can do more good there than here, and therefore, I’m going to leave these patients to their own devices so that I can attend to these other ones”… well, that would be utilitarianism.

I guess we’re lucky you never joined the forces.

‘Sorry sir, I can’t fire at them until they fire at us.

You seem to be grievously unaware of situations that the U.S. Armed Forces found themselves in, time and again, in the late 20th century. (It was precisely that situation, in which – without orders to engage – our forces were unable to respond to clearly aggressive posturing by potential hostiles.)

The “let them shoot first” is a stupid principle.

And yet, it is often the case.

But the “moral object” is just a meaningless word salad

Says you.

But dissenting views are supposed to be tolerated, even encouraged. So you cannot use the “defense” that a dissenting view is incorrect

Yet again, “reading skills”, my friend. I did not “defend” that “dissenting views are incorrect.” Rather, I responded to your assertion, in which you claimed that one must hold to the non-Catholic position, and it’s not your problem if one does not. In other words, it really was you who took the position that the view that dissents with yours is indefensible. Pot, meet kettle…

[The Catechism] does not guide you in specific scenarios

That’s not its purpose. Rather, the Catechism is an exposition on Catholic doctrinal teaching, not a paint-by-numbers operations manual. Sorry if you misunderstood the genre.

Yes, “chose” to avoid starvation. Which is his “right”.

Oh… people have the right to choose whatever course of action they wish. It’s called “free will.” On the other hand, one assumes culpability for his actions which he chooses.

 

[Gorgias]

I will maintain that the catechism is deficient, because it is silent on the question of scarce resources.

And, if you were to demonstrate that this is the stated goal and purpose of the catechism, then you might have an argument. Until then, you’re just pointing at the document and petulantly claiming that it doesn’t do everything you tell it that it must do. Yeah… that’s a productive approach.

Why the ad-hominem?

Yet again: please read up on logical fallacies before you start slinging accusations about them around like hand grenades. “This guy’s argument is wrong” is not an ad hominem attack. (Just to help you out: what would be an ad hominem attack would be “MAGA’s argument is wrong because MAGA is the one who is making the argument.” See the difference?)

It was not obvious that you consider CDF as authority.

There are no words…

I have no idea how could I have shortened your time in the hereafter,

(Redemptive suffering, brother. Redemptive suffering. )

all your efforts will be met with some ad-hominem attacks, and no counter arguments.

Umm… no. And no. But hey, don’t let me stop you… you’re on a roll.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, ‘double effect’ certainly does not apply here!

1. The act of throwing a lever in order to direct a trolley onto a track such that it kills one person is morally evil. It is evil to direct a trolley onto a track, knowing that you are killing a person. One may not do evil in order to achieve a good.

Simply knowing (or believing in this case) that switching tracks will kill a person is not sufficient to make it an evil act. You might be able to establish that it was evil if the good you intended to do could only be accomplished through the evil consequences. That is, if the death of the one person on the other track was necessary to save the 5 people. But in this case it is not. The 5 people could just as easily be saved if there was no one on the other track. The death of that one is an unintended consequence, and therefore double effect applies.

A more commonplace example of this is removing part of the tube where there is an ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother. It is the only acceptable treatment according to Catholic theology, even though the death of the fetus is expected. This is unlike abortion where the death of the fetus is not an inessential consequence, but is the means by which the mother’s life is saved. That is not allowed. That would be doing evil to achieve a good.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I guess we’re lucky you never joined the forces.

‘Sorry sir, I can’t fire at them until they fire at us.

You seem to be grievously unaware of situations that the U.S. Armed Forces found themselves in, time and again, in the late 20th century. (It was precisely that situation, in which – without orders to engage – our forces were unable to respond to clearly aggressive posturing by potential hostiles.

That happens. It’s Rules of Engagement. They vary. In SOME cases you cannot fire until fired upon. And I don’t think those making the rules were checking the catechism before making them.

Your exception proves the rule.

 

[o_mlly]

I would expect you to address the point being made rather than hand-wave it away as sarcasm.

Then make an argument that has a point. Show first the principles and then the reasoning as I have.

 

[o_mlly]

A more commonplace example of this is removing part of the tube where there is an ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother. It is the only acceptable treatment according to Catholic theology, even though the death of the fetus is expected. This is unlike abortion where the death of the fetus is not an inessential consequence, but is the means by which the mother’s life is saved. That is not allowed. That would be doing evil to achieve a good.

The ectopic pregnancy is not a parallel case. The surgeon’s scalpel is the trolley. The surgeon may not direct this instrument to directly attack (cut) the embryo, only the diseased tube in which the embryo resides. Likewise, the observer may not direct his instrument (trolley) to directly kill an innocent person.

 

[o_mlly]

But, as soon as you can be reasonably certain that you are about to be exposed to some danger, you act rationally to prevent that danger from actually happening.

Including murder? Have you thought this through?

Let us hope that we never find each other in the doctor’s waiting room.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I would expect you to address the point being made rather than hand-wave it away as sarcasm.

Then make an argument that has a point. Show first the principles and then the reasoning as I have.

Do you not read what is being written?

‘If you’d rather not then the post stands as an indication that what you stated only applies in some specific circumstances.’

Perhaps you’d like to revise your statement to allow for the fact that what you stated isn’t necessarily true in all circumstances. Which, as has been said enough times, is obviously the case. The catechism, as I think you might have stated yourself, is a guide. It is not a set of rules. Making statements as if it covers all situations will simply result in someone pointing out obvious examples where it doesn’t.

 

[Wozza]

MAGA-huelye:

But, as soon as you can be reasonably certain that you are about to be exposed to some danger, you act rationally to prevent that danger from actually happening.

Including murder?

Murder is an unlawful killing. You should check out the common law principle of “castle doctrine”. You don’t have to wait to be attacked to use deadly force. Those are the Rules of Engagement for Joe Public in quite a few states.

More examples of where you go wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Murder is an unlawful killing.

So is manslaughter. You should learn to use words correctly.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Murder is an unlawful killing.

So is manslaughter. You should learn to use words correctly.

We are discussing the intentional taking of a life in a legal manner when there is a potential threat to your safety. Murder and manslaughter are neither.

Try to stay focussed on the point being made. That you need to allow that killing someone is allowed unfer those conditions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

A more commonplace example of this is removing part of the tube where there is an ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother. It is the only acceptable treatment according to Catholic theology, even though the death of the fetus is expected. This is unlike abortion where the death of the fetus is not an inessential consequence, but is the means by which the mother’s life is saved. That is not allowed. That would be doing evil to achieve a good.

The ectopic pregnancy is not a parallel case. The surgeon’s scalpel is the trolley. The surgeon may not direct this instrument to directly attack (cut) the embryo, only the diseased tube in which the embryo resides. Likewise, the observer may not direct his instrument (trolley) to directly kill an innocent person.

It is not an exact parallel because if it were an exact parallel, the baby would survive if the tube was not cut out. It was not meant to be an exact parallel. It was presented as another example of double effect to illustrate the distinction between the evil consequence being a side-effect to accomplishing the good (something that might be allowed) and the evil consequence being the necessary means of accomplishing the good (something that is never allowed.) The trolley example is of the first sort, because the death of that one person is not the means by which the 5 are saved. If the switch is thrown and somehow the trolley stops before hitting the one person, or the one persons somehow jumps out of the way just in time, the good of saving the 5 is still accomplished, proving that the death of the one is not the means of saving the 5, only the expected consequence of saving the 5.

On the other hand, if a woman tries to accomplish the “good” of undoing a pregnancy by taking chemical abortion drugs, and if somehow the baby survives anyway, that would also thwart the “good” of undoing the pregnancy, proving that the killing of the baby in that case was not just a consequence but was actually the means by which the desired end (I hate to call it a “good”) of undoing the pregnancy is achieve. But in ectopic pregnancy, if the baby somehow survives after the tube section is removed (perhaps through future technology) the good of curing the mother of a diseased tube is still accomplished, thus proving that the death of the baby (if it occurs) is not essential in achieving the good. That is why the procedure is allowed where abortion is not allowed.

 

[o_mlly]

We are discussing the intentional taking of a life in a legal manner when there is a potential threat to your safety. Murder and manslaughter are neither.

No, you’ve still got it wrong. This is the philosophy forum, not the “legal” forum.

That you need to allow that killing someone is allowed unfer those conditions.

Once again, an assertion without an argument. What is given gratuitously may just as easily be dismissed.

 

[o_mlly]

The trolley example is of the first sort, because the death of that one person is not the means by which the 5 are saved.

All four principles of the double effect must be met, not just one. The act itself must not be evil. The direct attack on innocent human life is never justified, not even to save the nation.

If the switch is thrown and somehow the trolley stops before hitting the one person, or the one persons somehow jumps out of the way just in time …

Your “somehows” change the scenario. The reasonably expected outcomes at the time of the act determine its morality, not the “what ifs.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The trolley example is of the first sort, because the death of that one person is not the means by which the 5 are saved.

All four principles of the double effect must be met, not just one. The act itself must not be evil. The direct attack on innocent human life is never justified, not even to save the nation.

Throwing a switch to divert a trolley from hitting 5 people is in not inherently evil. It is not a direct attack on anyone.

If the switch is thrown and somehow the trolley stops before hitting the one person, or the one persons somehow jumps out of the way just in time …

Your “somehows” change the scenario. The reasonably expected outcomes at the time of the act determine its morality, not the “what ifs.”

The whole idea of double effect is that the reasonably expected outcome of an act is not the sole determinant of the morality of that act. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the reasonably expected outcome of cutting out the tube is the death of the baby. That does not mean cutting out the tube was immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

Throwing a switch to divert a trolley from hitting 5 people is in not inherently evil. It is not a direct attack on anyone.

Begs the question by truncating the expected outcomes. The scenario specifically states that the observer knows that throwing the switch kills an innocent.

The whole idea of double effect is that the reasonably expected outcome of an act is not the sole determinant of the morality of that act.

I agree and have said that all four of the principles must be met, not just one, two, or three.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Throwing a switch to divert a trolley from hitting 5 people is in not inherently evil. It is not a direct attack on anyone.

Begs the question by truncating the expected outcomes. The scenario specifically states that the observer knows that throwing the switch kills an innocent.

Just as the surgeon knows that cutting out the tube of an ectopic pregnancy will kill an innocent baby.

The whole idea of double effect is that the reasonably expected outcome of an act is not the sole determinant of the morality of that act.

I agree and have said that all four of the principles must be met, not just one, two, or three.

And all four are met. Which one is not?