The death of the baby is indirect and results from the excision of diseased tissue. The scalpel may never touch the baby. The innocent on the track dies directly by impact from the trolley.
The object of the act must not be evil, that is the act may not reasonably be expected to be the direct cause of the death of an innocent human being.
The innocent on the track does not die of the direct act of throwing the switch and diverting the trolley. By the time the trolley hits the person it is out of the control of the person who threw the switch, and more importantly, it is not desired that the one person should be struck, only that the trolley be diverted. That proves the direct part of the action of throwing the switch was not evil in itself. Or, to use the same terminology you used, the object of the act is the diversion of the trolley, not the striking of the one person on the track. That is an important distinction you are not acknowledging.LeafByNiggle:
The death of the baby is indirect and results from the excision of diseased tissue. The scalpel may never touch the baby. The innocent on the track dies directly by impact from the trolley.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the term “object” as it is used in this context. The reasonably expected outcome is not the object. The object of an act is the thing the actor intends to do and wants to do. Things that can reasonably expected to follow from that act are not the object of the act. They are the consequences of the act. “Consequences” and “objects” are different things philosophically and morally.
Pull the trigger, throw the switch. No difference.
Trolley and bullet, no difference.
No, not more important but just as important. A morally good act must be good in all three, object, intent and circumstance.
No, that is incorrect. “The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes” the outcome. Any observer whose reason recognizes that throwing the switch will directly kill an innocent human being may never do so. A particular actor may or may not subjectively intend that death but that does not change the object of the act.
Murder is the intentional direct killing of an innocent human being. In the moment, all human beings who are not unjust aggressor are innocent human beings.Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. Self-defense or defense of others is allowed EVEN by the catholic church.The problem is that the concept of “innocent” is unapplicable. It is just a feel-good word to introduce emotionalism. If (your) life is in danger, you are not just allowed, but expected to defend it, by any means necessary, but not excessive.
This is from CCC 1751, but it is not the definition of “object”. The definition of “object” comes in a sentence just before the one you quoted, which is:
So if you have a chain of events, starting with the pulling of a trigger or the throwing of a switch or the cutting of a tube, the object of the act includes only those events to which the will deliberately directs itself. Other events that follow, beyond what was deliberately directed by the will, are not the object, but are consequences of the act.
Again, you are woefully informed. Why do some people come to this forum and argue against Catholic moral theology having no idea what Catholicism holds to be true? Do you know why professional tennis players refuse to compete with amateurs?
Oh, I see. You “know” that I’m lethally contagious but I just “assume” that the gun your pointing at my head may indicate you are going to murder me? Please think at least a little bit before posting.
As much as others want to claim that the act is benign – merely pushing a lever – the act really is “directing a trolley to a set of tracks where you know it will kill a person.” It almost seems that you’re arguing for some sort of ‘negligence’ defense… but even so, this would fail to show a lack of negligence.
“if there was no one on the other track” is a counterfactual, though. By the same token, I could argue, “well, gee, officer – if the person wasn’t standing downrange, I’d never have shot them! So, clearly, shooting them while they were standing in front of the target was an ‘unintended consequence’!”
“Reject”. The word you’re looking for here is “reject”, not “comprehend.”
We are not talking about negligence here. We are talking about a scenario in which the person faced with the decision knows full well the likely consequences of his action or inaction.LeafByNiggle:
“if there was no one on the other track” is a counterfactual, though. By the same token, I could argue, “well, gee, officer – if the person wasn’t standing downrange, I’d never have shot them! So, clearly, shooting them while they were standing in front of the target was an ‘unintended consequence’!”
No, you misunderstand the object and would collapse its meaning into intent which is the second font of morality. As the very word implies, the object of the act is objectively the same for any and all actors. The intent is subjective and may be different for any particular actor.
Another return of serve into the net. See you around.
I gave you the definition from CCC 1751 which you are ignoring, instead offering your own. And it is a flawed definition for it continues to fail to distinguish between acts that are intended and acts that are not. According to the definition you just gave here, the death of the baby in cutting out an ectopic pregnancy is the object of the surgery. Look how perfectly it conforms to your definition of “object of the act”:LeafByNiggle:
No, you misunderstand the object and would collapse its meaning into intent which is the second font of morality. As the very word implies, the object of the act is objectively the same for any and all actors. The intent is subjective and may be different for any particular actor.
Any and all actors recognize that the act per se (in itself) directly causes the death of an innocent and knowing necessarily wills that end. It may not be a particular actor’s intended end but that does not change the object of the act.
Do you actually believe that regarding ectopic pregnancy?
No, it is you who do not understand CCC1751. I have tried to help you with your misunderstanding on the difference between “deliberately willed” and the “intended end in view” but you ignore it.
You would do well to understand the difference between an indirect and direct effect of an act.
That distinction, if it exists, plays no role in Catholic morality. If the effect is certain, it does not matter morally if it is direct or indirect.LeafByNiggle:
You would do well to understand the difference between an indirect and direct effect of an act.
No. Whether the killing is indirect or direct is essential to the moral analysis of the case you cited – the tubal pregnancy.
Ah, another double fault. Game. set and match. You obviously are very badly informed, as in woefully informed, on Catholic morality. Read the catechism, look up the footnotes and then get back to me for any clarification. School’s out until you do some homework.
If that is how we are to understand “direct” vs. “indirect”, then we can see tolerating the trolley striking and killing the one person is comparable to tolerating the death of the baby as a result of the tube he was living in being cut out. The act that initiates the trolley going down that track is analogous to the act of cutting out the tube with a scalpel. You can call the end result in both cases “direct” or “indirect” effects of the initial act. But you cannot call one of them direct and the other one indirect. They are comparable.LeafByNiggle:
No. Whether the killing is indirect or direct is essential to the moral analysis of the case you cited – the tubal pregnancy.
https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/9514/6984/9801/MSOB052_When_Pregnancy_Goes_Awry.pdf
No, the analogy does not hold because the human act is not defined by the mere physicality of the act but by the reasonable foreseeable direct and indirect effects.
And you are welcome!
In that case the human act of cutting out the tube is defined by the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect effects of depriving the baby of the environment that was keeping it alive. Still comparable. (You know, a fallopian tube does not keep a baby alive when it has been removed from the mother. The surgeon and the mother are well aware of this.)LeafByNiggle:
No, the analogy does not hold because the human act is not defined by the mere physicality of the act but by the reasonable foreseeable direct and indirect effects.
Yes. That is the indirect effect.
No. Throwing the switch sends the trolley to directly and immediately on impact cause the innocent person’s death. Never allowed.