Catholic view on utilitarianism

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

Yes. That is the indirect effect.

Still comparable.

No. Throwing the switch sends the trolley to directly and immediately on impact cause the innocent person’s death. Never allowed.

The surgeon uses the scalpel to directly excise diseased tissue. The child dies, not directly by the scalpel, but indirectly and subsequently in the diseased tube outside the mother. An un-willed but tolerated indirect evil effect.

There is no difference in directness. Your calling one of the direct and the other one indirect is just begging the question. The only difference is the amount of time that elapses between the act and the death. In the case of the trolley, it might be anywhere from several seconds to several minutes. In the case of the cut tube, the delay is a little longer - perhaps 15 minutes. Surely there is no moral difference in causing a death in 1 minute vs causing a death in 15 minutes. Time delay is irrelevant.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no difference in directness. Your calling one of the direct and the other one indirect is just begging the question. The only difference is the amount of time that elapses between the act and the death. In the case of the trolley, it might be anywhere from several seconds to several minutes. In the case of the cut tube, the delay is a little longer - perhaps 15 minutes. Surely there is no moral difference in causing a death in 1 minute vs causing a death in 15 minutes. Time delay is irrelevant.

It’s unfortunate that you cannot see the difference between acts which directly kill (methotrexate or excision of an embryo) versus acts which indirectly kill (excision of diseased tissue). Fr. Pacholczyk made the difference quite clear. The timing was offered not as determinative of direct or indirect but only as a help as all effects never occur before their causes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is no difference in directness. Your calling one of the direct and the other one indirect is just begging the question. The only difference is the amount of time that elapses between the act and the death. In the case of the trolley, it might be anywhere from several seconds to several minutes. In the case of the cut tube, the delay is a little longer - perhaps 15 minutes. Surely there is no moral difference in causing a death in 1 minute vs causing a death in 15 minutes. Time delay is irrelevant.

It’s unfortunate that you cannot see the difference between acts which directly kill (methotrexate or excision of an embryo) versus acts which indirectly kill (excision of diseased tissue). Fr. Pacholczyk made the difference quite clear. The timing was offered not as determinative of direct or indirect but only as a help as all effects never occur before their causes.

Irrelevant. I’m not trying to equate excision with methotrexate. I am equating excision with redirecting the trolley. So with that in mind, try again to answer what you quoted above.

 

[po18guy]

1. There is no trolley. It is a concocted scenario.
2. Why pay attention to such fabrocations when one may simply consult the catechism of the Catholic Church?

Regardless, in our progressive age, allowing the maximunum number of deaths would help reduce human stress on the earth and perhaps alleviate climate change to some degree.

Don’t laugh. One of the major US political parties is debating paying for 3rd world abortions as a means of population control. Popcon is one of the primary goals of the fragile earth crowd.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not trying to equate excision with methotrexate. I am equating excision with redirecting the trolley. So with that in mind, try again to answer what you quoted above.

Still, no brass ring.

Directing the trolley with the foreseeable outcome that the trolley will kill the innocent person (as the OP states) is a direct attack and never permitted. Now, if the mother of that innocent person seeing what you did dies of a heart attack, that is an indirect outcome.

Absent the trolley’s impact, the innocent person lives. Absent the scalpel’s cut, the baby also lives. The death of the baby like the death of the mother are indirect.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’m not trying to equate excision with methotrexate. I am equating excision with redirecting the trolley. So with that in mind, try again to answer what you quoted above.

Still, no brass ring.

Directing the trolley with the foreseeable outcome that the trolley will kill the innocent person (as the OP states) is a direct attack and never permitted. Now, if the mother of that innocent person seeing what you did dies of a heart attack, that is an indirect outcome.

Absent the trolley’s impact, the innocent person lives. Absent the scalpel’s cut, the baby also lives. The death of the baby like the death of the mother are indirect.

Still begging the question with terms like direct and indirect, I see. “Cutting out the tube with a baby inside with the foreseeable outcome that the cutting of the tube will shortly kill the innocent baby is a direct attack and never permitted.” See, I can do it too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. There is no trolley…

“There is no spoon…”

Sorry, I couldn’t resist the Matrix quote.

 

[po18guy]

1. When questioning the teaching of a faith founded by Christ, it is always best to consider ourselves deficient first.
2. Yes, we ahould.
3. You don’t seriously believe that you are the first person in 1986 years to “discover” a flaw in Church teaching regartding faith and morals?
4. Conjuring up fantasy situations, to me, shows the conjurer to be disingenuous or contemptuous when one’s answer is not immediately provided.The problem then is found with with he or she who conjures.
5. Before you feel the hammer, please review forum rules.
6. And you are not even the OP!

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

I’m not making an assertion. And I have no need of an argument when all I am doing is giving an example of a situation where your argument fails. I’d prefer that you address it but if you choose to ignore it then so be it.

 

[Elf01]

It’s unfortunate that you cannot see the difference between acts which directly kill (methotrexate or excision of an embryo) versus acts which indirectly kill (excision of diseased tissue). Fr. Pacholczyk made the difference quite clear. The timing was offered not as determinative of direct or indirect but only as a help as all effects never occur before their causes.

What makes one direct and the other not?

Etopic pregnancy treatment is well defined in terms of what options are moral. I can easily see methotraxate as direct. I have more trouble seeing why removing the tube plus baby is indirect, while removing the baby is direct.

 

[o_mlly]

Still begging the question with terms like direct and indirect, I see. “ Cutting out the tube with a baby inside with the foreseeable outcome that the cutting of the tube will shortly kill the innocent baby is a direct attack and never permitted. ”

Three strikes in this post. No, it’s apparent that you do not see. No, the death of the baby is not a direct outcome. And no, the argument does not beg the question.

Either you did not read or did not understand Fr. Pacholczyk article in which he clearly explains the crucial difference between direct and indirect outcomes in determining the morality of a human act. Or are you just being argumentative with no point?

 

[o_mlly]

What makes one direct and the other not?

Etopic pregnancy treatment is well defined in terms of what options are moral. I can easily see methotraxate as direct. I have more trouble seeing why removing the tube plus baby is indirect, while removing the baby is direct.

The act is the excision of the diseased tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child. The surgeon, like the observer in the trolley exercise, enters into the scenario in which a dynamic is in progress. Neither may directly attack an innocent person, either the one tied to the inactive track or the baby in the tube. The surgeon, unlike the observer, has an option to act by which the surgeon can foresee directly saving the mother but indirectly kill the child. In the OP’s case, the observer has no such option and therefore cannot act to save the five by directly attacking the one.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not making an assertion. And I have no need of an argument …

Yes, you do.

Look up the word “assertion”.

noun​

a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

This is an assertion, “No sir, that’s not sufficient reason for me to shoot.” Explain why in a new thread.

 

[Elf01]

The act is the excision of the diseased tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child. The surgeon, like the observer in the trolley exercise, enters into the scenario in which a dynamic is in progress. Neither may directly attack an innocent person, either the one tied to the inactive track or the baby in the tube.

What I want is a definition of a direct attack, not examples. We can then apply that to other scenarios.

 

[o_mlly]

What I want is a definition of a direct attack, not examples. We can then apply that to other scenarios.

A direct attack is any human act whose object is directed at killing an innocent human being.

Whether or not that evil end is intended or not does not change the species of an act. If the actor intends to kill the innocent human being then the act is evil in its end and fails two of the three fonts of determining its morality and is all the more evil. The object of the act is evil as a means to any end and is not permitted.

The determination of the species of an act is in its object and independent any actor’s particular intention. All acts evil in their object as determined by the reasonably foreseeable outcomes are deliberate and inherently evil. In this context deliberate means known and therefore, ipso facto, willed but not necessarily intended. Knowing the evil outcome and still acting is a deliberate act.

What's the Difference between Direct and Indirect Abortion? | Catholic Answers Q&A

An abortion would be indirect if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child’s death would neither be an end nor a means.

Whenever a child is actively killed, even as a means of protecting the mother’s life, that constitutes direct abortion.

 

[Elf01]

A direct attack is any human act whose object is directed at killing an innocent human being.

And how do we determine that?

 

[o_mlly]

And how do we determine that?

By examining the object of the act.

We all agree that the single person on the track is innocent.
We all agree that if the observer does not pull the switch that the innocent one is not harmed.
We agree that pulling the switch is the only reason the innocent one dies on the track.
We agree that that is a the bad effect.
We are taught that condemning one innocent life is never justified even to save a nation (CCC#1753).
W are taught that one may never do evil that good may come of it.
Therefore, one may not pull the switch.

Is the observer guilty? If the bad effect is foreseen and the observer had the possibility of avoiding it, Yes.

 

[Elf01]

We all agree that the single person on the track is innocent.
We all agree that if the observer does not pull the switch that the innocent one is not harmed.
We agree that pulling the switch is the only reason the innocent one dies on the track.
We agree that that is a the bad effect.
We are taught that condemning one innocent life is never justified even to save a nation (CCC#1753).
W are taught that one may never do evil that good may come of it.
Therefore, one may not pull the switch.

We know that the baby is innocent
If the tube is not removed the baby won’t die as a result
The removal of the tube is the cause of the babys death

Therefore the tube should not be removed,

The fact that the baby will die anyway does not make a moral difference so where is that analysis wrong?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The determination of the species of an act is in its object and independent any actor’s particular intention. All acts evil in their object as determined by the reasonably foreseeable outcomes are deliberate and inherently evil. In this context deliberate means known and therefore, ipso facto, willed but not necessarily intended. Knowing the evil outcome and still acting is a deliberate act.

This is twisted, especially the part bolded. Willed and intended mean the same thing!

Applying your last sentence to ectopic pregnancy, one would have to say that knowing the evil outcome of the baby dying if the tube is cut out and still acting to cut it out is a deliberate act, which is not true.

 

[o_mlly]

We know that the baby is innocent
If the tube is not removed the baby won’t die as a result
The removal of the tube is the cause of the babys death

Therefore the tube should not be removed,

The fact that the baby will die anyway does not make a moral difference so where is that analysis wrong?

The unnatural location of the baby’s attachment to the tube and subsequent growth is the direct cause of its death. The removal of the tube is an indirect cause.

A cause is direct if, and only if, no other cause is involved in the outcome. A cause may be indirect if other causes are involved in the outcome.

This is twisted, especially the part bolded . Willed and intended mean the same thing!

No. You still do not grasp the essential difference between what outcomes are deliberative (foreseen but not necessarily intended) and the actor’s intention.

Recommend you search “Catholic Morality Monsignor William Smith. Part 3”. The good priest’s entire series would be fruitful but in Part 3 he discusses how one determines the moral object of an act.