Catholic view on utilitarianism

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

Good Lord. That’s YOUR assertion. That’s YOUR argument. That a potential risk means that you cannot take any action to defend yourself. Used in an example which shows it’s patently absurd.

You might do well to address that specific point rather than deflect. Every post you make that doesn’t address simply indicates that you are avoiding an admission that you were wrong in that there are most definitely situations when you can take action when a potential threat exists.

So do you address that specific point or deflect yet again?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Elf01:

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.

Absolutely wrong! Absent the surgery, the baby would have gone on living in the tube for many days more. The baby’s attachment to the tube was not the cause of its death. It would have been the cause of its death if was left alone, but it’s death was hastened by the surgery, making the surgery the direct cause of its death. This not unlike euthanasia for a terminal cancer patient. You would say the cancer was the direct cause of its death, and the actions of the doctor who made him die today instead of some time next week was only an indirect cause of his death. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

 

[Elf01]

Absolutely wrong! Absent the surgery, the baby would have gone on living in the tube for many days more. The baby’s attachment to the tube was not the cause of its death. It would have been the cause of its death if was left alone, but it’s death was hastened by the surgery, making the surgery the direct cause of its death. This not unlike euthanasia for a terminal cancer patient. You would say the cancer was the direct cause of its death, and the actions of the doctor who made him die today instead of some time next week was only an indirect cause of his death. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The same point I was going to make. I was going to ask someone with a medical background to confirm though. Do you happen to have one?

 

[o_mlly]

Good Lord. That’s YOUR assertion.

It is your post. ? If you now think the opposite then make an argument to support your assertion.

 

[o_mlly]

Absolutely wrong! Absent the surgery, the baby would have gone on living in the tube for many days more. The baby’s attachment to the tube was not the cause of its death. It would have been the cause of its death if was left alone, but it’s death was hastened by the surgery, making the surgery the direct cause of its death.

I agree with Fr. Pacholczyk . The removal of the child is a direct cause of its death and is not permitted. The removal of the tube is an indirect cause of its death and a direct cause of saving the mother’s life and may be tolerated. You disagree. Take it up with the good Father.

 

[o_mlly]

This not unlike euthanasia for a terminal cancer patient. You would say the cancer was the direct cause of its death, and the actions of the doctor who made him die today instead of some time next week was only an indirect cause of his death.

No, the tubal excision to cure an ectopic pregnancy is not like euthanasia. Euthanasia is a direct attack on the life of a human being and is never permitted. Euthanasia is like a direct abortion as it attacks the person-body.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Good Lord. That’s YOUR assertion.

It is your post. ? If you now think the opposite then make an argument to support your assertion.

As if you didn’t know the point being made…

People are allowed, under many different situations, to defend themselves with maximun force, including taking a life, if there is a potential threat to their life or to the lives of others.

Honestly. It’s embarressing that I really had to spell that out for you.

 

[o_mlly]

People are allowed, under many different situations, to defend themselves with maximun force, including taking a life, if there is a potential threat to their life or to the lives of others.

See, you did have an argument, not a good one though.

Nope. The threat must be more than “potential” but real. In your sarcastic example, you did not identify your soldier as actor in a just or unjust war. An unjust aggressor may not shoot. A defender in a just war may use whatever force is necessary to render the unjust aggressor incapacitated from causing further harm. You would do well to read about Catholic morality before attempting sarcasm to ridicule what you do not understand.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Absolutely wrong! Absent the surgery, the baby would have gone on living in the tube for many days more. The baby’s attachment to the tube was not the cause of its death. It would have been the cause of its death if was left alone, but it’s death was hastened by the surgery, making the surgery the direct cause of its death.

I agree with Fr. Pacholczyk . The removal of the child is a direct cause of its death and is not permitted. The removal of the tube is an indirect cause of its death and a direct cause of saving the mother’s life and may be tolerated. You disagree. Take it up with the good Father.

I don’t need to take it up with the good Father because your words are not supported by his. If you search the entire document in question you will find the word “cause” only appears three times. The first time is with regard to Ectopic Pregnancy being one of the leading causes of maternal sickness, and is thus irrelevant to our discussion. The second and third times are the relevant ones. The are:
Fr. Pacholczyk:

There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes.

and
Fr. Pacholczyk:

This approach, like the use of methotrexate, leaves the fallopian tube largely intact for possible future pregnancies, but also raises obvious moral objections because it directly causes the death of the child.

Of these two, only the first is anywhere near what you said. It does not say that the direct cause of the child’s death was the unusual attachment to the tube, which was your assertion. You can disregard my assertion about what the direct cause was since I was speaking of the medical cause and not the moral cause. In that sense, there is no direct moral cause to the child’s death - only indirect causes - and I can go along with that.

But now how are you going to make the case that the direct moral cause of the death of one man on the track is the diverting of the trolley and not his unusual attachment to the tracks? (Get it? Unusual attachment? As in the baby’s unusual attachment to the tube?)

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

People are allowed, under many different situations, to defend themselves with maximun force, including taking a life, if there is a potential threat to their life or to the lives of others.

The threat must be more than “potential” but real.

You are defining ‘potential’ and ‘real’ as being an either/or situation. Which is not the case. An enemy training his guns on you is a potential threat as he may fire. His actions are also a real danger to your life. In either case you would be within your right to shoot first. And that stands in civiliian situations as well. Morally and legally.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is a modification of the trolley problem for people who believe diverting the trolley is immoral to consider:

Suppose the track has an override switch, unknown to the first observer. But a second observer stationed at the override switch sees what is about to happen and throws the override switch, thus preventing the first switch from having any effect. (He did this because the one man on the track was the second observer’s dear father.) The result is that the first observer attempts to divert the trolley, but because of the override switch, the trolley is not diverted and goes on to hit the five other people on the track.

Question: Was the second observer morally responsible for the deaths of the five people on the track?

 

[o_mlly]

Of these two, only the first is anywhere near what you said. It does not say that the direct cause of the child’s death was the unusual attachment to the tube, which was your assertion.

If, as you agree, Fr. Tad writes that the removal of the tube is not the direct cause of the baby’s death then what do you claim is the direct cause? The direct cause can only be the unnatural attachment of the embryo to the tubal wall.

But now how are you going to make the case that the direct moral cause of the death of one man on the track is the diverting of the trolley and not his unusual attachment to the tracks?

Now you are muddling rather than clarifying. There is no such thing as a “moral cause” of death. The direct cause is the physical throwing of the switch directing the trolley to kill the innocent one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Of these two, only the first is anywhere near what you said. It does not say that the direct cause of the child’s death was the unusual attachment to the tube, which was your assertion.

If, as you agree, Fr. Tad writes that the removal of the tube is not the direct cause of the baby’s death then what do you claim is the direct cause? The direct cause can only be the unnatural attachment of the embryo to the tubal wall.

There is no direct moral cause of the child’s death - only indirect ones. Physically, the direct (and immediate) cause is the removal of the tube. If you are going to be precise about your use of the word “cause” you have to be consistent regarding moral cause and physical cause.

But now how are you going to make the case that the direct moral cause of the death of one man on the track is the diverting of the trolley and not his unusual attachment to the tracks?

Now you are muddling rather than clarifying. There is no such thing as a “moral cause” of death. The direct cause is the physical throwing of the switch directing the trolley to kill the innocent one.

No, the medical examiner would say blunt force trauma was the cause.And I am quite sure the good Father was speaking of morality, not forensic medicine.

 

[o_mlly]

You are defining ‘potential’ and ‘real’ as being an either/or situation. Which is not the case. An enemy training his guns on you is a potential threat as he may fire. His actions are also a real danger to your life. In either case you would be within your right to shoot first. And that stands in civiliian situations as well. Morally and legally.

Your example was in a war. Potential and real are either/or situations. Either the war is on or it is not. Either the war is just or unjust. An offensive war is never a just war.

The principle of a non-war just defense remains the same. The threat must be real and lethal before lethal action to defend is permitted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In self defense the person who is threatened is the one who assesses if the threat is real. If a reasonable person would think he is lethally threatened, then he is allowed to use lethal force if necessary to defend himself.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no direct moral cause of the child’s death - only indirect ones.

Nonsense. Causes are neither moral or immoral. Morality is determined not by the physical action alone but by reasonably foreseen outcomes.

Let A = the unnatural attachment of the embryo to the tube resulting in the diseased tissue in the mother.
Let B = the excision of the diseased tissue.
Let C = the baby’s death.

• A causes B (direct causation);
• A causes C which causes B (indirect causation)

No, the medical examiner would say blunt force trauma was the cause.And I am quite sure the good Father was speaking of morality, not forensic medicine.

More nonsense. You cannot evade the evil moral object through sophistry.

 

[o_mlly]

the threat is real. If a reasonable person would think he is lethally threatened

You make my point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is no direct moral cause of the child’s death - only indirect ones.

Nonsense. Causes are neither moral or immoral. Morality is determined not by the physical action alone but by reasonably foreseen outcomes.

Let A = the unnatural attachment of the embryo to the tube resulting in the diseased tissue in the mother.
Let B = the excision of the diseased tissue.
Let C = the baby’s death.

• A causes B (direct causation);
• A causes C which causes B (indirect causation)

No, A doesn’t “cause” B at all. The “cause” of B is the conscious decision on the part of the woman and the the doctor. If they decided not to do it, the diseased tissue would not excise itself!

And A doesn’t cause C either, at least not at the time the excision was done. It is my understanding that the baby is still alive at the time the excision is performed. Therefore the diseased tissue had not yet killed the baby. It would have killed the baby, given more time. But it was not given that time. So the diseased tissue had not yet killed the baby. And again, nothing causes the excision of the tissue other than the conscious decision of the people involved. The diseased tissue may have been the reason why the conscious decision was made, but it was not the cause.

No, the medical examiner would say blunt force trauma was the cause.And I am quite sure the good Father was speaking of morality, not forensic medicine.

More nonsense. You cannot evade the evil moral object through sophistry.

Nor can you refute an argument by attaching a label (sophistry) to that argument.

 

[o_mlly]

No, A doesn’t “cause” B at all. The “cause” of B is the conscious decision on the part of the woman and the the doctor. If they decided not to do it, the diseased tissue would not excise itself!

Sophistry. No one removes healthy tissue. Only because the tissue is diseased and life threatening, may its excision be a moral act.

And A doesn’t cause C either, at least not at the time the excision was done. It is my understanding that the baby is still alive at the time the excision is performed. Therefore the diseased tissue had not yet killed the baby. It would have killed the baby, given more time. But it was not given that time. So the diseased tissue had not yet killed the baby. And again, nothing causes the excision of the tissue other than the conscious decision of the people involved. The diseased tissue may have been the reason why the conscious decision was made, but it was not the cause .

Then you disagree with Fr. Pacholczyk.

Yet the difference in how the baby dies is, in fact, critical. There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes. We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being, though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life …

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, A doesn’t “cause” B at all. The “cause” of B is the conscious decision on the part of the woman and the the doctor. If they decided not to do it, the diseased tissue would not excise itself!

Sophistry. No one removes healthy tissue.

Yes. People do. It is called “abortion.” (Not this instance, of course, but people do remove health tissue like this sometimes.)

Only because the tissue is diseased and life threatening, may its excision be a moral act.

More silliness. Just because the word “because” has “cause” as its root does not mean that people doing things for a reason are the “cause” of the consequence of their action. That is a misunderstand of semantics.

And A doesn’t cause C either, at least not at the time the excision was done. It is my understanding that the baby is still alive at the time the excision is performed. Therefore the diseased tissue had not yet killed the baby. It would have killed the baby, given more time. But it was not given that time. So the diseased tissue had not yet killed the baby. And again, nothing causes the excision of the tissue other than the conscious decision of the people involved. The diseased tissue may have been the reason why the conscious decision was made, but it was not the cause .

Then you disagree with Fr. Pacholczyk.

Yet the difference in how the baby dies is, in fact, critical. There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes. We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being, though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life …

Please show how my statement disagrees with Fr. Pacholczyk, because it is not apparent. I think the “indirect causes” he refers to here are:

1. Temperature dropping.
2. Loss of blood supply.
3. Loss of nutrients.

These are indirect causes in that the surgeon did not intend them. They just happened as an unfortunate consequence of the tube’s removal. You have not shown where Fr. Pacholczyk says the diseased tube caused the baby to die. That is your invention.