No runaway trolley this time

[Scowler]

In the original thread Ender suggested to move the little different problem to a new thread. I agree, so here is the modified dilemma - in a truly bare-bones fashion. You are confronted with two choices in a scenario where there is no “perfect” solution - which would be to save everybody. You can choose to stay inactive, and then a certain number of people (say: a few millions) will die due an epidemic. Or you can perform an act and then only one person will die.

Problem number one: what will you choose in this instance? The nature of the act HERE is intentionally left out. All other things being equal, will your decision be based upon the consequences of your action? If so, then you are a consequentialist.

Problem number two is somewhat different: In this case the action to be performed is a “homicide” - if you kill the carrier of the virus which will cause the epidemic, only that one person will have to die, and you save all those millions who would be affected otherwise. The carrier of the virus is unaware of being infected, and he cannot be safely isolated. There is no third option, you must choose. How will you choose? Kill one and save a few millions, or let the events unfold?

How do you view this second scenario? Is it an act of defending those millions? Because in this case the legitimate “defense clause” will apply. Or do you say that killing the carrier of the virus is “intrinsically evil” - because he is “innocent” of malice?

 

[AlNg]

There is no third option

Why would it be impossible to quarantine the person with the virus?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Or to bring in the CDC to help with warning the public.

 

[Rau]

Why would it be impossible to quarantine the person with the virus?

Because Scowler struggles to come up with “real good dilemmas”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

To quote Blessed Cardinal Newman:

I said, "The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse."

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/chapter5.html

 

[o_mlly]

… here is the modified dilemma - in a truly bare-bones fashion.

Glad you spared us the full blown dilemma!

 

[Ender]

(Cardinal Newman): “The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.”

This would seem to be the Catholic answer to the problem in no uncertain terms. That said, I struggle with this the same way Scowler does: it seems ridiculous to allow a million to die when this can be prevented by the death of one, and in consequentialist terms killing the one makes perfect sense. But is there any other way to view this problem? Doesn’t it make us consequentialists if we judge the morality of an action by the good we expect it to produce?

The obvious problem with consequentialism is not in the “kill one, save a million” scenario, which as Rau insists is not a realistic one, but at the “killing you helps me” end of the scale. Once we discard the principle that some actions are never to be committed, and accept that any action is justified based on our determination that the outcome is “beneficial”, we pretty much allow everything.

Here’s the trade-off: if we discard the principle that some acts may never be committed (so we don’t look absurd in answering outrageous “what ifs”), then we are left with no way to object when a person asserts he may do whatever he feels leads to a “good” outcome, as he defines the term.

In the movie A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More makes this observation in explaining the danger of making a deal with the devil. I don’t have the quote, but I think it applies here. I’m sure someone knows what I’m referring to and can find it.

 

[Rau]

Once we discard the principle that some actions are never to be committed, and accept that any action is justified based on our determination that the outcome is “beneficial”, we pretty much allow everything.

Determination of Right and wrong would rest entirely on our capacity to ‘see’ ALL the consequences for all time.

 

[Thom18]

What reason is there for making quarantine an impossible choice?

 

[Thom18]

Because real life does not conform to our desires. Sometimes there is no “good” solution. You are all very funny (or pathetic) to shy away from true dilemmas, and insist on creating a get-out-of-jail card. Deal with the problem as presented, if you can.

I get that this is “your dilemma”, and you’ll form it as you please, but do explain exactly why something so simple and relatively easy in real life (something done all the time, at that) becomes “impossible” for the sake of your argument?

Maybe we don’t wish to be confined to the two imperfect choices you provide because, in real life, there’s no reason- at least not one that you have provided- to believe that this option wouldn’t be available. In other words, you are depriving us of making a real choice (and forcing us to make a “fake” one) by taking the most reasonable option off the table.

Real life isn’t conforming to (or confined by) the choices you offered.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

In the movie A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More makes this observation in explaining the danger of making a deal with the devil. I don’t have the quote, but I think it applies here. I’m sure someone knows what I’m referring to and can find it.

Is it this one?

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Or perhaps this one?

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

 

[BornInMarch]

I do what will result in the minimum loss of life.

 

[Scowler]

I get that this is “your dilemma”, and you’ll form it as you please, but do explain exactly why something so simple and relatively easy in real life (something done all the time, at that) becomes “impossible” for the sake of your argument?

Are you really so naïve that you think that all problems have a “morally good” solution? That it never happens that you are forced to choose between two immoral options? Of course I cannot fathom why do you consider the church-sanctioned defense option as being problematic.

The reason to posit true moral dilemmas is to force you to face the contradictions within your belief system. That is why there are no “perfect” choices in these dilemmas.

Maybe we don’t wish to be confined to the two imperfect choices you provide because, in real life, there’s no reason- at least not one that you have provided- to believe that this option wouldn’t be available. In other words, you are depriving us of making a real choice (and forcing us to make a “fake” one) by taking the most reasonable option off the table.

Life does not care about your “perfect” choices.

But if you wish to see a concrete possibility, here it comes. The infected person is too far away from you to stop him. There is no time to contact the CDC and request a team in protecting clothing. The infected person is about to enter into a crowded airport, and the infection is transmitted by air. Many disease agents are airborne, and do not need a bodily contact to get transmitted. The only option available to you is use your gun and shoot the poor sucker. Farfetched, but perfectly possible state of affairs.

I do what will result in the minimum loss of life.

Obviously! Good to see your rational approach.

 

[Rau]

Rau and the others obviously dare not face the dilemma as presented, therefore they try to find excuses not to contemplate it

You are good for a laugh, I’ll say that. We have debated your “not real good dilemma” at length in the past - I’m sure you do remember, and I’m sure you remember I suffered no incapacity to “face the dilemma”. And my response now is no different than then.

The reason sensible people enquire why your weakly described dilemma omits anything about how the death of the sick person comes into consideration is that it may be quite proper to take the life of the sick person or quite improper. To simply say “yes, I’d kill” is to deny the very considerations that moral theology requires to be assessed. Only the Consequentialist can do that. The nature of an act to take a life and the goodness or otherwise are not solely a function of the body-count equation you proposed. I fully understand that such makes no sense to you - you subscribe to a different system of ethics/morality - so of course you conclude differently.

So, as I said to you just a few days ago, there are scenarios imaginable where “stopping” the threat posed by the carrier might involve his death, but none where directly ending the existence of an innocent person is the appropriate act.

I wonder how you expect any meaningful dialogue when we speak a different language (let alone subscribe to different ethical system) - as evident by your statement:

Scowler: “The word ‘murder’ is not applicable here. And the word “innocent” is also irrelevant.”

Your meaning of ‘murder’ relies on “what can be gained” and mine on “what is being done”. A different language.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I see nothing to be gained by debating hypothetical dilemmas. In real life, quarantine would be an option, and it would also be difficult to predict the true effect of many viruses as they could mutate and a dangerous one become less so, a non- dangerous one more so. Furthermore, exposure to a dangerous virus might result in many dying but in the survivors developing an increased resistance helpful to the survival of humanity over the long term.

Making up fake problems that assume perfect information when in real life there is no such thing, is simply a waste of time and energy.

 

[Ender]

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Yes, exactly the one I meant. Thank you for providing it.

And this is the point: either you have fixed principles (laws) that apply in all cases or you have nothing. Anything other than inflexible, binding principles, not open to interpretation leaves judgments to those who have the power to judge situations at their whim.

That is, principles put limits on our choices, like a fence. Within the bounds of those limits we are free to make choices, but there are no exceptions allowed that take us beyond the fence. Consequentialism says nothing more than we can’t go beyond the fence unless we think we should.

 

[Jamie5]

These crazy scenario threads are useless as they don’t really prove anything. Anyone can say they’d do the “right” thing of save the most lives, but when it comes down to it no one knows how’d they react in those situations where immediate action is needed. Most people in fact would just freeze up and probably do nothing at all.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Not even a “single venial sin”? Whoa! What a vile and callous disregard for other people’s well-being!

You are confused, it is a vile disregard for sin.

 

[Ender]

But if you wish to see a concrete possibility, here it comes. The infected person is too far away from you to stop him. There is no time to contact the CDC and request a team in protecting clothing. The infected person is about to enter into a crowded airport, and the infection is transmitted by air. Many disease agents are airborne, and do not need a bodily contact to get transmitted. The only option available to you is use your gun and shoot the poor sucker. Farfetched, but perfectly possible state of affairs.

What principle do you appeal to that justifies shooting the infected person?

 

[o_mlly]

But if you wish to see a concrete possibility, here it comes.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)