Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[o_mlly]

Perhaps you’ve not reflected enough on this. Throwing someone overboard is a choice to put that person into a situation that will kill him. Contrast this with the classic railroad double-effect scenario, where pulling a lever redirects a train away from two people and ends up killing one instead… In the first, you target an individual for death. In the second, you target two individuals for life. You can throw yourself overboard though, because that can be motivated by charity, which is the highest principle in the moral life.

“In the first, you target an individual for death.” That’s incorrect. I target (intend) to save the lives of others. I accept the bad effect.

Take the example of the heroic soldier who throws himself on a live grenade to save his comrades. Does he target himself for death? And if his captain pushes him onto the grenade intending to save the rest of his platoon, does the captain target the soldier for death?

 

[o_mlly]

“In the first, you target an individual for death.” That’s incorrect. I target (intend) to save the lives of others. I accept the bad effect.

If I may, let me spell out my reasoning after citing the principles from a reputable Catholic source,

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=367602&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 5/19/2001:
In cases in which we foresee the possibility of both a good and a bad consequence of a given human action, the principle of double effect assists in determining whether or not one’s action is morally justifiable. The principle of double effect involves five criteria:

1. Appeal to this principle is justified only if there is no alternative to the action in question. This principle can be applied only in genuine dilemmas.
2. The action in question must be good in its object, or at least neutral.
3. The evil consequence must not be intended. The person caught up in a moral dilemma would prefer that there were no risk of evil at all, but can do nothing about the fact that such a risk exists.
4. The good consequence must not be the effect of the evil consequence. In other words, the end does not justify the means.
5. The good consequence must be morally proportionate to the evil consequence.
6. The hypothetical denies any alternatives.
7. The act is to remove a person of sufficient weight to lighten the lifeboat preventing the lifeboat from certain sinking in shark infested waters saving 4 lives. Morally good act.
8. The act does not intend the death of the person who goes overboard. The evil that is probable is death by drowning or by shark attack – both physical (not moral) evils.
9. The saving of the 4 lives is made possible by the lightening of the lifeboat – not the death of the person.
10. 4 lives saved is greater good than 1 life lost.

 

[Tomdstone]

Bradski - Do you have the same belief about the physical sciences? Even mathematics? You do know that there are disagreements in those, too, right? So I guess there’s no truth in anything, since nobody can agree, or at least sometimes there’s a disagreement, even among those people who claim to be like-minded… Come on.

I don’t see any disagreement in Euclidean geometry. Once the axioms are specified which defines the subject of Euclidean geometry, there is only total agreement. Anyone who disagrees with the Pythagorean theorem is in error.

 

[Tomdstone]

We do agree on the principles. The principles allow in this lifeboat dilemma more than one good moral choice.

It is not clear because on this thread we see that both people appeal to theistic morality, But:
One person says that theistic morality teaches that the end does not justify the means.
The second person says that theistic morality allows a way of getting around that principle.

 

[o_mlly]

It is not clear because on this thread we see that both people appeal to theistic morality, But:
One person says that theistic morality teaches that the end does not justify the means.
The second person says that theistic morality allows a way of getting around that principle.

Please cite the post that allows an evil means to justify a good end.

 

[Tomdstone]

Please cite the post that allows an evil means to justify a good end.

#872 throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten alive by sharks. This is going to be very painful for him.

 

[Peter_Plato]

#872 throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten alive by sharks. This is going to be very painful for him.

Throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks does not result in a good end. Being eaten by sharks is a bad end according to the wide agreement of anyone capable of comprehending the scenario.

 

[Tomdstone]

Throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks does not result in a good end. Being eaten by sharks is a bad end according to the wide agreement of anyone capable of comprehending the scenario.

So we see the disagreement between two posters both of whom are relying on the theistic foundation of morality. See post # 398.
One says that in the example given, it is justified to throw an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks, another says it is not justified. Both say they are relying on the theistic foundation of morality or Catholic principles to arrive at their conclusion.

 

[Bradski]

Throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks does not result in a good end. Being eaten by sharks is a bad end according to the wide agreement of anyone capable of comprehending the scenario.

Apparently some people think it is the morally good thing to do. Kind of a funny system you guys have that allows for such disparate views.

Can you cite other Catholic responses other than jump out, throw out or do nothing? With the proper intent the first two are morally good.

That would include the pregnant woman as well, one would imagine. Let’s not be sexist.

We do agree on the principles. The principles allow in this lifeboat dilemma more than one good moral choice.

And the choices are about as far from each other as you could possibly imagine: Kill someone or do not kill someone. What sort of principles allow for such a monstrous difference in results?

Let’s say I asked 2 people to answer the same problem and these are the answers I get:

1. Do nothing. It’s not up to you to decide who lives and dies. It’s immoral to take a life. Let the chips fall where they may.
2. Throw the guy overboard. It would be immoral to do nothing and let the children drown.

Now are you telling me that they are both using the same ‘theistic morality’? That they can use the same principles and come to diametrically opposed answers? Because they both be Catholics or neither could. Or maybe one of them is. There is literally no way to tell. If that is the case, and it is very much the case, then there is no consistent system of theistic morality. It would seem to depend purely on one’s interpretation of what is deemed to be good and what is deemed to be bad.

So thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut. I’ll carry on doing exactly the same as I have always done. Basing my decisions on morality on all the available information and try to work out what decisions need to be made to result in the best outcome. Pretty much exactly what you are doing. And if you want to call your method ‘theistic morality’, then be my guest.

As I have said now many times, there is more than one acceptable act which is morally good. Study the Catholic principles of the double effect and, if you truly are rational, you’ll come to the same conclusions.

I think this is your problem. Well, not just yours, but a lot of people’s. Sometimes you have to do something that is patently wrong. That is morally wrong. Sometimes there are no other choices. Throwing the man overboard is wrong. But it’s the least wrong thing to do. Life is quite often not about making the best choices but making the least worst ones.

 

[PRmerger]

So we see the disagreement between two posters both of whom are relying on the theistic foundation of morality. See post # 398.
One says that in the example given, it is justified to throw an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks, another says it is not justified. Both say they are relying on the theistic foundation of morality or Catholic principles to arrive at their conclusion.

Apparently some people think it is the morally good thing to do. Kind of a funny system you guys have that allows for such disparate views.

Let’s apply your objection to this concept:

Some people think that we didn’t land on the moon.

Some people think we did.

Both appeal to science and evidence.

Kind of a funny system you guys have that allows for such disparate views.

Your response, Tom and Bradski?

 

[inocente]

A bit histrionic, don’t you think?

You could change the possible outcomes if you can demonstrate that a ninety year old nun has a greater right to life than others in the boat. If you cannot and you are not mentally incapacitated then I think you either jump or throw.

No grin. I would kneel before my Creator and hope he would judge me for saving the lives of others. I would also pray that after my time in purgatory, I get a back pew close enough to that nun in order to worship Him together.

So you did mean Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus.

 

[Tomdstone]

Let’s apply your objection to this concept:

Some people think that we didn’t land on the moon.

Some people think we did.

Both appeal to science and evidence.

Kind of a funny system you guys have that allows for such disparate views.

Your response, Tom and Bradski?

Start a thread on the moon landing.

 

[Bradski]

Let’s apply your objection to this concept:

Some people think that we didn’t land on the moon.

Some people think we did.

Both appeal to science and evidence.

Kind of a funny system you guys have that allows for such disparate views.

Your response, Tom and Bradski?

Ah, the satisfying crack of a nail being hit on he head.

As to moon landings, there is only one correct answer. But as far as throwing people out of a lifeboat, well…take your pick. Want to throw him out? Well, theistic morality will see you right. No problem. Look at all the good it’ll do.

Baulking at the idea? Again, no worries. Just apply the principles of theistic morality and you can all go down with the boat.

There is no wrong answer. Unless it is actually written somewhere that you can’t do something specific, then we can apply personal preferences to the principles and you can’t go wrong. Every answer is the correct one! Everyone is a winner.

Well, except the fat guy in the boat.

‘What are you doing with my Daddy!’

‘Sorry, kid. It’s all for the greater good’. Splash…

 

[inocente]

Let’s apply your objection to this concept:

Some people think that we didn’t land on the moon.

Some people think we did.

Both appeal to science and evidence.

Kind of a funny system you guys have that allows for such disparate views.

Your response, Tom and Bradski?

Hmm. Trying to deflect attention is a debating technique of sorts, but I read you as saying science and evidence is a funny system which belongs to people other than your good self, and you think the truth of whether we landed on the Moon is just an opinion, facts don’t matter.

I’ll forego asking you if that applies to all history, say 2000-year-old history, or only recent history for which there’s video, telemetry and live witnesses, since moon landings are off-topic.

Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[o_mlly]

#872 throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten alive by sharks. This is going to be very painful for him.

We don’t have a “#872” post in this thread. Is this a typo?

 

[o_mlly]

Throwing an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks does not result in a good end. Being eaten by sharks is a bad end according to the wide agreement of anyone capable of comprehending the scenario.

Yes, throwing a person overboard** to be eaten by sharks** is murder – an evil act. Throwing a person overboard to save 4 lives is a good act. The intention, that is the end-in-view, determines the morality of acts which are not intrinsically evil.

Consider the surgeon who faces the dilemma of caring for a patient with an ectopic pregnancy (a sinking lifeboat). Both mother and child will likely die if nothing is done (the lifeboat will sink and all on board will die). He removes the fetus (throws the child overboard) in order to save the mother’s life – a morally good act. If he were to remove the fetus in order to end the pregnancy then he intends to murder the child – a morally evil act. Same action whose morality depends on the intention of the actor.

 

[o_mlly]

So we see the disagreement between two posters both of whom are relying on the theistic foundation of morality. See post # 398.
One says that in the example given, it is justified to throw an innocent person overboard to be eaten by sharks, another says it is not justified. Both say they are relying on the theistic foundation of morality or Catholic principles to arrive at their conclusion.

You have not grasped that the morality of an act that is not intrinsically evil depends on the actor’s intention.

 

[o_mlly]

That would include the pregnant woman as well, one would imagine. Let’s not be sexist.

A3, You’re not reading the posts again. No one threw the pregnant woman overboard.

And the choices are about as far from each other as you could possibly imagine: Kill someone or do not kill someone. What sort of principles allow for such a monstrous difference in results?

It’s your hypothetical; the choice has always been to save 4 lives or lose 5.

Let’s say I asked 2 people to answer the same problem and these are the answers I get:

1. Do nothing. It’s not up to you to decide who lives and dies. It’s immoral to take a life. Let the chips fall where they may.
2. Throw the guy overboard. It would be immoral to do nothing and let the children drown.

You would teach number 1 the principles of the Double Effect.

Now are you telling me that they are both using the same ‘theistic morality’? That they can use the same principles and come to diametrically opposed answers? Because they both be Catholics or neither could. Or maybe one of them is. There is literally no way to tell. If that is the case, and it is very much the case, then there is no consistent system of theistic morality. It would seem to depend purely on one’s interpretation of what is deemed to be good and what is deemed to be bad.

A3, READ THE POSTS.

I think this is your problem. Well, not just yours, but a lot of people’s. Sometimes you have to do something that is patently wrong. That is morally wrong. Sometimes there are no other choices. Throwing the man overboard is wrong. But it’s the least wrong thing to do. Life is quite often not about making the best choices but making the least worst ones.

READ THE POSTS. The goodness or evilness of an act which is not intrinsically evil – the act of a disordered will – is determined by the intention of the actor. I can now type this phrase w/o looking at the keyboard but you apparently refuse to read it. READ THE POSTS!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, throwing a person overboard** to be eaten by sharks** is murder – an evil act. Throwing a person overboard to save 4 lives is a good act. The intention, that is the end-in-view, determines the morality of acts which are not intrinsically evil.

Consider the surgeon who faces the dilemma of caring for a patient with an ectopic pregnancy (a sinking lifeboat). Both mother and child will likely die if nothing is done (the lifeboat will sink and all on board will die). He removes the fetus (throws the child overboard) in order to save the mother’s life – a morally good act. If he were to remove the fetus in order to end the pregnancy then he intends to murder the child – a morally evil act. Same action whose morality depends on the intention of the actor.

Actually, I don’t think throwing the innocent person overboard meets the criteria for the principle of double effect because the innocent person being thrown overboard constitutes, in fact, the innocent person being targeted and killed. In an ectopic pregnancy, it is the affected part of the fallopian tube which is being targeted. It isn’t as if double effect would allow targeting the fetus, per se, which is precisely what throwing an innocent person overboard does.

If the cases were similar, the Church’s position would have to be that it is permissible to abort the fetus to save the life of the mother – but that isn’t the Church’s position. Ergo, throwing an innocent person overboard – I.e., intending their dead to save the others on the boat – would be identical to pemitting abortion in order to save the life of the mother.

To change the lifeboat scenario to be similar to an ectopic pregnancy, we could imagine that on the lifeboat was a large crate that was inordinately weighing down the lifeboat and threatening to sink it. Inside the crate, there happened to be an innocent person. The crate, being tightly sealed – making it impossible to open it to get the person trapped inside out – would be the issue with regard to keeping the lifeboat afloat. I would submit that an ectopic pregnancy is more like safely putting the heavy crate overboard than merely deciding to target one of the individuals, since it is the weight of the crate that is posing the threat, not one of the people.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually, I don’t think throwing the innocent person overboard meets the criteria for the principle of double effect because the innocent person being thrown overboard constitutes, in fact, the innocent person being targeted and killed. In an ectopic pregnancy, it is the affected part of the fallopian tube which is being targeted. It isn’t as if double effect would allow targeting the fetus, per se, which is precisely what throwing an innocent person overboard does.

If the cases were similar, the Church’s position would have to be that it is permissible to abort the fetus to save the life of the mother – but that isn’t the Church’s position. …

“When an ectopic pregnancy does not resolve by itself, a morally acceptable approach would involve removal of the whole section of the tube on the side of the woman’s body where the unborn child is lodged. Although this results in reduced fertility for the woman, the section of tube around the growing child has clearly become pathological, and constitutes a mounting threat with time. This threat is addressed by removal of the tube, with the secondary, and unintended, effect that the child within will then die.”
catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/when-pregnancy-goes-awry-ectopic-pregnancies.html
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.
Director of Education for The National Catholic Bioethics Center
fathertad.com/?page_id=5