Runaway trolley problem

[Scowler]

A dilemma is hardly that when the scenario defies any kind of reality in this world. That’s where you are right now.

Baloney. All the real good dilemmas are constructed to posit a hard-hitting conflict between two positions. They force you to consider the contradiction between your deeply held principles, in this case the saving of millions vs. killing one person. It exposes the selfishness of “I am washing my hands” à la Pontius Pilatus. “I did not do it, I merely allowed it to happen” they say. And you consider this an “ethical” stance? I hope that not all Catholics agree with you.

The good moral dilemmas have nothing to do with “reality”, they are always exaggerations. How many times do we encounter a “life-boat” scenario in real life? And yet it is one of the most widely used hypothetical arrangements to force you to examine your beliefs. But people will do almost anything to avoid self-examination. “It is not realistic” they say. “Let’s say that there is another option to avoid the question” they assert.

I’m not going to remark further on this other than to say you should not make assertions you don’t have the knowledge to support.

Too bad. Because you are wrong. There is only one “sin” that cannot be forgiven, and that is “blasphemy against the holy spirit”. Everything else can be repented and forgiven. As “Jesus Himself said in Matthew 12:31: And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” Maybe you could investigate what you believe to be true.

 

[Rau]

Baloney. All the real good dilemmas are constructed to posit a hard-hitting conflict between two positions. They force you to consider the contradiction between your deeply held principles, in this case the saving of millions vs. killing one person.

The “real-good dilemmas” are the ones that can’t be dismissed as mere fantasy. Dilemmas “hit home” when one recognises that one (or someone) could truly face such and such a decision - it’s a decision relevant to humanity, and it causes us to test our principles. If you’re unable to put together such a scenario (the trolley is such a scenario, as is the lifeboat with limited carrying capacity) - don’t bother trying - instead just ask about the principal you wish to challenge directly, eg: Eg. “Is it OK to commit murder in order to save many more innocent lives?” [Of course, even a simple question like that may not be understood equivalently by different people.]

I dismiss your scenario because it is not a “real good dilemma”, not because I have any difficulty facing the moral question that you are seeking to challenge or expose. I have no difficulty identifying the moral principles to be applied.

 

[BlackFriar]

Ender:

Dropping a bomb leads inevitably to death,

But the intention or the purpose in dropping the atomic bomb on japan was to save lives and end the war, not to kill anyone.

If the intrisic known ordering of the bomb drop is the certain killing of large numbers of non combatants then how credible is it to say it wasnt intended…that is the very issue.

 

[o_mlly]

You asked a generic question about the difference between committing an act vs. allowing one

No, you got it wrong. The question is may one commit an evil act vs. not acting and allow evil to occur. Big difference.

 

[Scowler]

Eg. “Is it OK to commit murder in order to save many more innocent lives?”

The word “murder” is not applicable here. And the word “innocent” is also irrelevant. The scenario is simple. The two choices are

1. to commit a manslaughter (intentional homicide) and thereby save the lives of millions, or
2. stay on the sidelines and allow those millions to die.

In the real world everyone would condemn the one who allows those millions to perish. No excuse of “washing your hands” will be accepted. But there is a valid defense: “I had to perform the homicide in order to save those others. If there would have been any other method, I would have used it.”

The defense of “I cannot put my immortal soul into jeopardy” is easily superseded by Jesus’s words: “the only sin which cannot be forgiven is the blasphemy toward the holy spirit”.

No, you got it wrong. The question is may one commit an evil act vs. not acting and allow evil to occur. Big difference.

Only in your opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

The defense of “I cannot put my immortal soul into jeopardy” is easily superseded by Jesus’s words: “the only sin which cannot be forgiven is the blasphemy toward the holy spirit”.

Then you’ve got something far more important than my question wrong. Other sins that will not be forgiven are those for which one is not contrite. One does not seek forgiveness for a “good” act. At least be consistent.

 

[Theo520]

The four patients will surely live if the doctor can find the organs. OTOH, there is a young man sitting in the waiting room and it turns out that he has the correct blood type and the four healthy organs necessary for the transplant. But if these organs are taken from his body,

ROFL, so the one person isn’t tied on the track by some evil third party. You are the one who tackles and sedates him, you are the evil person that ties him to the track.

 

[Elf01]

According to the Catholic teaching the only sin which cannot be forgiven is the blasphemy against the holy spirit. You can perform the necessary action, then repent and be forgiven. It is not a “presumption” to rely on this Catholic teaching.

You do have to repent though and that attitude does not sound like repentance to me. At the very least you are presuming that you will repent before you die. Below is some info on presumption and the unforgivable sin.

Presumption:

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm#I

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#1864

 

[Scowler]

One does not seek forgiveness for a “good” act.

It is a good act to save those millions. If there would be any other way to do it, it would be the one to choose. In this example the act is directed toward saving millions of people. The only available option is to kill the carrier of the virus. Due to the circumstances no other option is available. Therefore the solution is to do what is necessary, and then “repent”, and ask for forgiveness. And since such an act is NOT a blasphemy, Jesus said that it will be forgiven. Of course for a non-Christian this is not necessary. No reasonable judge or jury would condemn this action.

 

[AlNg]

It is a good act to save those millions.

Maybe there are exceptions. Suppose you are on a plane and a passenger attempts suicide by opening the escape door, but he then decides not to jump. He cannot be pulled back in the plane because he is too far out and he refuses to be pulled back. At the same time, the plane is spinning out of control because of the pressure problems caused by the open escape door. Should you just close the door on him,and let him die, saving everyone else, or should you continue to try to save him, even though he is resisting and refuses to come inside the plane. But with every second lost the plane veers closer and closer to a crash, killing everyone on board.

 

[o_mlly]

In this example the act is directed toward saving millions of people.

A good intention is insufficient to determine a moral act. And, the Church has always, as JPII confirmed in VS, condemned the moral theory you espouse called proportionalism or conseqentialism. An act evil in its object can never be moral.

I must also hope that you (too) do not often frequent train yards.

 

[Scowler]

Maybe there are exceptions. Suppose you are on a plane and a passenger attempts suicide by opening the escape door, but he then decides not to jump. He cannot be pulled back in the plane because he is too far out and he refuses to be pulled back. At the same time, the plane is spinning out of control because of the pressure problems caused by the open escape door. Should you just close the door on him,and let him die, saving everyone else, or should you continue to try to save him, even though he is resisting and refuses to come inside the plane. But with every second lost the plane veers closer and closer to a crash, killing everyone on board.

There are always exceptions. In the example you provided you already stipulated that the person is too far out and CANNOT be pulled back. In this case you close the door. No problem.

 

[JustLamb]

Moving the goalposts?

You know what a trolley is in the UK? It’s a shopping cart, in which case you can knock it off the tracks.

 

[Scowler]

A good intention is insufficient to determine a moral act. And, the Church has always, as JPII confirmed in VS, condemned the moral theory you espouse called proportionalism or conseqentialism. An act evil in its object can never be moral.

I agree with the principle that the end cannot justify the means. However to pass judgment on an act without considering the outcome is ludicrous. Every aspect of the act needs to be considered together - the “what”, the “why” and the “how”. There is no rationale behind the idea that any one of these aspects can be evaluated on its own right.

The Church and JPII are free to condemn rational arguments and keep on espousing the idea of “intrinsically evil acts” but that attitude will not help you in “spreading the good news” and gain converts.

 

[JustLamb]

More interesting is the bomb on Nagasaki. It was dropped on the Catholic cathedral to see how similar buildings in the US would fare.

 

[BlackFriar]

More interesting is the bomb on Nagasaki. It was dropped on the Catholic cathedral to see how similar buildings in the US would fare.

Hadnt heard that, any references?

 

[o_mlly]

Every aspect of the act needs to be considered together - the “what”, the “why” and the “how”.

That’s correct. And all three aspects must be good for the act to be moral (CCC #1755). This act is immoral because its object is evil.

But I repeat what I and others have already posted. Newcomers, please read the entire thread or at least Veritas Splendor. Else we will continue to go back to square one. I’ll now leave it to others to repeat what has already been posted and sourced as authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

This observation would take us back to square one. “Throwing the switch” is insufficient as a description of a human act; a chimp could do the same.

I didn’t offer it as a complete description of a human act; I used it in the context of your statements:

• The act has two ends…
• The non-act also has two ends…
• Is permitting an evil morally equivalent to committing an evil?

If you would care to give a complete description of the act, I would be delighted. I have several times asked you to define the object of this act. My initial comment was simply to point out that your question (above) simply assumes that “throwing the switch” under the circumstances is necessarily an evil act.

 

[Ender]

Of course it can have two objects and two ends.

Aquinas clearly says so many times when he speaks of the “beside intent”.

That sounds like two intents and therefore two objects in the one composite act to me.

Why doesnt it to you?

There can only be one primary object. This is how I understand this explanation from the Roman Rota (different topic).

Completely overlooked in the contraception debate, but stated clearly by the Roman Rota text, is the fact that natural law requires that an object under consideration must have a primary end. The very fabric of natural law itself necessitates this. This is not unique to marriage. While something may have more than one end, all other ends are necessarily subordinate to whatever is the primary end.

I don’t know what Aquinas meant when he spoke of a “beside intent”. Do you have a citation for this?

 

[Scowler]

That’s correct. And all three aspects must be good for the act to be moral (CCC #1755). This act is immoral because its object is evil.

Not exactly. The aspects must be EITHER good OR neutral. The object in this instance is to save those millions - and that is not “evil”. If anything, it is morally good. You try to argue against the “how”, the method of achieving that “object”.

You insist that some acts are intrinsically “evil” regardless of everything else. The act in this case is a “homicide”. A homicide - in and of itself - is morally neutral. In the real world there is such a concept as “justifiable homicide”. A justifiable homicide includes self-defense and the defense of others. Clearly that is the case here. The concept of defense is broader than defending against a volitional attack. It also includes the defense against an involuntary and accidental spreading of a disease. Obviously, if one can achieve this defense in a non-intrusive fashion, then the killing would be unjustified.

Of course there is an auxiliary problem here, namely the definition of “evil”. Quoting from the catechism #1755:

There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

This kind of nonsense makes your argument unacceptably incorrect. During the countless millennia of humanity (all the way from the most primitive cave men!) there was no “marriage” (sacramental or otherwise) in any sense of the word. To declare all those people “evil” is simply ludicrous. They behaved according to their biological nature. (What would be the “disorder of the will” is another problem.) But that could be discussed in another thread.