Teleological suspension of the ethical?

[tonyrey]

Do you really want this discussion to be about you? Do you really think that’s the subject here? It’s not. The subject is conscience and I didn’t change it; you seem to be trying to, to yourself.

You were the one who brought me into the picture:

“You are aware, Tony, that you can have a poorly formed conscience, that such a conscience does not represent the wisdom of the Church shining in the darkness, and that such a conscience can be morally culpable for its own depravity?..”

You could have used “one” or “we” or “a person” but your remark was obviously directed at me because you disagree with my moral judgment.

You went on in another post to state:

“Your conscience is malformed, it seems, insofar as you seem to make exaggerated claims about the “ultimate authority” of your own conscience, as I have been trying to explain.”

This was in spite of the fact that I have agreed from the start that **our conscience is not infallible **and that we have an obligation to ensure that it is well-formed. Why would I bother to engage in a detailed moral discussion if I were cocksure my judgment is correct? Unlike you I have admitted I may be mistaken…

“Now you’re suggesting we should just try to save other people from physical evil and not worry about whether we do so in a morally licit way, i.e., don’t worry about acting in accordance with a well-formed conscience.”

This is a distortion of my statement which you are taking out of its context:

"We have an obligation to defend the lives of innocent people against terrorist attacks even though it may entail losses on our side. To make our primary objective our own salvation is a form of self-love opposed to the teaching of Jesus. If we are afraid to act out of fear that we shall go to hell we are failing to obey His command to love others… We should be more concerned about their well-being and safety than whether our conscience is well-formed…

It remains true that we should be more concerned about the well-being and safety of others than whether our conscience is well-formed after having considered and discussed the issue at length.

We are not faced with the imminent need to take drastic action here that prevents us from discussing whether our consciences are malformed.

Do you think another terrorist attack is improbable? It could happen at any moment. Sooner or later we have to make up our minds. If we make a mistake so be it. We should be prepared to accept the consequences of being morally culpable. There is certainly no excuse for vacillating indefinitely. That is an evasion of our responsibility to minimise the amount of unnecessary suffering and death in the world.

To summarise my position:

1. The intention is **not **to kill the driver but to stop the train.
2. If possible the intention should be to inflict damage which would stop the train.
3. The utmost care should be taken not to kill the driver.
4. The risk of killing the driver is justified because his accidental death would be a lesser evil than a nuclear holocaust.

If the bullet wounded the driver slightly or missed him completely but made him stop the train would one still be unjustified in having taken the risk of killing him?

 

[ThomasToo]

There is no evidence that Saddam attempted to justify his genocide on moral grounds. Nor that serial killers do so…

Have I made that assertion? If one is acting according to a well-established moral principle - like that of the double effect - the likelihood of being morally culpable is considerably diminished.

You had said ‘do you deny that we cannot be morally culpable if we are obeying our conscience to the best of our ability?’ I don’t think we can know other people’s consciences so I perfectly willing to assume people are, on the whole, acting in accord with theirs. That was the assertion I was trying to question.

Are you saying we are not justified in fighting terrorists? Do we have to wait for definitions to save people’s lives?

I am not referring to the war in Pakistan but the war against terrorism on our own soil.

I am saying almost exactly that. If we had to shoot down the planes on 9/11 that’s one thing but you asked ‘is the war against terrorism not just’ and according to the just war theory it explicitly is not.

1. We cannot be sure that the train driver is not an accomplice.

I think this point is key. I, and I presume others as well, was assuming that the train driver was unwitting in this situation. If he is intentionally participating then we have a different issue and you should feel free to shoot to kill.

1. Non-combatants cannot be intentionally targeted but if they happen to be in the vicinity of a nuclear device planted by terrorists we are justified in taking the risk of killing them because they would almost certainly die if it explodes.
2. The intention is not to kill the train driver but to stop the train.

When and where have I rejected the notion of an intrinsically evil act?

I think/thought you’ve rejected the notion of a intrinsically evil act when you were willing to kill the train driver (who I was assuming to be innocent) in this situation. To be frank I think you’ve been gently massaging your hypothetical into something much less than you started with at the get go. I’d like to propose a new hypothetical; suppose that there is somewhere hidden on the island of Manhattan a suitcase nuke and you have apprehended the terrorist responsible. He is unwilling to talk but had told you the bomb will detonate in just under two hours. Is it morally licit for him to be tortured (without getting into a discussion of what constitutes torture because this is a family place and, frankly, torture’s gross–hopefully you will stipulate that some forms of torture exist, let’s assume those) to get him to reveal the location of the bomb? (NB CCC 2297 ‘torture… is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity’ and ‘can never be justified’ Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship]

1. You are taking it for granted that the train driver will be killed.
2. If he were only wounded and the nuclear holocaust were averted what would be your reaction then?
3. If the bullet missed him completely but made him stop the train would one still be unjustified in having taken the risk of killing him?

1. I don’t think it is relevant to what seemed to be a defense of intending to kill an innocent man that he would have died anyway.
   2 & 3. If your intent is only to get his attention and not to kill him this is another question and you are, arguably, within the moral law.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not referring to the war in Pakistan but the war against terrorism on our own soil.
I am saying almost exactly that. If we had to shoot down the planes on 9/11 that’s one thing but you asked ‘is the war against terrorism not just’ and according to the just war theory it explicitly is not.

I think/thought you’ve rejected the notion of a intrinsically evil act when you were willing to kill the train driver (who I was assuming to be innocent) in this situation. To be frank I think you’ve been gently massaging your hypothetical into something much less than you started with at the get go.
You are mistaken. Right at the start I described killing an innocent person as a horrendous act. The notion that I am willing to kill the train driver is also a distortion of my view. I am willing to take the risk - which is quite a different matter.

I

'd like to propose a new hypothetical; suppose that there is somewhere hidden on the island of Manhattan a suitcase nuke and you have apprehended the terrorist responsible. He is unwilling to talk but had told you the bomb will detonate in just under two hours. Is it morally licit for him to be tortured (without getting into a discussion of what constitutes torture because this is a family place and, frankly, torture’s gross–hopefully you will stipulate that some forms of torture exist, let’s assume those) to get him to reveal the location of the bomb? (NB CCC 2297 ‘torture… is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity’ and ‘can never be justified’ [Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship]

I would not condone torture for two reasons. The first is on moral grounds: it is a direct violation of a person’s value and dignity in which there is no element of doubt about what you intend to do: inflict suffering. The second is on pragmatic grounds: even torture is unlikely to make a fanatical terrorist reveal the location of the bomb. His obsession amounts to a form of self-hypnosis which will probably make him immune to pain to the extent that he will become unconscious before he gives any information.

1. You are taking it for granted that the train driver will be killed.
2. If he were only wounded and the nuclear holocaust were averted what would be your reaction then?
3. If the bullet missed him completely but made him stop the train would one still be unjustified in having taken the risk of killing him?

1. I don’t think it is relevant to what seemed to be a defense of intending to kill an innocent man that he would have died anyway.

The reason I mentioned it is not because it is a defence of intending to kill an innocent man - which I have never advocated - but because yet another death will occur if no attempt is made to stop the train.

2 & 3. If your intent is only to get his attention and not to kill him this is another question and you are, arguably, within the moral law.

At last! I’m glad you accept the principle of risk-taking in cases of necessity - although wounding him amounts to more than getting his attention. It will probably also prevent him from driving the train.

Your adherence to moral principles is all the more impressive in the context of your amoral interpretation of reality…

[/QUOTE]

 

[ThomasToo]

If the just war theory stipulates that we are not entitled to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks so much the worse for the just war theory…

I just don’t think the just war theory applies to terrorism. Other principles, however, do.

You are mistaken. Right at the start I described killing an innocent person as a horrendous act. The notion that I am willing to kill the train driver is also a distortion of my view. I am willing to take the risk - which is quite a different matter.

My apologies, I (and I think many others) misunderstood your position.

Your adherence to moral principles is all the more impressive in the context of your amoral interpretation of reality…

My ‘amoral interpretation of reality’? Just because I don’t think there are any gods hardly means I’m not a moral realist.

 

[tonyrey]

My ‘amoral interpretation of reality’? Just because I don’t think there are any gods hardly means I’m not a moral realist.

Do you believe moral laws are universal and apply to all rational beings, both human and non-human?

 

[ThomasToo]

Do you believe moral laws are universal and apply to all rational beings, both human and non-human?

I believe that there are some actions that are always and everywhere wrong (e.g. murder, rape and torture). I don’t think a rational non-human (i.e. extra-terrestrial) would be anywhere near sufficiently similar to us to try to apply moral norms based on human psychology, sexuality and physiology to them would be reasonable.

 

[Betterave]

You were the one who brought me into the picture:

“You are aware, Tony, that you can have a poorly formed conscience, that such a conscience does not represent the wisdom of the Church shining in the darkness, and that such a conscience can be morally culpable for its own depravity?..”

You could have used “one” or “we” or “a person” but your remark was obviously directed at me because you disagree with my moral judgment.

Sure Tony, and if I said, “When you ride a motorcycle, you should wear a helmet,” I suppose you’d take that personally too? Don’t be silly. Anyway, of course my remark was directed at you! You’re the guy I’m debating! What did you expect? That doesn’t mean you need to take it as a personal attack.

You went on in another post to state:

“Your conscience is malformed, it seems, insofar as you seem to make exaggerated claims about the “ultimate authority” of your own conscience, as I have been trying to explain.”

This was in spite of the fact that I have agreed from the start that **our conscience is not infallible **and that we have an obligation to ensure that it is well-formed. Why would I bother to engage in a detailed moral discussion if I were cocksure my judgment is correct? Unlike you I have admitted I may be mistaken…

You’re still just ignoring my point, Tony. I never disputed your adherence to the claims you list above! Also, I’m not interested in a vague admission that you may be mistaken (that’s a real brave claim to make!), I’m interested in your admitting that you have been mistaken.

This is a distortion of my statement which you are taking out of its context:

"We have an obligation to defend the lives of innocent people against terrorist attacks even though it may entail losses on our side. To make our primary objective our own salvation is a form of self-love opposed to the teaching of Jesus. If we are afraid to act out of fear that we shall go to hell we are failing to obey His command to love others… We should be more concerned about their well-being and safety than whether our conscience is well-formed…

It remains true that we should be more concerned about the well-being and safety of others than whether our conscience is well-formed after having considered and discussed the issue at length.

Do you think another terrorist attack is improbable? It could happen at any moment. Sooner or later we have to make up our minds. If we make a mistake so be it. We should be prepared to accept the consequences of being morally culpable. There is certainly no excuse for vacillating indefinitely. That is an evasion of our responsibility to minimise the amount of unnecessary suffering and death in the world.

Well we could discuss it at length, but I’m pretty sure you’re the one taking your own claims, as well as mine, out of context and refusing to acknowledge and correct the parts of your statements that conflict with a sound analysis of conscience, as well as declining to respond to most of what I write.

To summarise my position:

1. The intention is **not **to kill the driver but to stop the train.
2. If possible the intention should be to inflict damage which would stop the train.
3. The utmost care should be taken not to kill the driver.
4. The risk of killing the driver is justified because his accidental death would be a lesser evil than a nuclear holocaust.

If the bullet wounded the driver slightly or missed him completely but made him stop the train would one still be unjustified in having taken the risk of killing him?

I have to agree with Thomas here: I think you’ve been massaging your story as you go along. In any case, I’m still not interested in a PDE discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

You were the one who brought me into the picture:

If the formation of your conscience were questioned it is obvious from the irascible way in which you write that you would very soon get hot under the collar…

You’re still just ignoring my point, Tony. I never disputed your adherence to the claims you list above! Also, I’m not interested in a vague admission that you may be mistaken (that’s a real brave claim to make!), I’m interested in your admitting that you have been mistaken.

That statement demonstrates how cocksure you are that you are right! It is highly significant that you have not have admitted that you may be mistaken…

We have an obligation to defend the lives of innocent people against terrorist attacks even though it may entail losses on our side. To make our primary objective our own salvation is a form of self-love opposed to the teaching of Jesus. If we are afraid to act out of fear that we shall go to hell we are failing to obey His command to love others… We should be more concerned about their well-being and safety than whether our conscience is well-formed…

It remains true that we should be more concerned about the well-being and safety of others than whether our conscience is well-formed **after **

having considered and discussed the issue at length.

Do you think another terrorist attack is improbable? It could happen at any moment. Sooner or later we have to make up our minds. If we make a mistake so be it. We should be prepared to accept the consequences of being morally culpable. There is certainly no excuse for vacillating indefinitely. That is an evasion of our responsibility to minimise the amount of unnecessary suffering and death in the world.
Well we could discuss it at length, but I’m pretty sure you’re the one taking your own claims, as well as mine, out of context and refusing to acknowledge and correct the parts of your statements that conflict with a sound analysis of conscience, as well as declining to respond to most of what I write.

It is ironic that you accuse me of declining to respond to most of what you write when you are once again doing precisely that by failing to answer my question:

“Do you think another terrorist attack is improbable?”

To summarise my position:

1. The intention is not to kill the driver but to stop the train.
2. If possible the intention should be to inflict damage which would stop the train.
3. The utmost care should be taken not to kill the driver.
4. The risk of killing the driver is justified because his accidental death would be a lesser evil than a nuclear holocaust.

If the bullet wounded the driver slightly or missed him completely but made him stop the train would one still be unjustified in having taken the risk of killing him?

I have to agree with Thomas here: I think you’ve been massaging your story as you go along.

Yet another example of an unanswered question! It is facile to state what you** think** - without producing one jot of evidence. I have simply considered different contingencies to discover exactly what actions are justified to prevent a nuclear disaster - an exercise a malformed conscience would consider to be “massaging”…

In any case, I’m still not interested in a PDE discussion.

That is hardly surprising given that it leads to a conclusion with which you disagree - in spite of the fact that Areopagite and ThomasToo have both acknowledged that the question is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be and that my argument may be legitimate…

 

[Betterave]

If the formation of your conscience were questioned it is obvious from the irascible way in which you write that you would very soon get hot under the collar…

It’s that obvious, is it?

That statement demonstrates how cocksure you are that you are right! It is highly significant that you have not have admitted that you may be mistaken…

The statement “I may be mistaken about X” does not contribute to a determination of the truth about X. My concern is the truth about X. Therefore I do not feel called to make the statement “I may be mistaken about X.”

It is ironic that you accuse me of declining to respond to most of what you write when you are once again doing precisely that by failing to answer my question:

“Do you think another terrorist attack is improbable?”

The thing is, this has nothing to do with the argument I’m making against you. It is a complete red herring. Tell me you can see that??

Yet another example of an unanswered question! It is facile to state what you** think** - without producing one jot of evidence. I have simply considered different contingencies to discover exactly what actions are justified to prevent a nuclear disaster - an exercise a malformed conscience would consider to be “massaging”…

Sure it’s facile, but I don’t care enough about it to produce a detailed exegesis of the thread thus far. Do you? Anyway, maybe you could at least try to consider the point with an open mind, since at least two people seem to have noticed the same thing.

That is hardly surprising given that it leads to a conclusion with which you disagree - in spite of the fact that Areopagite and ThomasToo have both acknowledged that the question is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be and that my argument may be legitimate…

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.