The recurring question without an answer

[tafan2]

I agree, hypotheticals are often needed when discussing moral questions.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Actually, what brought this to mind was when a friend of mine once said “Bill and Hillary Clinton are just stupid”. What she was really saying was “I don’t like Bill and Hillary Clinton”. I reminded her “you may not like the Clintons, but whatever else you might be able to say about them, one thing they’re not is ‘stupid’ — they’re highly, highly intelligent people”. She was not one to do a lot of critical thinking in life. She replied “yes, but they’re just stupid”. No use trying to reason with her further.

I believe she meant this in the usually understood sense, i.e., lacking intelligence. Her reasoning, if it can be called that, was that anyone who thought differently from her, or challenged her beliefs, was stupid. She was not terribly well-educated, lapsed Catholic who had never really been catechized, had several medical issues (disabled), had seen a lot of tragedy in her family, and was just mad at the world in general, including the Clintons.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The typical scenario would be a mother whose life is threatened by a pregnancy.

I think that is really at the core of it all. Catholicism teaches that the unborn child may not be directly killed, even if the mother will die if this is not done, or even if both will die. Modern society recoils in horror at this teaching, and portrays us in this case as ogres and religious fascists who prefer the life of the child over the mother’s life… because, well, you know, fetuses. (The fact that much of modern society doesn’t like us to begin with, and tries to find ways to portray us as enemies of the human race, also has something to do with it.)

Some would say the mother can always have more children, or that she would leave behind a family that can’t be cared for. Judaism just cuts right to the chase and says that abortion is mandatory in these circumstances. At least they tell you what they believe and don’t mince words. I always respect that kind of candor.

For many, though, they invoke the principle that “the end justifies the means in drastic circumstances”. The Catholic faith, on the other hand, teaches that there are certain moral principles that can never be violated, even if worse evils result from not violating them. Directly assaulting and taking the life of an unborn child is one of those.

The “crazed, mentally deficient savant marksman killer in the town square” is akin to Dr Bernard Nathanson’s argument in Aborting America; he uses the example of being in a life jacket at sea with a lunatic attached to you who is thrashing wildly and posing the threat of taking both of you underwater to drown. You can cut him loose and let him drown, saving yourself. Do you do this? If not, why not?

 

[goout]

goout:

The problem with hypotheticals is…they are not real. And morality is the evaluation of human acts. Acts are real, not hypothetical.

Should we create actual lifeboat scenarios in an ethics class? Should we actually build a track with a runaway trolley, to make it real??

Yea, sure. That’s what I meant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Babaganoush:

Give us a scenario then.

No. I’ll pass. If someone cannot think of one themselves then I don’t imagine they’d be able to offer anything worthwhile to the discussion. I’ll leave you to think of one and we’ll take it from there.

The problem with hypotheticals is…they are not real. And morality is the evaluation of human acts. Acts are real, not hypothetical.

These hypotheticals usually lead to circular and pointless arguing, because any variable can be interjected into the hypothetical to “move the goalpost”.
Relativists believe they can neutralize morality with hypotheticals, but the attempt is silly.

You don’t neutralise morality with hypotheticals. You put morality under a microscope and examine it. If your moral code is robust enough it will survive the examination.

 

[meltzerboy2]

In this very special instance, Jewish law steps in and calls the baby an aggressor albeit an unintentional one. Therefore, the mother has the right to defend herself, and, according to Orthodox Jewish belief, even the obligation to do so, by having the pregnancy terminated provided no other means are possible.

 

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

Babaganoush:

Give us a scenario then.

No. I’ll pass. If someone cannot think of one themselves then I don’t imagine they’d be able to offer anything worthwhile to the discussion. I’ll leave you to think of one and we’ll take it from there.

The problem with hypotheticals is…they are not real. And morality is the evaluation of human acts. Acts are real, not hypothetical.

These hypotheticals usually lead to circular and pointless arguing, because any variable can be interjected into the hypothetical to “move the goalpost”.
Relativists believe they can neutralize morality with hypotheticals, but the attempt is silly.

You don’t neutralise morality with hypotheticals. You put morality under a microscope and examine it. If your moral code is robust enough it will survive the examination.

It can be used for reinforcement. In this space, hypotheticals are normally used to introduce obfuscations that seek to evade the responsibility for sound moral evaluations.
Just look at the continuous silly hypotheticals on this forum used to relativize the pro life community’s efforts. The violinist “argument” for instance, which is nothing more than an irrelevant hypothetical aimed at confusion.

And all it’s cousins:
If a train is going down the track and human being dressed as a purple unicorn steps onto the tracks, does the train have to avoid the purple unicorn to save the lives of the passengers.
Etc…

 

[tafan2]

I was not aware of this. Thank you.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You’re welcome.

 

[Freddy]

In this very special instance, Jewish law steps in and calls the baby an aggressor albeit an unintentional one. Therefore, the mother has the right to defend herself, and, according to Orthodox Jewish belief, even the obligation to do so, by having the pregnancy terminated provided no other means are possible.

I never knew that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Freddy:

Babaganoush:

Give us a scenario then.

No. I’ll pass. If someone cannot think of one themselves then I don’t imagine they’d be able to offer anything worthwhile to the discussion. I’ll leave you to think of one and we’ll take it from there.

The problem with hypotheticals is…they are not real. And morality is the evaluation of human acts. Acts are real, not hypothetical.

These hypotheticals usually lead to circular and pointless arguing, because any variable can be interjected into the hypothetical to “move the goalpost”.
Relativists believe they can neutralize morality with hypotheticals, but the attempt is silly.

You don’t neutralise morality with hypotheticals. You put morality under a microscope and examine it. If your moral code is robust enough it will survive the examination.

It can be used for reinforcement. In this space, hypotheticals are normally used to introduce obfuscations that seek to evade the responsibility for sound moral evaluations.
Just look at the continuous silly hypotheticals on this forum used to relativize the pro life community’s efforts. The violinist “argument” for instance, which is nothing more than an irrelevant hypothetical aimed at confusion.

And all it’s cousins:
If a train is going down the track and human being dressed as a purple unicorn steps onto the tracks, does the train have to avoid the purple unicorn to save the lives of the passengers.
Etc…

Hypotheticals are one of the tools in teaching ethics. If you find them onerous then there’s no need to respond.

 

[Jerome7]

I don’t think this is quite correct. If an act is intrinsically evil, there is no reason that could make it good. Putting someone in lethal danger without any good reason would be an evil act, but putting someone in lethal danger is not itself intrinsically evil.

Putting someone in lethal danger could be intrinsically evil; there’s just not enough information to determine that. For example, “killing someone” could be intrinsically evil, if in the particular case it was determined to be murder not self-defense. So putting someone in lethal danger would likewise only be intrinsically evil if it were made more specific.

 

[Jerome7]

In this very special instance, Jewish law steps in and calls the baby an aggressor albeit an unintentional one. Therefore, the mother has the right to defend herself, and, according to Orthodox Jewish belief, even the obligation to do so, by having the pregnancy terminated provided no other means are possible.

This idea was specifically condemned by the Magisterium in Casti Connubii 64: “It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?);”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

HomeschoolDad:

I would offer the example, and it may be a fairly lurid one, of a crazed, mentally deficient person who gets hold of a gun and many rounds of ammo.

This is still a scenario with an aggressor. The “crazed” person is just like an animal, or a force of nature. Obviously the lethal force is allowed.

The problem is generic, no need to try to make is specific. It deals with “principles”. The problem occurs when the “aggressor” is totally unaware of the danger he poses.

When you speak of principles it is important to note that sometimes a principle cannot be applied without more specific details. To ask for an answer to an abstract question based on a principle often requires that you be satisfied with the answer of “it depends.” This is such a case.

Again, the question is simple. Someone, out of ignorance places others into lethal danger. There is only one way to prevent others from dying, and it would be the killing of this person.

I question the assumption that such a situation can ever exist. Until a concrete example has been presented, this question is like asked “can god make a boulder so heavy that he cannot lift it?” I find such questions a waste of time and destructive to faith.

The one example that has been given that seems somewhat applicable is that of a crazy person shooting up the town. I would say that any police officer who aimed for the heart and shot him dead is guilty of applying excessive force. If he can shoot the crazy person in the heart, he can shoot him in the legs and then the hand. No need to kill him dead. This scenario is somewhat real, given the incidences of mental illness. So a proper understanding of the morality is important.

What does the church say about this hypothetical scenario?

The church say “it depends.”

As usual, the responses are a “school of red herrings”. Not enough information, asking for specifics,

If you want an answer any more specific than “it depends” you are going to have to fill some of those specifics.

In ethics classes it is a usual method of presenting a totally off-the-wall, highly improbable, but still logically possible quasi-problems. Lifeboat scenarios, for example. How many times does one happen to be in a lifeboat dilemma? But it deals with the question of “scarce resources”.

In ethics classes students strive to provide an answer for every question. In Church theology, the Church does not answer every question, but leaves much of the application of Church teaching to the prudential judgement of the faithful.

Continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Continuing:

It is possible to have someone to carry a lethal virus, unknowingly. It is possible that the person would be willing to go into a quarantine, IF he knew about it. But he does not. If allowed, he would spread the virus and millions would die.

No, he could spread the virus. It is a probability, not a certainty. Therefore the probability needs to be taken into account before a definite answer can be given. Therefore more details are needed to assess that probability.

In the hypothetical scenario the only solution is to kill this person.

So you say. But in fact “it depends.”

If there would be any other solution, that would have to be used. The only difference between this problem and the “unjust aggressor” is the absence of malice and the knowledge. In the case of the unjust aggressor the church accepts that lethal force is allowed. Why not here?

Even in the case of an unjust aggressor the Church does not grant free rein for lethal force to be used - only when it is absolutely necessary. In the case of an aggressor who knows exactly what he is doing it is more likely to be necessary than someone who is unknowingly carrying a virus or something.

 

[Bender]

When you speak of principles it is important to note that sometimes a principle cannot be applied without more specific details. To ask for an answer to an abstract question based on a principle often requires that you be satisfied with the answer of “it depends.” This is such a case.

In that case it is NOT a principle. By definition a principle applies in each and every case. Of course your approach would undermine every Catholic ‘principle’, if they would only be applicable in certain cases, but not in all cases. I am disappointed to be forced to repeat it, but the principle is simple: “if someone puts others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unintentionally, the the application of lethal force is permitted (if there is no other possibility available)” . After all the Catholic principle is that "one may apply lethal force against an “unjust aggressor” if there is no other possibility available. Does this “principle” have “it depends” qualifiers?

I am open to listen to some argument, which might say that "it is not permissible to use lethal force against a ‘so-called’ aggressor, who unknowingly and unintentionally puts others into lethal danger… IF…‘insert some argument here’ " . But this is the question of the OP as presented. If you can present a rational argument, so be it. If you cannot, say it, and we can move on.

I question the assumption that such a situation can ever exist.

The only scenario which cannot ever exist is a logical impossibility. It is perfectly possible that someone might place others into lethal jeopardy, unknowingly and unintentionally. It can be anything that is not foreseen by the person, and has a DELAYED effect, which will present lethal danger to others.

The ONLY difference between the “unjust aggressor” and this problem, that the person is not aware of the lethal danger he/or/she presents. There is no “extra” detail that needs to be considered.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

When you speak of principles it is important to note that sometimes a principle cannot be applied without more specific details. To ask for an answer to an abstract question based on a principle often requires that you be satisfied with the answer of “it depends.” This is such a case.

In that case it is NOT a principle. By definition a principle applies in each and every case. Of course your approach would undermine every Catholic ‘principle’, if they would only be applicable in certain cases, but not in all cases.

Not necessarily. Real useful principles are stated with enough specificity so that a meaningful answer can be given.

I am disappointed to be forced to repeat it, but the principle is simple: “if someone puts others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unintentionally, the the application of lethal force is permitted (if there is no other possibility available)”

When you say “in danger” do you mean it is a certainty that others will die if the “last resort” action is not taken? Or do you mean other might die? It makes a difference to the answer.

After all the Catholic principle is that "one may apply lethal force against an “unjust aggressor” if there is no other possibility available. Does this “principle” have “it depends” qualifiers?

Yes. The one I mentioned above - that the fatal harm to others must be nearly certain, not just “suspected.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The one example that has been given that seems somewhat applicable is that of a crazy person shooting up the town. I would say that any police officer who aimed for the heart and shot him dead is guilty of applying excessive force. If he can shoot the crazy person in the heart, he can shoot him in the legs and then the hand. No need to kill him dead. This scenario is somewhat real, given the incidences of mental illness. So a proper understanding of the morality is important.

Of course it would be better to use force somewhere short of lethal, if this would end the situation. The police officer could try a non-lethal shot first, then if that didn’t stop the deranged man, consider other options — more non-lethal shots, or go ahead and resolve the situation with extreme prejudice. Presumably this would be a situation unfolding in seconds, not minutes. A quick decision would have to be made.

I can tell you that there have been cases of people so crazed, so pumped full of adrenaline, or so “high” on illicit pharmaceuticals, that gunshots didn’t necessarily stop them. Sometimes a person doesn’t even immediately realize they’ve been shot. A non-lethal .22LR bullet wound is said to feel like a sharp pain followed by a burning sensation, then awareness of blood loss. (A police officer would not be using .22LR.) I heard of a case locally where a hotel desk clerk basically executed an armed robber by restraining him and firing .22LR rounds through his heart. That may have been excessive force, or maybe she saw this was the only way she could end the threat to her own life. She wasn’t charged. Theodore Roosevelt was shot in the chest, but thankfully a sheaf of papers blunted the force of the bullet enough to render it non-lethal — and he went ahead and gave his speech, acknowledging the gunshot wound, bleeding, and saying he would have the bullet removed once he was done with his speech. Now that is what a “bad-you-know-what” looks like!

So there are any number of scenarios. It would be a judgement call in the moment, and no one can give a “one-size-fits-all” answer.

 

[Rau]

Is it permissible to shoot him with the bazooka in order to save the life of the squatter? What if there was a family in the building?

Of course it is not. Regardless of how many are in the building.

 

[goout]

Hypotheticals are one of the tools in teaching ethics.

Yes I agree. They can be productive. They can also be attempts to confuse and obfuscate clear moral imperatives.
In this venue here, that is how they are most often used. Or frequently used. And that ought to be pointed out.

The fact that a hypothetical introduces thought provoking scenarios is not support for moral vacillation. And when hypotheticals are used this way they ought not be treated as serious attempts to find clarity.