The recurring question without an answer

[Annie]

The good answer has finally arrived. Cheers!

Wow, I said something you agree with… I’m stunned!

 

[macska]

You should really try to not contradict your earlier assertions.
So… yeah: you talk about blowing up the neighborhood.

Indeed, I did not remember that specific example. Not, that it matters. And it has not been resolved either. So the problem is even simpler.

Scenario 1: A terrorist develops a lethal nerve agent. The only defense is to grab a gun and shoot him before he finishes his task. There is no problem with this solution. Self-defense or defense of others.

Scenario 2: Instead of the terrorist some innocent person (maybe a child) child plays with the chemicals and happens to develop the same kind of substance. Before the experiment is finished, you have the ONLY opportunity to take a gun to shoot that child.

The ONLY difference is that in one scenario there is a conscious terrorist who plans the action, in the other one there is only an innocent person, who - by sheer accident - develops the same type of substance.

So the question is still: is it permitted to use lethal force against a terrorist, but not against the innocent experimenter? And if there is, “what would it be”?

Of course I am grateful to you that pointed out my error, and gave me the opportunity to show how to rectify an error in an intellectually honest manner. No double talk, no attempt to BS-ing, just admit the error. If only “others” would learn from this mistake. And would admit their error.

 

[Gorgias]

Indeed, I did not remember that specific example. Not, that it matters.

Indeed.

Yet, it does matter! The entire question revolves around a particular issue: does one act morally when he murders innocents in order that some good result might thereby occur?

Consequentialism says “yes”. Catholic Moral Theology says “no”.

Before the experiment is finished, you have the ONLY opportunity to take a gun to shoot that child.

Some would say that this is a contrived scenario.

In order for you to assert that it’s not contrived, you would have to come up with a plausible explanation for why the “ONLY” opportunity is to shoot the child.

If only “others” would learn from this mistake. And would admit their error.

If only.
And… if only some would realize that it’s reasonable that this doesn’t happen when there isn’t an error to admit.

 

[phil19034]

I can do the math. Ok, say it’s reversed, a 3000 person cruise ship is hijacked and going to destroy a 300 person building. What then?

That’s not a realistic example. A 3000 person cruise ship crashing into a 300 person building does not require action. The building would most like be able to be vacated in time. And even if it wasn’t, a 3000 person cruise ship crashing into a building holding 300 people would not automatically result in all 3000 people dying.

It is not the same conditions/variables as the World Trade Center attack.

 

[Poet]

I also wondered if the OP was alluding to ‘unborn child inadvertently threatening life of mother’ to get Catholics to say, “Sure, it’s okay to kill then!” Of course, this would depend on the unborn child LITERALLY threatening the life of the mother, which is very rarely the case.

My understanding of Catholic teaching is that it is acceptable to save the life of the mother if both will otherwise die (for instance, an ectopic pregnancy.) But ‘life’ and ‘health’ of the mother has been watered down by law and public conscience to the point of ‘it would cause problems’ is now ‘health.’

And I suspect this is why many people refuse to answer a vague and hypothetical question. Because they know there are some who are defining terms differently than they are and will then take their answer and run with it, claiming they said what they never said.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

My understanding of Catholic teaching is that it is acceptable to save the life of the mother if both will otherwise die (for instance, an ectopic pregnancy.) But ‘life’ and ‘health’ of the mother has been watered down by law and public conscience to the point of ‘it would cause problems’ is now ‘health.’

It is acceptable to perform an operation, such as a salpingectomy to remove a portion of the fallopian tube, if the death of the child regrettably takes place as a side-effect of the operation, and is not directly caused or willed. In the case of a salpingectomy, the child is embedded in the tube and its growth will eventually rupture the tube, causing an immediate threat to the life of the mother. In most cases, the child is already dead, but even if it is not, the portion of the tube can still be removed.

Any operation that extracts the unviable child is a direct abortion and cannot be performed. Another example would be a cancerous uterus, with a child inside of it, that must be removed. Thankfully, this is quite rare.

It is not “abortion to save the life of the mother”. It is performing a life-saving medical procedure, in the course of which the child dies.

Enemies of Catholicism are quite capable of using these and similar scenarios to claim that the Church prefers the life of the child to that of the mother, and thus paint us as heartless wretches who are willing to let mothers die. I have dealt with many enemies of Catholicism and I know the “tricks” they have up their sleeves.

 

[otjm]

Still the wrong analysis, I think. The point that we’re getting stuck on is culpability , not innocence .

I would answer that the teachings of the Church cover the right of a person to self-defense (or defense of one who is threatened) against an aggressor who is not culpable of his acts of aggression.

Perhaps we are peaking of the same thing, or perhaps talking past one another. I equate lack of culpability as being innocent’ how do you define them?

 

[tafan2]

I know it’s not realistic, the question still stands, what number if people are worth killing to decrease the overall death rate?

 

[macska]

Yet, it does matter! The entire question revolves around a particular issue: does one act morally when he murders innocents in order that some good result might thereby occur?

The question is different. If it is acceptable to use lethal force against an intentional wrongdoer, then why is it unacceptable to use it against an unintentional causative agent? The ONLY difference between the two scenarios is the intent and the lack of it. There is no other difference.

Looks like that you STILL don’t understand the problem. Or you do understand and intentionally try to “skew” it, so you can “wiggle out” from the dilemma.

 

[otjm]

Neither scenario, as stated, necessarily requires the use of lethal force.

The terrorist may be confronted by one of several individuals; military(as in a foreign country) engaged in a military operation; police, involved in an attempt to capture a suspect, or a citizen (and there is no reason to presume a citizen would have knowledge that the terrorist qua terrorist, nor that they would know that the terrorist was creating nerve gas).

The military, according to normal rules of engagement, may attempt to seek the surrender of the terrorist; if it appears the terrorist is trying to release the nerve agent, they would be within normal rules of engagement to apply lethal force.

The police would be presumed to know that the individual was a terrorist and had a nerve agent. The same scenario apply to them as to the military.

The scenario becomes strained beyond credulity as to a civilian as there is no rational explanation as to why they would have this knowledge both of the individual’s status (terrorist), the possession of nerve gas or the relative immediacy of it’s release; but setting aside the issue of credulity, they also would be within moral and likely legal bounds to use lethal force.

As to the scenario of the child, since the nerve gas has not been created but is in the process of creation, no lethal force is necessary to bring the issue to resolution as simply removing whatever container the child possesses is sufficient; and assuming more details, again lacking credulity, are supplied, lethal force may be applied if it can be shown that there is absolutely no alternative; shooting the child in the buttocks normally is not lethal, and would suffice to stop the further act to create the gas. again, the question remains as to how and why the civilian would possess sufficient knowledge to assess what was going on. That also goes to the credulity issue.

 

[otjm]

None. The scenario stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

 

[macska]

Neither scenario, as stated, necessarily requires the use of lethal force.

I guess I have to repeat: “In a thought experiment ONLY the logically impossible states of affairs are excluded.” Everything else is just an evasion. In a sense it is almost comical how hard you guys wish to evade analyzing the ethical problem. Well, it would be comical, if it would not be so sad.

 

[Freddy]

otjm:

Neither scenario, as stated, necessarily requires the use of lethal force.

I guess I have to repeat: “In a thought experiment ONLY the logically impossible states of affairs are excluded.” Everything else is just an evasion. In a sense it is almost comical how hard you guys wish to evade analyzing the ethical problem. Well, it would be comical, if it would not be so sad.

I am equally amused and bemused by the almost total lack of understanding of hypotheticals. I think that many on this forum would struggle at even an intro lecture into psychology. They would need to do an intro into the intro so that the useages of hypotheticals could be explained.

I remember my wife complaining to me about the use of hypothetical situations some time back. So I asked her: ‘So if I were to ask you a hypothetical question, would you answer it?’ She answered ‘No’. Which had me giggling all day.

Those who don’t get it, go do some reading on the matter.

 

[macska]

I am equally amused and bemused by the almost total lack of understanding of hypotheticals. I think that many on this forum would struggle at even an intro lecture into psychology. They would need to do an intro into the intro so that the useages of hypotheticals could be explained.

I remember my wife complaining to me about the use of hypothetical situations some time back. So I asked her: ‘So if I were to ask you a hypothetical question, would you answer it?’ She answered ‘No’. Which had me giggling all day.

Those who don’t get it, go do some reading on the matter.

Indeed. But to do that would require a desire to learn new things, to extend their horizons. But the case here is really worrisome. To decline even the analysis of a question is really astonishing. After all it is really improbable (but NOT impossible) that such a scenario would come up in real life.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I am equally amused and bemused by the almost total lack of understanding of hypotheticals. I think that many on this forum would struggle at even an intro lecture into psychology. They would need to do an intro into the intro so that the useages of hypotheticals could be explained.

I remember my wife complaining to me about the use of hypothetical situations some time back. So I asked her: ‘So if I were to ask you a hypothetical question, would you answer it?’ She answered ‘No’. Which had me giggling all day.

Those who don’t get it, go do some reading on the matter.

Indeed. But to do that would require a desire to learn new things, to extend their horizons. But the case here is really worrisome. To decline even the analysis of a question is really astonishing. After all it is really improbable (but NOT impossible) that such a scenario would come up in real life.

Beats me. I would have thought that an opportunity to know more about oneself (would you pull the lever/throw the switch/redirect the plane) and then to actively search for the reasons why we do what we do would be an opportunity to grow.

What these problems are designed to do is this:

Offer a moral problem.
See which option people would more likely take.
Find out why they actually chose as they did.
Debate the morality of the choice.
Fine tune the problem to see if answers change.

What we actually get is:

Offer a moral problem.
Spend a few days explaining how hypotheticals work.
Wade through umpteen posts saying what the catechism/the bible/a theologian says what we should do.
Read a myriad posts avoiding giving any answer at all.
Give up and go for a beer.

I’m going for a beer.

 

[tafan2]

Ok, let’s try this. It has been suggested it’s ok to shoot down a plane if 300 that is heading for a building with 3000:
Potential dead 3300, kill 300, save 3000
Where do you draw the line? A 747 can carry 600:
Potential dead 3600, kill 600
Or 2 747s: potential dead 4200, kill 1200
Or 4 747s: potential dead 5400, kill 2400
Or 6 747s: potential dead 6600, kill 6600

 

[macska]

Beats me. I would have thought that an opportunity to know more about oneself (would you pull the lever/throw the switch/redirect the plane) and then to actively search for the reasons why we do what we do would be an opportunity to grow.

But it takes a lot of courage to expose one’s CORE beliefs to examination. To really ASK: “but what if I am wrong?”

What these problems are designed to do is this:

Offer a moral problem.
See which option people would more likely take.
Find out why they actually chose as they did.
Debate the morality of the choice.
Fine tune the problem to see if answers change.

What we actually get is:

Offer a moral problem.
Spend a few days explaining how hypotheticals work.
Wade through umpteen posts saying what the catechism/the bible/a theologian says what we should do.
Read a myriad posts avoiding giving any answer at all.
Give up and go for a beer.

Good summary.

I’m going for a beer.

Fortunately it is not an either/or problem. The beer is perfectly chilled in the Fridge. I was very lucky to find a couple of cases of Paulaner in CostCo, and bought all of them.

But let’s get serious.

The best kinds of dilemmas put two BASIC principles against each other. In this one, the principles are this:

1. Self defense / the defense of others is a BASIC concept.
2. Killing others is bad. Also a basic concept.

The “beauty” of these scenarios is that these principles can contradict each other in perfectly possible, though unlikely circumstances. But that is what thought experiments should do. Allow us to examine ourselves in extreme circumstances.

Of course most people are scared to examine their own basic ethical systems. The question: “But what if I am WRONG?” is a scary one. And it is twice as scary, the basic system is AUTHORITY driven. Because in that case you are required to question the AUTHORITY!! And if that authority is God - in reality or allegedly - then it takes tremendous courage to question that “authority”.

This is why almost all the answers concentrated on finding an excuse of avoiding the problem altogether.

 

[Spaten]

The best kinds of dilemmas put two BASIC principles against each other. In this one, the principles are this:

1. Self defense / the defense of others is a BASIC concept.
2. Killing others is bad. Also a basic concept.

The “beauty” of these scenarios is that these principles can contradict each other in perfectly possible, though unlikely circumstances. But that is what thought experiments should do. Allow us to examine ourselves in extreme circumstances.

Of course most people are scared to examine their own basic ethical systems. The question: “But what if I am WRONG?” is a scary one. And it is twice as scary, the basic system is AUTHORITY driven. Because in that case you are required to question the AUTHORITY!! And if that authority is God - in reality or allegedly - then it takes tremendous courage to question that “authority”.

This is why almost all the answers concentrated on finding an excuse of avoiding the problem altogether.

This is the point that gets denied or declared incorrect. No analysis of the actual scenario. The Catholic approach is this: “If the lethal danger comes from intentional and malicious actions, then you are allowed to use lethal defense - if there is no other possibility.” Perfectly sensible, of curse.

But the actual dilemma is different. If the lethal danger comes from an unintended and unknowing source, then what are we allowed to do.

There are two possible solutions.

1. Self-defense / defense-of-others is the primary principle. If there is a danger to ourselves (or others) our primary responsibility is to defend ourselves, and if that defense happens to include inflicting lethal damage onto the “innocent” perpetrators, then it is regrettable, but acceptable.
2. Avoiding killing is the primary principle. In this case if we or others are in lethal danger, our responsibility is not to ourselves (and the other endangered people), but to avoid inflicting lethal outcome on the one, who - unwillingly and unintentionally - put us into that danger. As I have seen put it many times: “Roll over, and let it happen.”

 

[Gorgias]

I equate lack of culpability as being innocent’ how do you define them?

Good question.

I think that the problem comes, in part, from the way that our legal system defines terms. Their use of terminology is a bit confusing (not surprising, as it’s developed across a variety of contexts and quite a bit of time).

In courts, we think of verdicts of “innocent”, but… they never really say that, do they? There’s never an “innocent” verdict – just “guilty” or “not guilty”. And, “not guilty” doesn’t really mean “innocent”… it just means “not proven guilty”.

So, in jurisprudence, we never establish innocence. Instead, we only establish that guilt has (or has not) been proven. Let’s look at another potential verdict, which Hollywood has used to great effect: “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.” Does this verdict mean “innocent”? No… it merely means that culpability for the act – that is, a “guilty” verdict – cannot be asserted.

I would argue that the insane murderer is still guilty of murder – however, he is not legally culpable of that murder. The act is the same, the admission of guilt is the same… but the culpability does not attach.

So, I would say that there are three classes of determinations here. They aren’t legal classes, per se – after all, this is a “moral theology” forum, not a “legal theory” forum! So, in a moral context, we have:

• guilty and culpable
• guilty and not culpable
• innocent

(Notice that ‘proof’ doesn’t come into play here. We’re not talking about whether we’re able to prove guilt – we’re only talking about the objective question of whether a person is or is not guilty, and whether they’re culpable for the action.)

Does that help?

 

[Gorgias]

The “beauty” of these scenarios is that these principles can contradict each other in perfectly possible, though unlikely circumstances.

That isn’t a “contradiction”, it’s a “conflict”. And conflicts can be resolved.

But that is what thought experiments should do. Allow us to examine ourselves in extreme circumstances.

Agreed. Thought experiments tend to probe boundary cases, where the normal considerations are stretched beyond normal tolerances. We test them to see where they break.

Of course most people are scared to examine their own basic ethical systems. The question: “But what if I am WRONG?” is a scary one.

And, if your “basic ethical system” proceeds from you, as an individual, then the potential for being wrong is scary! On the other hand, if your ethical system proceeds from a deity who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-loving… then believing in that deity and that deity’s ethical system isn’t scary at all – it’s comforting!

And if that authority is God - in reality or allegedly - then it takes tremendous courage to question that “authority”.

So… if God is actually “God”, and therefore, omni- and omni- and omni… then from which basis are you suggesting you’re wiser, such that your questions trump his authority?

This is why almost all the answers concentrated on finding an excuse of avoiding the problem altogether.

Nah. Not an excuse… rather, an explanation of why the questions aren’t well-founded.