Three moral dilemmas

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It seems that some (not all) Catholics would abide by church teaching and in some cases allow very many people to die rather than take a life.

I would suggest to be more precise: “allow very many INNOCENT people to die rather than take ONE INNOCENT life”. Not every mortal sin is equal, some are “more equal” than others. And to choose the “lesser of two evil” seems like a very reasonable principle.

Eminently reasonable. Tragic perhaps. Heart rending maybe. Devastating in some cases. But eminently reasonable.

And I am absolutely certain that human nature dictates very different answers from those being given by some people. Let’s say it is your complete family and everyone you know and love versus Dahmer for example. Does one actually consider the possibility of a vengeful God wreaking vengence on your soul because you wanted to save everyone dear to you?

If I believed in God I would save everyone and front up to those Pearly Gates with something of a defiant attitude. ‘Hey, You gave me free will. I excercised it. You want to punish me? I’m prepared for it’. Otherwise what is the option? Telling God that you could have saved them but you didn’t want to dissapoint Him?

 

[Wozza]

Regarding number 3, this is also not true dilemma, as there is no moral relevance to ones actions. You are forced to do something, so there is no use of ones volition. The duty to minimize harm may apply to the extent that one can reasonably chose an outcome.

But this is the trolley problem. You are forced to make one of two decisions, one of which happens to be ‘do nothing’.

 

[MPat]

That is simply incorrect. They just value one set of consequences (not committing an arguably mortal sin) more to their liking than selecting the option of “choosing the lesser evil”. So they are willing to choose a much greater evil (allowing a lot of INNOCENT people to perish) rather than causing the death of ONE innocent person.

So, you just can’t accept, can’t imagine, that someone might have a position significantly different from yours…?

Of course, if you count “choosing right” and “choosing wrong” (one kind of which is “making a mortal sin”) as consequences, all this talk about consequences becomes pretty useless. If we already know which option is right, why care about any other “consequence”?

So, do you have some goal here? To persuade? To learn?

 

[Elf01]

But confession is good for the soul. Surely absolution would follow.

No it wouldn’t because the person would be abusing the sacrament.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Dead bodies still carry disease so killing her won’t save you. If you have enough time to kill her, you have enough time to escape and get professionals to quarantine her.

 

[edward_george1]

I enjoy hypotheticals as much as the next guy but I’m begining to flag a little

Yeah, after earning a degree in medical ethics, I do not enjoy hypotheticals at all. Morality happens in the concrete, not the abstract. We can talk about “what if” all day long, but whomever is proposing the hypothetical can keep moving the goal line. Better to stick with knowing the principles and applying them to real situations. I feel your pain.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

OK. I guess I will have to simplify it. You have two courses of action. Both of them will lead to taking innocent lives, though not in equal numbers. Action “A” will cause the death of one innocent person. Action “B” will cause the death of two innocent persons. Which one will you choose? There are no other options.

It’s not possible to make someone do something unless they physically move the body to perform the specific action.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But confession is good for the soul. Surely absolution would follow.

No it wouldn’t because the person would be abusing the sacrament.

Could you expand on this? I thought that any sin could be absolved.

 

[Wozza]

Dead bodies still carry disease so killing her won’t save you. If you have enough time to kill her, you have enough time to escape and get professionals to quarantine her.

Aaaargh…

There should be a sticky explaining exactly how hypotheticals are meant to work.

 

[Zaccheus]

OK. I guess I will have to simplify it. You have two courses of action. Both of them will lead to taking innocent lives, though not in equal numbers. Action “A” will cause the death of one innocent person. Action “B” will cause the death of two innocent persons. Which one will you choose? There are no other options. Does the principle of “choose the LESSER of two evils” mean anything?

It is not true that there are no other options. Refusing to act at all is an option.
And yes, “choose the lesser evil” means something.
But “Never choose to sin” also means something.

It seems that some (not all) Catholics would abide by church teaching and in some cases allow very many people to die rather than take a life. But what would the consequences be of ‘breaking the rules’? Is your soul in danger? I would imagine so. But confession is good for the soul. Surely absolution would follow.

Commit a sin on the expectation of confessing later? Ah, no.
In the first place how can you say you’re repenting when you were thinking “It’ll be okay. I’ll sin now, confess later”?
In the second place, to do that is to commit the further sin of Presumption.

Is it valid to say that said Catholic is more concerned about the possibility of personal repurcusions than she would be about the deaths of what could be very many people? I

No. The Catholic is concerned with obeying God and with not sinning.

Let’s say it is your complete family and everyone you know and love versus Dahmer for example. Does one actually consider the possibility of a vengeful God wreaking vengence on your soul because you wanted to save everyone dear to you?

Do you really think the only reason we avoid sin is because we’re scared God will get mad at us?

When we deal with principles, the details are necessarily left out - because they are supposed to be applicable in every scenario. I

But circumstances alter cases. By “leaving out the details” you might leave out relevant details.

. Let’s say it is your complete family and everyone you know and love versus Dahmer for example. Does one actually consider the possibility of a vengeful God wreaking vengence on your soul because you wanted to save everyone dear to you?

As I asked above: do you really think the only reason we seek to not sin is because we’re scared God will be mad at us?

It’s not possible to make someone do something unless they physically move the body to perform the specific action.

“Gimme your wallet or I’ll kill you.”
If I hand over my wallet can the thief then argue that I wasn’t forced to do it?

I thought that any sin could be absolved.

You have to actually repent of the sin. If you were planning on Confession before you committed the sin how can you claim to be repentant?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I enjoy hypotheticals as much as the next guy but I’m begining to flag a little

Yeah, after earning a degree in medical ethics, I do not enjoy hypotheticals at all. Morality happens in the concrete, not the abstract. We can talk about “what if” all day long, but whomever is proposing the hypothetical can keep moving the goal line. Better to stick with knowing the principles and applying them to real situations. I feel your pain.

-Fr ACEGC

You’re right in that situations in real life don’t match those proposed in hypotheticals. Which is why we have them. To test the principles to breaking point and see what happens. Proposing a real life situation ends up with such get-out-jail comments such as ‘I’d land the plane myself’ or ‘I’d blow up the track’.

And I didn’t know there was such a thing as a medical ethics degree. Sounds a fascinating course.

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

OK. I guess I will have to simplify it. You have two courses of action. Both of them will lead to taking innocent lives, though not in equal numbers. Action “A” will cause the death of one innocent person. Action “B” will cause the death of two innocent persons. Which one will you choose? There are no other options. Does the principle of “choose the LESSER of two evils” mean anything?

It is not true that there are no other options. Refusing to act at all is an option.

Yeah. It’s Option B (in the trolley problem).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“Gimme your wallet or I’ll kill you.”
If I hand over my wallet can the thief then argue that I wasn’t forced to do it?

That sort of thing hasn’t been applied to this hypothetical (yet), but the option to do nothing still exists.

 

[Wozza]

You have to actually repent of the sin. If you were planning on Confession before you committed the sin how can you claim to be repentant?

I understand that. It’s more the case ‘I hope God will forgive for this’ rather that ‘I bet I’ll get away with this’. As some people have said, the degree of culpability changes according to the situation. I woukd imagine a merciful God would consider culpability.

And there are three reasons not to commit sin as I see it.

Firstly because it’s the right think to do.
Secondly to please God.
Third, to avoid God’s punishment.

I’ve lost count of the number of people in this forum who bring up hell as a reason not to sin. They appear to give the impression that it’s definitely something of which one should be scared. And if they believe what they tell me, then they should be scared (although no-one gives any impression of being as fearfull as the punishment would seem to warrant).

 

[AlNg]

You have two courses of action. Both of them will lead to taking innocent lives, though not in equal numbers. Action “A” will cause the death of one innocent person. Action “B” will cause the death of two innocent persons.

Suppose A causes the death of one innocent person.
Suppose B causes the death of one hundred innocent people.
IMHO, In the US, it would be better to take no action, i.e., operationally this means to do nothing. But you are thinking of a way out. Suppose you choose A. Then you are facing the death penalty or a long prison term for murder, perhaps in solitary confinement, which is torture. The US allows the torture of solitary confinement. The family of the person you murdered will not like what you did and they will hire smart lawyers who will hound you for the rest of your life and perhaps win in getting you in prison or in the gas chamber for murder. Further, they will take all your money and property and they will bankrupt you, since you did murder their loved one and you had no authority to do such a thing. Your own family will be devastated and ruined financially as the lawyers seize all your valuable possessions and money. You could end up being hanged or tortured in solitary confinement.
So in the US it is best to do nothing except to think of a way to save everyone. Your defense in this case is that you did not want to kill anyone and you were trying your best to come up with a way to save everyone. No one would put you in jail for trying to see how to save all of the people involved.

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

You have two courses of action. Both of them will lead to taking innocent lives, though not in equal numbers. Action “A” will cause the death of one innocent person. Action “B” will cause the death of two innocent persons.

Suppose A causes the death of one innocent person.
Suppose B causes the death of one hundred innocent people.
IMHO, In the US, it would be better to take no action, i.e., operationally this means to do nothing.

That’s Option B. Doing nothing causes the death of one hundred people. Would you like to select Option A?

 

[Economist]

So, you just can’t accept, can’t imagine, that someone might have a position significantly different from yours…?

On the contrary. It is perfectly possible and acceptable that I am totally wrong, and you are right. Happened and happens all the time. But I need an explanation - a RATIONAL explanation - to accept it. To say that the catechism “says so” is insufficient. Especially since the catechism is deficient, it does not take all the possibilities into account.

For example: “is there a difference between action and non-action”? There is some, but not significant. If you allow the trolley go on its way, you still act, for example you breathe and blink your eyes. Those are actions, though they don’t help. The defense of “I only allowed the event to happen, but I did not make it happen” is an unacceptable cop-out. And that is the only “defense” in the trolley problem.

If someone needs a medication (or food…) and you do not provide it (though you could), does it count as a malevolent action? Does it count as killing?

It’s not possible to make someone do something unless they physically move the body to perform the specific action.

Not giving food or medication is an action. Not flipping the switch is an action.

It is not true that there are no other options. Refusing to act at all is an option.
And yes, “choose the lesser evil” means something.
But “Never choose to sin” also means something.

Fine! Now we are getting somewhere! You have a conflict between the two possibilities. How can you resolve it? Choosing the “lesser of two evils”, or “never choose a sin” are in conflict, if not choosing the options is also sinful". And then we have the question: “which one is more sinful?” Or are all sins (all mortal sins) equally sinful? Is killing one person the same as killing a million?

But circumstances alter cases. By “leaving out the details” you might leave out relevant details.

Not exactly. The details are only relevant when you examine the actual case. The principle of “if you must choose an evil, choose the lesser evil” is always the same. How to determine which is the “lesser of two evils” requires the details. The principle does not.

If I hand over my wallet can the thief then argue that I wasn’t forced to do it?

You cannot. A force does not have to be a physical action. A threat also counts as force. Especially if it is directed to someone else you care about. If you are personally threatened with being shot, you can say “ok, shoot me”, but when it comes to your family, it is not that simple.

You have to actually repent of the sin. If you were planning on Confession before you committed the sin how can you claim to be repentant?

You change your mind.

 

[Economist]

Yeah, after earning a degree in medical ethics, I do not enjoy hypotheticals at all. Morality happens in the concrete, not the abstract. We can talk about “what if” all day long, but whomever is proposing the hypothetical can keep moving the goal line. Better to stick with knowing the principles and applying them to real situations. I feel your pain.

And THAT is the point. They are not to be enjoyed, they are presented to allow one to be prepared for the actuality. Yes, moving the goalposts is exactly how one finds the “breaking point”, to find if the moral principle is “absolute” or “relative”.

The principles are being investigated in these scenarios. You may hypothesize the principles, but you can only accept them after they have been exposed to the “ordeal by fire” - so to speak. Since you are much more qualified than the average, run-of-the-mill poster, your actual (name removed by moderator)ut would be much more relevant and appreciated.

Can you explain why is it preferred to sit back and allow that trolley to mow down five innocent people rather than flip the switch and explicitly cause the death of one innocent person? After all this where the whole conundrum stared.

 

[whatistrue]

The defense of “ I only allowed the event to happen, but I did not make it happen ” is an unacceptable cop-out

Says who? If I didn’t start the chain of events, why do you claim that my failing to stop it is unacceptable?

Not giving food or medication is an action. Not flipping the switch is an action.

It is a choice; it is not an action.

 

[PetraG]

Under what circumstances can you imagine someone could intend to use themselves as a biological weapon but couldn’t be restrained without being killed outright?

If someone is trying to kill you or someone else and the assailant can be restrained from doing so without resorting to lethal force, you do that. You do not kill other people, even people with murderous intentions, when you could restrain them and yet also give them a chance for salutory repentance before death. Please.

I don’t mean to accuse the OP, but sometimes I read these scenarios and it sounds like someone is fantasizing about what circumstances could give them a license to kill. This is not a spiritually-healthy habit. If you’re in a profession in which this is likely to come up, ask the Catholic ethicists in your profession. Then pray to Heaven to spare you from ever being faced with performing such an awful duty.