No. I gave my reasons above but I did not see your comment on that.
Yes. I explained that above already. If you flip the switch and kill one person, you will be responsible for the death of that one person and may hang for murder or spend your life in solitary confinement. The family of that one person will not appreciate what you have done and may hire lawyers to hound you for the rest of your life.
If a rule is broken with the intention of confessing it after and getting absolution, that confession would be invalid. A confession is only valid and only results in absolution if the penitent sincerely has a change of heart and truly regrets the act and resolves to avoid it in the future. If someone committed sin with the intention of confessing it, there is serious doubt as to how sincere that confession would be.
It is a reasonable principle, provided the criteria for evaluating the “lesser of two evils” is proper. I suspect that is where the disagreement will come in the practice of this principle.Wozza:
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.
Thank you for pointing out a problem some of these thought experiments. They assume things in the premise that cannot be verified in real life. In the case of the trolley problem, the premise is that there is no way to save anyone except by throwing the switch. Well, how would the observer know that? Maybe there is a way. Maybe there is no need. Maybe, unbeknownst to the observer at the switch, there is an automatic braking system built into the track and the trolley is going to come to a full stop well short of the 5 people. Maybe the observer was mistaken about which track the trolley is currently on, and in fact the trolley was going to miss the 5 people anyway. Maybe the trolley is light enough that 5 people, if they all push together, can stop it with their hands. Maybe there is time to run out onto the tracks and untie the 5 people. Maybe the 5 people can lie down between the tracks and the trolley will pass over them. Maybe they will only suffer some broken bones. The observer cannot possibly be made certain that all the conditions of this theoretical scenario are satisfied, especially if time is short.
Doing nothing - in a case where you cannot morally choose either option - is not choosing evil. Evil will happen regardless. The death of the many is the fault of the one who chooses to kill them rather than the one who fails to kill the killer.
We are not talking about the court of law, especially, since no one is qualified to speak for every court of law. The question is moral, not legal. And the two approaches are extremely similar to the question of “is the glass half empty or half full”? What do you emphasize - killing five people through inaction, or killing one person through action. That is the bare bones scenario. In both cases some “innocent” people will die.
Indeed this is the question.
What you cannot know cannot be used as the basis of the decision making. Since we NEVER have full information on anything, we MUST make our decisions based upon what we know. No sane person would argue that it is fine to eat this poison, after all “maybe we can survive it”. Maybe it is not poison at all, it is just a candy which looks like a poison. No sane person will refuse to run from a foaming mouth lion, stating that MAYBE it is really just a kitten.
Of course it is. It is allowing evil to happen. The question is “are all evils equal”? Or are some “evils more equal than others”? Is killing one person the same as committing a genocide? This is the question that all of you attempt to avoid.
Then the only other option is B. You did nothing and 100 people died. That’s the bad news. But the good news is…you feel you did the right thing.Wozza:
No.
I wish I could give this answer a 100
likes…Let us hope that we shall never read again the consequenitialists claim that Catholic moral theology is not rational. The consequentialists admittedly govern themselves with their passions.I wish I could give this answer a 100
Wozza:
But I am talking about it because this is the real world I live in. We are offending the family of the loved one by killing him directly and in the real life situation we are liable and can face lawyers and the gas chamber for that
Not exactly. The good news is that I will not be financially liable and a jury will not send me to the gas chamber or electric chair for trying my best to find a solution. I am not guilty of murder as I would be if I chose to directly kill one person.
Not really. Hypothetical problems do not appear in real life, only in the classrooms. If you don’t interfere then you are responsible for the other 5 lives of equally innocent people.
Indirectly killing the five people (by letting them die when you could have saved them) is exactly as immoral as the direct killing one. Well, not exactly. Killing 5 is worse - all things being equal.
First, there is nothing wrong with passions. I would bet the farm that you would choose to save your own children before saving others. So get off your high horse and start behaving honestly and rationally. There is nothing rational about declaring that letting someone to die, when you could save her is somehow morally superior to killing someone directly. Under certain circumstances it could be MUCH worse. (Mercy killing is an example.)
If you think one can murder to save their own then please mail me to title to your farm.
That is your erroneous opinion which you have not proven to be true. I say you are wrong because a jury would not convict me of murder if I step aside, but the family could hire attorneys and have me convicted of murder if I directly kill their loved one.
I try to look at these things from a real life, real world perspective.
I disagree with your assertion that the catechism is deficient. It gives accurate information on moral principles.
I still breathe and blink. And your point is? The significant bit is that I choose not to take the action of throwing the switch.
Not throwing the switch is not like denying a sick person their medicine. Not throwing the switch is like refusing to commit murder–because throwing the switch is murder.
Choosing to not do these things is a choice. You may insist on calling those choices actions but that doesn’t change any of the facts, nor does it disprove any of the arguments you disagree with.
Some sins are worse than others. Murdering ten people is worse than murdering one person.
It is also a principle that we must not commit an evil action in order to get a good result. I refuse to throw the switch because throwing the switch is murder. That does not mean I choose the death of the one victim. It means I refuse to do the evil deed of murder.
And if I am threatened with being held guilty over the deaths of several people that somebody else means to kill unless I murder the one man, I can say “no, I won’t do it”. That actually is simple. Not easy: I’d expect to have nightmares for years, and would likely be reviled by the families of those who died. But the choice is still simple. Murder or do not murder.
Disingenuous. If I plan beforehand to excuse myself by “changing my mind” then I’m not really changing my mind. I’m just following through on my original plan.
Killing in self-defense or defense of others is NOT murder. Elementary, my dear Watson.
If you would deny the life saving medication, you would be found responsible. But again, the legality is not important. I will not reply to the next “installment”.