Three moral dilemmas

[whatistrue]

Hypothetical problems do not appear in real life, only in the classrooms.

If it is not real, then no one can actually be hurt or killed, so no moral issue.

If you don’t interfere then you are responsible for the other 5 lives of equally innocent people.

No you are not. The entity who set up the scenario is responsible. If you shoot at a child and I don’t jump in front of you to prevent it, does that absolve you of the responsibility for the child’s death and put it on me?

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.

But all else is not equal - I am also an innocent in all of these situations. So whoever set them up and initiated the sequence is responsible for all harm done during them.

 

[o_mlly]

Killing in self-defense or defense of others is NOT murder. Elementary, my dear Watson

Self defense always involves an aggressor and may be permissible. Elementary, my dear consequentialist.

Yes, passion is part of the game.

Our passions part of the process but our desires ought not govern our behaviors rather our reason should.

The fundamental reason a theist and an atheist disagree on many matters moral is their different beliefs on the purpose of human life.

 

[Economist]

You seem to be arguing that if I refuse to throw the switch that means I desired or intended the deaths of those who died.

No, it was not implied. You expressed your indifference. But the principle is still the same. If you can help someone and refuse to do it, you are responsible for the death.

Not throwing the switch is not like denying a sick person their medicine.

It certainly is. Not providing the medicine is exactly like directly killing someone.

Some sins are worse than others. Murdering ten people is worse than murdering one person.

So in that case, what is your solution? If you can only choose between two “evil” actions, how do you decide what to do?

It is also a principle that we must not commit an evil action in order to get a good result.

Whether an action is evil or not, can ONLY be decided if ALL the circumstances are considered.

The fact that someone will die no matter what I do does not make me guilty for their deaths, because I can’t prevent that from happening.

Of course you can. That is the whole point.

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”.

This was NOT the question. I accept that you could choose to be shot, if you don’t kill someone. You might consider yourself a “martyr”. (Though I am certain that everyone has a Room one-oh-one.) But I don’t think that you would allow your family to be mowed down, if you would refuse to commit a murder. Maybe you think so, under these sterile, hypothetical circumstances… but I have my doubts. Not that anyone would blame you for it… except maybe some posters around here.

 

[Economist]

Self defense always involves an aggressor and may be permissible.

Nonsense. You can defend against ANY danger.

The fundamental reason a theist and an atheist disagree on many matters moral is their different beliefs on the purpose of human life.

That I agree with.

 

[AlNg]

If you would deny the life saving medication, you would be found responsible.

This is a different situation.

 

[o_mlly]

Nonsense. You can defend against ANY danger.

Well, we both can but only one of us thinks he may in all circumstances.

 

[Economist]

Well, we both can but only one of us thinks he may in all circumstances.

So self-defense does not “need” an explicit aggressor. That was my whole point.

 

[o_mlly]

So self-defense does not “need” an explicit aggressor. That was my whole point.

If one has to kill another to defend then yes it does.

de·fend

/dəˈfend/
verb

verb: defend ; 3rd person present: defends ; past tense: defended ; past participle: defended ; gerund or present participle: defending

1. resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.

 

[Economist]

If one has to kill another to defend then yes it does.

If everything else fails… then you are allowed to kill.

 

[KMC]

1. Yes
2. How would I know they are infected, yet they do not know? As it is written, I think telling the person they are infected with a deadly disease. Then depending on their reaction, it may or may not fall into Dilemma 1.
3. Acceptable Moral Principle: Choose the lesser of two evils. Thus, choose the group with few people to “kill”

 

[o_mlly]

If everything else fails… then you are allowed to kill.

The point was that killing in defense always involves an aggressor. Who is the aggressor in #2 and #3?

 

[Economist]

The point was that killing in defense always involves an aggressor.

No, it does not.

 

[o_mlly]

No, it does not.

Is that an argument?

 

[KMC]

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.
The fact that someone will die no matter what I do does not make me guilty for their deaths, because I can’t prevent that from happening. But I can’t prevent the larger number of deaths unless I murder the one man–and I must not murder.

A couple of points, if the choice is throwing a switch or not, then I would agree that “not acting” is a valid choice. Where I have seen the principle of “choosing the lesser of two evils” come into play is with a couple of different scenarios:

1. you are the pilot of an airplane. Your steering is broken and you have run out of gas. There are two buildings in front of you, and your limited steering allows you to hit one or the other. That’s it. Crash into building 1 or building 2. You believe one building would have twice as many people in it than the other. you could choose to crash into the lesser populated building. Obviously, this is a highly unlikely scenario, but does serve to show the validity of “choosing the lesser of two evils”
2. Voting for President. This is a highly likely scenario we face all the time. There are two parties that have a chance to win. 3rd parties, statistically speaking, have zero chance of winning a presidential election. If you disagree, private message me for a $10,000 bet for the next election. That leaves two candidates, neither of which align completely with Catholic social teaching. However, one party’s candidate will support at least 3 intrinsic evils, one being abortion which kills hundreds and thousands of babies every year. From a proportionality perspective, voting for the candidate with fewer immoral consequences seems to me to fit “voting for the lesser of two evils.”

Certainly, I have had a lot of people say we can morally vote for a 3rd party candidate. Problem is, that will more than like help the candidate who supports more intrinsic evils. (Think how voting for Perot got us Bill Clinton). Also, I’m not looking for a debate on justifying voting for a 3rd party candidate…so lets not go there. I’m just trying to show the validity of “choosing the lesser of two evils” as an acceptable moral principle.

Peace!

 

[Gorgias]

Does the principle of “choose the LESSER of two evils” mean anything?

Yes. It means you’re not familiar with Catholic moral theology, in which “choosing an evil” is itself an immoral act.

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?

The one that I will choose will not depend on the mere number of lives. The calculus of the value of human life does not work that way. And, although you want to assert “you may not attempt to wriggle out of it”, the third choice really is “I choose not to kill an innocent / bystander / non-aggressor.”

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

The problem is that you’ve introduced a second sin – that of presumption – as others have mentioned. One would have to be contrite of that sin, as well, for the absolution to be valid.

It’s more the case ‘I hope God will forgive for this’ rather that ‘I bet I’ll get away with this’.

That’s an interesting turn. It’s a rather thin line between “God always forgives a contrite sinner” and “I am doing this because God always forgives a contrite sinner”. Only the latter is presumption.

To say that the catechism “says so” is insufficient. Especially since the catechism is deficient

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.

Puh-leeze. That doesn’t work, and I suspect you know it. We’re talking about moral actions related to the dilemma.

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

You can assert this all you want, but, in your own words: " I need an explanation - a RATIONAL explanation - to accept it."

So… why is it a cop-out? Why is it unacceptable? And if we can’t say “because the catechism says so”, then you can’t say “because my moral standard says so”. Sauce for the gander, brother…

Or are all sins (all mortal sins) equally sinful? Is killing one person the same as killing a million ?

All mortal sins have the same consequence: loss of eternal life in heaven. In that sense, they’re equal. In other senses (body count, perhaps), they’re not. However, this is a question about the morality of actions, and only the former standard (and not the latter) come into play in answering that question.

 

[Gorgias]

But the good news is…you feel you did the right thing.

I give it 100 unlikes. It’s not about “feeling” you did the right thing; it’s about knowing that you took the only morally acceptable option.

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.

The “justice” system doesn’t provide ‘justice’ at all, per se… merely adjudication.

The point was that killing in defense always involves an aggressor.
No, it does not.

Sure, it does. I think you’re conflating “malice” with “aggression”.

Is that an argument?

Well, he did pay his £1, so I think he was kinda hoping for the full five-minute argument…

 

[AlNg]

The “justice” system doesn’t provide ‘justice’ at all, per se… merely adjudication.

I wouldn’t worry too much about the philosophical fine points in which there is no universal agreement. I would worry about being hanged for murder. I would try my best to avoid being hanged or having to spend the rest of my life in solitary confinement in an American prison.

 

[vz71]

Your right.
The problem with these types of experiments is that they are all contrived.

My standard answer is that I use my super strength to stop the trolley…or whatever.

 

[Gorgias]

I wouldn’t worry too much about the philosophical fine points in which there is no universal agreement.

If you’re only concerned about earthly adjudication, and not about the philosophical fine points that affect your eternal destination, then why are you debating in a ‘moral theology’ forum on a Catholic site?

The problem with these types of experiments is that they are all contrived.

My standard answer is that I use my super strength to stop the trolley…or whatever.

LOL! Best answer for all these “trolley problem” threads!

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

I wish I could give this answer a 100 likes…

Wozza:

But the good news is…you feel you did the right thing.

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.

Logic, not passions. Passion would be to save my daughter rather than a hundred strangers. Logic would be to save a hundred strangers over one.