More good news! But all I can see is lots of 'I’s and lots of 'me’s. I will not be guilty. I will escape punishment. I will not be financially liable.
Because what happens in real life situations is something that should be factored in to the question of what you would do in such circumstances. In many cases, the hypothetical situation is unrealistic and a tentative solution to a speculative situation which does not occur in the real world, may lead to misdiagnosing the analogous real life situation, and as a result cause serious error and it may negate any hypothetical moral good that is put forth on a theoretical non-real situation. IMHO, it is best to use procedures where you do not end up being executed in the gas chamber or being placed in solitary confinement for the rest of your life, even though it may appear to be the best solution theoretically. As far as morality is concerned, it should always be foremost in the mind of a good Christian to do what is best for his family. It is immoral for a good Christian to recklessly embark on an unsanctioned dubious activity which will likely result in serious detriment and prolonged harm to his much loved family. Once you murder that one person, you are subject to the laws of the land and as well to the rapacious lawyers who will stop at nothing to rob you and your family of your life’s earnings. For you to do such is against the Christian virtue of prudence and therefore immoral and irresponsible. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to consider such on a question of Catholic moral theology. Further, you do not have the right to execute an innocent person because of some theoretical situation. Thou shalt not kill, means that you are not supposed to murder innocent people.
The scenario is that you are forced to do “something”. That is the premise. Given that compulsion, there is no moral culpability.
OK. Then doing nothing absolves you of any moral culpability. Have I got that right?Wozza:
The scenario is that you are forced to do “something”. That is the premise. Given that compulsion, there is no moral culpability.
Um, the question so far is not if you will accept the position of your opponents as true. The question is is if you will accept it to be a position.
It is perfectly sufficient.
As we can see, you do not support those pronouncements by arguments.
Sometimes. The standard for what actions are moral is a bit higher than the standards for what inactions are moral. So in general, it is going to be very hard to find an example where inaction is immoral. Such examples do exist, but this isn’t one of them.runningdude:
OK. Then doing nothing absolves you of any moral culpability. Have I got that right?Wozza:
The scenario is that you are forced to do “something”. That is the premise. Given that compulsion, there is no moral culpability.
Don’t make assumptions about other people’s “wishful thinking”. It is against the rules.
Obviously you are welcome to disagree, but that is merely your opinion.
The argument is simple: “inaction can be more evil that action under certain circumstances.” When you have the option to cause “lesser” evil by acting, then inaction is a higher level of evil. As such in the trolley example, all you can do is choose between two evils. The rest is simple calculation.
Have you heard about to be “between a rock and a hard place”. If all the options are “evil” what do you do? Inaction can be just as evil (or even more evil) than action. This is the concept that is used in the trolley example.
That is where your argument goes wrong. If the ONLY available information is the number of foreseeable victims, then that is the ONLY thing you can base your argument upon.
Already explained it to MPat.
Are there no different punishments in hell? Does a catholic, who intentionally missed mass for no good reason get equal suffering as a mass murderer? Not that anyone would know, but it is RATIONAL to suspect that there will be a difference.
But in real life you are allowed to consider new options. That is why these thought experiments have little applicability to real life.
But in real life there is always more information, which is another reason why this thought experiment is not applicable to real life.
To quote “Economist” if the " ONLY available information is " that mortal sin leads to loss of eternal life, that is the " ONLY thing you can base your argument upon ". You see, your thought experiment simplifications can turn around and bite you too.
No one believes that we shall ever experience a real “lifeboat” scenario or real “runaway trolley”. These thought experiments are “learning tools”, employed in ethics classes to help people to investigate the finer points of their propositions, WITHOUT putting anyone into danger.
The argument is not there - this is an assertion. Now you need to give arguments and evidence to support the assertion or it remains gratuitous and can be dismissed out of hand.
Reject them all.
I see. So apparently these thought experiments are for the purpose of exposing what you perceive to be hypocrisy in traditional religious institutions, especially Christian ones - the ones whom you call “holier than thou”. Well, I’m glad you finally came clean.LeafByNiggle:
No one believes that we shall ever experience a real “lifeboat” scenario or real “runaway trolley”. These thought experiments are “learning tools”, employed in ethics classes to help people to investigate the finer points of their propositions, WITHOUT putting anyone into danger.
I certainly hope that eventually we shall be able to develop “virtual reality” technology and place people into those scenarios (without telling them beforehand, so we could measure their real responses) and then we can see their actual reactions to the “almost real scenarios”. Apart from the stress this would cause, it would be an excellent tool to cut down the “holier than thou” crowd to size. Let them practice what they preach.
You choose to not commit evil. Duh!
Not in this case, it isn’t! You could make an argument for inaction being evil when one can confront an aggressor who is assailing an innocent. Not so in this case, in which you’re assailing an innocent yourself through your action!
For a consequentialist or utilitarian? Absolutely. For someone who follows an objective moral standard? Not even close.
If that’s the “ONLY available information”, then there’s insufficient information upon which to base a decision. If you were in a hospital, and the only info that the doctor had to go on was that you were groaning in pain, would you support a decision to cut you open? Of course not! You’d want him to make a decision based on sufficient data!
Hmm… I can see where you asserted it to MPat, but not where you explained it. Can you point me to the number of the post in this thread where you explained it? I’m not seeing it…
The Catechism asserts that the primary ‘punishment’ in hell is lack of communion with God. By that standard, Hitler and Dahmer are suffering the same punishment.
It is, conversely, IRRATIONAL to suspect this. Hell is eternal; there is no “less eternal” or “more eternal” to it. Eternal punishment is eternal punishment. Severing your relationship with God while on earth (however you choose to do that) merits a severed relationship in eternity. Period, full stop. It’s irrational to suggest that there are degrees to “eternally severed relationship.”
No, not really. If all I have is “five on this side and two on that side”, then I can tentatively decide: no action. See how easy that is? See how it doesn’t turn around and bite?
Why did you come to this conclusion? I despise all hypocrisies. And it is “uncharitable” to make unwarranted negative assumptions about other posters.
If ALL the options (including the non-action) involve committing “evil”, then you cannot choose NOT to commit evil. That should be obvious. DUH!
It is also evil to ALLOW some negative outcome, IF it can be avoided. Your basic assumption that “one is ONLY allowed to defend against an explicitly malevolent person” is simply wrong. We can defend against any kind of harm, whether it is purposefully inflicted or simply accidental, maybe due to some force of nature or due to ignorance of someone else’s part. A hunting lion or a mentally sick person are both “innocent of malice”. According to you, it is moral to use the necessary force against the lion, but not against the insane person. The mentally sick person can be substituted with someone who is simply ignorant, who is also innocent of malice, and then you are forbidden to use the necessary force to defend against the impending harm?
Well, it’s clear you’re out to get somebody. And it is not from the mere posting of ethical thought experiments. It is from your follow-up comments where you refuse to accept answers that defend a religious institution. Your comment “Let them practice what they preach” is most telling. Ethical thought experiments as used in ethics classes are not for the purpose of exposing anyone’s hypocrisy. That is your stated purpose and yours alone.LeafByNiggle:
Why did you come to this conclusion? I despise all hypocrisies. And it is “uncharitable” to make unwarranted negative assumptions about other posters.
I meant exactly what I said. First of all these thought experiments are standard teaching tools in ethics classes all other the world. Are they ALL out to “get you”, especially the Christian students? I don’t think so.
No, it is not clear, and it is definitely not true that I (and all the other ethics teachers) are out to “get” somebody. I am simply interested in finding out what kind of analysis is provided for certain kinds of ethical dilemmas. There are many interesting thought experiments, where are NO right or wrong answers, where the aim of the game is to see the analysis itself.
Then why do you attempt to “disallow” analyses that you don’t like?