Three moral dilemmas

[Elf01]

Surgeon → scalpel → cut → innocent person → death.

Also applies to removing the tube.

 

[o_mlly]

Also applies to removing the tube.

Surgeon → scalpel → cut → diseased tissue → mother lives.

 

[o_mlly]

Bystander Target: Trolley (maybe tracks). Why is that not the case?

Another approach to analyze the morality of the bystander’s action.

If one claims the bystander is acting morally then one must also claim that the innocent one may not act to save his own life which is absurd.

CCC#2263 The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor.

There is always a moral asymmetry between the aggressor and the defender. All aggressors are unjust. All defenders are innocent. The bystander is the aggressor and the one on the tracks is the innocent one.

In the same moment, the bystander cannot be both just and unjust in the same act.

If, and only if, the bystander is unjust, may the innocent one defend his life even with lethal force, if necessary. The innocent on has an absolute right to defend. Therefore, the bystander is unjust.

Perhaps, we should go further and flog this dead horse to pulp.

The bystander, hand on the switch, sees the innocent one pull a gun and point it at the bystander. May the bystander pulls his own gun with his free hand and shoots the innocent dead? No.

 

[vz71]

Perhaps, we should go further and flog this dead horse to pulp.

Best post of the day.

 

[Ender]

The procedure is, as you write not a direct abortion, that is, the procedure is an indirect abortion. The child dies indirectly, not as you write, directly. The act is not immoral in its object and may be permitted.

Your correction is accurate: the child dies indirectly as a result of the action. Isn’t this the same situation, however, as with throwing the switch to reroute the trolley? Isn’t that death also an indirect result?

Bystander Target – Innocent Person, Evil in moral object

No, the innocent person is absolutely not the target. The actual target is rerouting the trolley away from the five…which is surely a moral object. Just like the doctor, the bystander would save all the lives if he could, but that is not possible, but in neither case is the death intended.

 

[Gorgias]

They would be, if they could be avoided.

In the trolley argument, though, we can’t avoid the deaths of the five without committing an immoral act. Therefore, they could not be avoided.

So you ARE allowed to use lethal force against an INNOCENT person, who unknowingly presents a lethal danger (either due to ignorance or due to insanity)? Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

I’m sure I have, in some of the other threads currently on-going in which the subject is being discussed. Not sure why you presumed otherwise.

You are welcome to protest all those ethics classes and demand that they drop the “thought experiments” from their curriculums. Because they are “nonsensical”.

Oh, they can debate them all they want. Yet, I think the answer is straightforward and simple (albeit not accepted by all). The whole point of the dilemma is merely to suss out where an individual stands on the question, and understand the various approaches to morality “in action”, as it were. As such, they’re valuable. Otherwise… not so much.

But even Kirk admitted decades later that, because he had cheated his way past the “no-win scenario,” he had never actually learned to deal with unavoidable loss.

Only an Übermensch is never confronted with “unavoidable loss”. We’re talking about another dynamic: seeking out positive outcomes when it seems that none exist. Even we mere mortals can aspire to that goal…

It seems clear (from those at least willing to address the dilemma - and thank you for that) that the argument for doing nothing is that that absolves one from the responsibility of doing something that leads to the death of an innocent person.

That’s a rather cleverly disguised ad hominem attack! In essence, it boils down to “you’re wrong, because you only want to not be wrong.”

It’s also rather jaded. You’re cavalierly projecting your impression of a person’s intent onto them, asserting “you don’t want to do what’s morally right; you just want to absolve yourself of being accused of doing what’s immoral.”

So… no: it does not seem clear that the argument for doing nothing proceeds merely from selfish motives.

I compare this to a doctor performing an operation on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. This is not considered a direct abortion yet the embryo will die as a direct result of the operation. Nonetheless this is a moral act.

Apples. Oranges: in the ectopic pregnancy example, “doing nothing” leads to the death of mother and child. Excising the damaged fallopian tube saves mother.

Ender:

why is it that the switch cannot be thrown even though it leads to an identical outcome?

One way of looking at it is that you’re choosing a course that directly causes a person who would not have died to instead by squished, by virtue of your direct action.

 

[Gorgias]

Empty assertion without providing evidence.

You’re precious! My very next sentence provided my rationale, but although you quote it, you nevertheless proceed to assail me for not providing a rationale!
Bravo, sir! You’ve mastered the art of internet sophistry!

Besides, meting out eternal punishment for a temporal act is unjust.

So… God is unjust for meting out eternal reward, and God is unjust for meting out eternal punishment. Got it. Thanks for playing. Please come again.

“Justice” is God-neutral concept.

Actually, human justice proceeds from divine justice. It is, in a very real way, related to the divine concept (although a poor imitation of it).

[Justice] simply means that the reward/punishment must be commensurate to the act.

No, that’s not what it means at all. If that were true, then you’d be asserting that the various criminal punishments were ‘commensurate’ with the crimes that they punish. That’s patently false.

But hey… if that’s what you think human justice is, then I’ll let you continue on in your blissful ignorance…

Perhaps, we should go further and flog this dead horse to pulp.

Except that it espouses an immoral action…

 

[Elf01]

Surgeon → scalpel → cut → diseased tissue → mother lives.

Bystander → switch → throw → trolley redirected → 5 people live.

If you include the death of the one there you need to include the death of the baby in the etopic pregnancy scenario.

There is always a moral asymmetry between the aggressor and the defender. All aggressors are unjust. All defenders are innocent. The bystander is the aggressor and the one on the tracks is the innocent one.

I would say if the baby was capable of defending themselves in the etopic pregnancy scenario they would be justified, even if the surgeon was acting morally.

The bystander, hand on the switch, sees the innocent one pull a gun and point it at the bystander. May the bystander pulls his own gun with his free hand and shoots the innocent dead? No.

I disagree there too.

One way of looking at it is that you’re choosing a course that directly causes a person who would not have died to instead by squished, by virtue of your direct action.

So removing the tube is only moral because the baby will die anyway?

 

[Gorgias]

So removing the tube is only moral because the baby will die anyway?

No; but it does demonstrate that the two circumstances aren’t equivalent, which is what had been being argued here.

 

[Ender]

That’s a rather cleverly disguised ad hominem attack! In essence, it boils down to “you’re wrong, because you only want to not be wrong.”

That was not my intent. I’m sorry it came across that way; I should have phrased it differently.

Apples. Oranges: in the ectopic pregnancy example, “doing nothing” leads to the death of mother and child. Excising the damaged fallopian tube saves mother.

I don’t see a meaningful difference. In the trolley example doing nothing leads to the death of more, taking action saves lives, just like in the case of the pregnancy.

One way of looking at it is that you’re choosing a course that directly causes a person who would not have died to instead by squished, by virtue of your direct action.

I think it is an irrelevant distinction to say the child would have died anyway while the lone person on the track would not, therefore it is not just to take an action that leads to his death. Either it is never just to take an action that will inevitably lead to someone’s death or such acts can be justified. We know the latter is true because of the ectopic pregnancy example, but I doubt that “he was going to die anyway” constitutes justification. If it did this would justify euthanasia.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t see a meaningful difference. In the trolley example doing nothing leads to the death of more, taking action saves lives, just like in the case of the pregnancy.

Really?

In the trolley example, taking action causes one who would not have died to be murdered. That’s not a meaningful difference?

 

[Ender]

MAGA-huelye: [Justice] simply means that the reward/punishment must be commensurate to the act.

No, @MAGA-huelye is correct; that is in fact the very definition of justice

Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit. (Aquinas ST I 65,2 ad 3)

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments (I-II 87 3 ad 1)

Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

 

[Gorgias]

Nope, the eternal reward is called “ grace ”.

Umm…no. Grace comes to us in this life, and is not deferred until the eschaton.

And, the eternal reward is “heaven” or “the Beatific Vision”, not “grace”.

Well, I can’t help you if you don’t understand these simple concepts. For the record:

We speak of Justice is when the reward / punishment is merited.
We speak of Mercy is when the punishment is LESS than it would be merited.
We speak of Grace is when the reward is GREATER than it would be merited.

I’ve seen this variously credited to Cathleen Falsani and Stuart Briscoe.

I follow Christ and His Church, not 21st century writers.

What did you say? Thanks for playing.

And I’ll follow it up with “please come again”.

No, @MAGA-huelye is correct; that is in fact the very definition of justice

Except that he follows it up by asserting that God’s eternal reward (for persevering in fellowship with Him) and God’s eternal punishment (for rejecting fellowship with Him) aren’t just. In other words, either he believes what he claims or he doesn’t, but he can’t make the claim and then reject it.

 

[Elf01]

In the trolley example, taking action causes one who would not have died to be murdered. That’s not a meaningful difference?

It’s not morally meaningful. Or would it be moral to throw the switch if the person on the other track was terminally ill?

 

[Ender]

In the trolley example, taking action causes one who would not have died to be murdered. That’s not a meaningful difference?

Defining the result as murder begs the question: that’s the point to be decided. But again, I don’t think it is valid to justify killing the embryo by saying it was going to die anyway. As I said, that logic would permit euthanasia. There must be another justification.

You face a choice: let five die or let one die. The argument that choosing to let five die involves inaction rather than action and is therefore not immoral rests on the supposition that inaction is not immoral, but we know that this is not always so. If you are sitting poolside when a toddler falls in I’m not sure many would accept that your inaction in sitting there watching him drown was moral simply because you did nothing. “Doing nothing” is not always a moral choice.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not morally meaningful.

Again: it’s not “morally meaningful” to choose to kill someone who otherwise, without your action, would not be killed?

C’mon, now. You’re just writing that for the sake of argument. You can’t really believe this, can you? By that standard, Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler did not commit immoral acts; they did not choose acts that had “morally meaningful” content.

Seriously?

 

[Gorgias]

Defining the result as murder begs the question: that’s the point to be decided.

Fine. Try it on for size with the word “killed” rather than “murdered”. Are we really going to make the claim that there’s no moral content there?

“ Doing nothing ” is not always a moral choice.

Red herring. No one is making that claim. Rather, the claim is merely that it’s the only moral option in the present context (the trolley problem).

 

[Elf01]

Again: it’s not “morally meaningful” to choose to kill someone who otherwise, without your action, would not be killed?

The fact that the baby will die in either case and the person on the tracks won’t does not change the moral analysis.

 

[Gorgias]

The fact that the baby will die in either case and the person on the tracks won’t does not change the moral analysis.

It kinda does, inasmuch as it points out that it’s the action of the toggler that causes a killing that otherwise would not happen. If you weren’t standing there, toggling the switch, the one person would not die. Therefore, you caused an innocent bystander to be killed. (That’s evil. )

 

[Ender]

Fine. Try it on for size with the word “killed” rather than “murdered”. Are we really going to make the claim that there’s no moral content there?

There is a massive difference between killed and murdered in that the latter is always a grave moral evil and the former is not. That the lone person will be killed if the switch is thrown is undeniable, but the whole argument here is whether the death is justifiable. By calling his death a murder simply defines it as unjustifiable.

Ender: “ Doing nothing ” is not always a moral choice.

Red herring. No one is making that claim. Rather, the claim is merely that it’s the only moral option in the present context (the trolley problem).

How do you justify choosing to let five die instead of choosing to let one die? It seems to be based on the assumption that you cannot “do” something that will cause the one to die whereas “not doing” anything that inevitably causes five to die is acceptable.