Three moral dilemmas

[AlNg]

Your choices are (A) throw the switch, or (B) don’t throw the switch.

It is best not to intervene, to stand aside and to think of a better alternative , and not to touch the switch. Otherwise you are open to being tried for murder.

 

[Elf01]

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. )

The baby would live a while longer if the surgeon did not operate.

Also would it be moral to pull the switch if the person on the other track is terminally ill?

 

[whatistrue]

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

Correct. What does change it is that the tube with the fetus inside will cause the death of the mother if left in place, but the single innocent person on the track is not the direct or indirect cause of the death of the five; whoever set the trolley in motion with the six innocent people arrayed on the tracks is.

 

[Elf01]

What does change it is that the tube with the fetus inside will cause the death of the mother if left in place

You see it as a type of self defence then?

 

[whatistrue]

You see it as a type of self defence then?

The target of the surgeon is the tube. The fetus is inside the tube, but the actual target is the diseased/damaged tube. So not defense against an attacker but treatment for a medical issue. ETA: Hence the description of “tube with the fetus inside” rather than “fetus”.

 

[Elf01]

The target of the surgeon is the tube. The fetus is inside the tube, but the actual target is the diseased/damaged tube. So not defense against an attacker but treatment for a medical issue. ETA: Hence the description of “tube with the fetus inside” rather than “fetus”.

The target of throwing the switch would seem to be the trolley to me.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

The results, or moral objects, include both foreseeable moral effects of the act – kill the innocent one and save the five.

“To reroute the trolley” is just the physical means to both moral ends.

“Save the five” is the bystander’s intention which is good. However, the physical chain of events that kills the one is direct, saving the five is indirect.

Just as salpingostomy is a direct abortion, that is a direct attack on the person-body of the child, the bystander’s act is a direct attack on the person-body of the innocent one. The hand of the surgeon as the hand of the bystander directly cause the death of an innocent. Neither surgeon or bystander intend to kill an innocent but a good intention does not change the quality of the act’s moral objects. We may never directly kill an innocent “not even to save a nation”.

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.

“Target” in this sense does not mean “intended end” but means to what effect does the act objectively direct itself. “Save the five” is just one of the moral objects. “Kill an innocent” is also the moral object as all foreseen effects are included in the moral object of the act.

 

[Gorgias]

By calling his death a murder simply defines it as unjustifiable.

My dictionary defines ‘murder’ as “the unlawful premeditated killing of a person”. That pretty much fits the bill here.

How do you justify choosing to let five die instead of choosing to let one die?

Because I don’t have the right to “choose to cause one to die”. (Not ‘let’, mind you, but explicitly take a positive action to cause the death.)

The baby would live a while longer if the surgeon did not operate.

Conversely, all people die. You’re ignoring the point: the innocent on the tracks was not in mortal peril until you, the actor, send him to his death.

Also would it be moral to pull the switch if the person on the other track is terminally ill?

For a “snap decision” thought experiment, we’re beginning to know a heck of a lot about this guy! (Along those lines, maybe if I knew that he was a Ravens fan and hated the Steelers… )

I wish you would have offered an actual solution to this - purely grammatical problem, instead of brushing it away.

It’s more than a grammatical problem, unless your whole point is merely that ‘eternal’ >> ‘temporal’.

If that’s the only basis for your argument, you’re still missing the point, namely:

If you have a better solution, let’s hear it.

You’ve already heard it, but you rejected it out of hand, without considering it. (As usual.) . The solution is:

‘offending God’ >> ‘offending a person’
and
‘definitively rejecting God’ >> ‘definitively rejecting a person’.

Bring these into play, and you’ll see why God’s justice isn’t ‘unjust’.

 

[Elf01]

For a “snap decision” thought experiment, we’re beginning to know a heck of a lot about this guy! (Along those lines, maybe if I knew that he was a Ravens fan and hated the Steelers… )

I notice no answer to my question though.

 

[o_mlly]

You face a choice: let five die or let one die.

The moral choice is to offend God or to not offend God. Our eternal disposition is a greater good than the extension of anyone’s temporal existence.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

I did include the death of the baby. How the baby dies is the critical difference. As Fr. Tad explains: “We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being [ Salpingostomy], though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life [ Salpingectomy].”

 

[o_mlly]

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 baby is not attacked in salpingectomy so self-defense does not apply.

The baby is attacked in salpingostomy and would, if capable (???), have a moral right to defend itself against an unjust attacker (as does the innocent one on the track).

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Your rationale?

An unjust aggressor has no right of self-defense against the innocent one he attacks.

 

[Gorgias]

I notice no answer to my question though.

It had already been given: the person wasn’t going to die; killing him is murder. (You do know, don’t you, that if you shoot a terminally ill patient, it’s still murder… right? )

Your argument is a variation of “ lèse-majesté ”.

Not really. God is God. It’s not that we “insult” Him when we sin. It’s that our sin is a sin against Him, primarily, and therefore transcends merely human bounds.

So… not ‘obsolete’, but rather, ‘still relevant.’

the basic principle of justice (and that is why the goddess of justice is depicted with a blindfold) namely that the ACT is what matters and not the target.

Actually, a “blindfolded” justice is a modern concept, dating back only around 300-400 years or so. And, in the context in which it’s offered, it’s making a point about human justice, in which the controversies are all about one human against another. In that case, sure – ‘act, not actor’. But, (and here’s why it’s not special pleading): God actually is different than humans, and therefore, a different standard attaches.

If you try to bring in God as the one who is “offended”, you commit the fallacy of special pleading

LOL! I hadn’t even gotten to that part of your response yet! I should’ve guessed that you’d throw out that red herring! Let me help you: if it really is a special case, then it’s not "special pleading." Sigh.

To suggest that God is “offended” is a blatant anthropomorphization.

Think ‘offense’ rather than ‘emotion’, and maybe you’ll understand what’s being said.

 

[Elf01]

Your rationale?

An unjust aggressor has no right of self-defense against the innocent one he attacks.

I still need to be convinced that the bystander is an unjust agressor. Also

The baby is not attacked in salpingectomy so self-defense does not apply.

I still think the baby would be justified in killing a moral surgeon if he or she was capable.

It may not be under self defense.

To give a counter example: police are called out to a house and accidently get the wrong address. They announce themselves but the only person in is deaf and doesn’t hear them. The police, following procedure, break into the house.

The person shoots one of the officers (not knowing who they are) and one of the other officers shoots him.

Were both acting morally? If not who was the unjust aggressor?

I did include the death of the baby. How the baby dies is the critical difference. As Fr. Tad explains: “We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being [ Salpingostomy ], though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life [ Salpingectomy ].”

The cause of death of the baby is the same, regardless of which procedure is carried out.

It had already been given: the person wasn’t going to die; killing him is murder. (You do know, don’t you, that if you shoot a terminally ill patient, it’s still murder… right? )

So why is the fact that the baby is going to die relevant?

 

[Ender]

The results, or moral objects, include both foreseeable moral effects of the act – kill the innocent one and save the five.

The foreseeable effect of removing that part of the tube with the fetus is the death of the fetus. This argument does not distinguish what is known to be moral (the operation) with what you claim is immoral (throwing the switch).

“Save the five” is the bystander’s intention which is good. However, the physical chain of events that kills the one is direct, saving the five is indirect.

Yes, I agree…but isn’t this exactly the same as the operation which sets off a chain of events that kills the fetus even as it saves the mother? In both cases the death is indirect even as in both cases it inevitably flows from the action.

The hand of the surgeon as the hand of the bystander directly cause the death of an innocent.

I think we disagree on what constitutes directly causing something as opposed to indirectly causing it. I think you’ll be hard pressed to come up with a definition that distinguishes between the doctor’s operation and the bystander throwing the switch.

“Target” in this sense does not mean “intended end” but means to what effect does the act objectively direct itself.

The intended end, and direct result, of throwing the switch is to redirect the trolley away from the five. The reason for redirecting the trolley is to save their lives. The final two consequences of the act are that five lives are saved and one is lost. One result is intended, the other is not, but is merely tolerated. These are the four principles of double effect:

1. The action must be morally good or morally neutral.
I think this is where the disagreement is, but is not the action of redirecting the trolley morally neutral?

2. The bad result not be directly intended.
I don’t think anyone disputes this.

3. The good result not be a direct result of the bad.
This too is surely true as the good result would occur even if the bad did not.

4. The good result must be meet or exceed the bad.
That five live while only one dies surely meets this requirement.

“Kill an innocent” is also the moral object as all foreseen effects are included in the moral object of the act.

The foreseen effect of the operation is the death of the fetus yet that is permitted. Again, your definition does not distinguish between the two situations

 

[Ender]

You’re ignoring the point: the innocent on the tracks was not in mortal peril until you, the actor, send him to his death.

This suggests that if a person is going to die anyway then causing him to die sooner is acceptable. Is that your position?

 

[o_mlly]

I still think the baby would be justified in killing a moral surgeon if he or she was capable.

It may not be under self defense.

That’ fine. But I think you should give the moral argument, if not self-defense, that justifies your belief.

The cause of death of the baby is the same, regardless of which procedure is carried out.

We agree, the baby dies. But how does the baby die is the important question. If the surgeon scoops the baby from the tube, the surgeon is the direct cause of the baby’s death and is a direct abortion. If the baby dies from lack of nutrients because the excised tube lacks blood flow then the direct cause of death is the lack of nutrients and the surgeon indirectly kills the baby as unintended and with a proportionate reason.

To give a counter example: police are called out to a house and accidently get the wrong address. They announce themselves but the only person in is deaf and doesn’t hear them. The police, following procedure, break into the house.

The person shoots one of the officers (not knowing who they are) and one of the other officers shoots him.

The person in the house is the unjust aggressor. He may not be culpable but that does not change the moral object of the act – he directly harms an innocent person which is an objective fact, that is independent of any intent or any circumstances, and always immoral for any person, deaf or not.

 

[o_mlly]

The foreseeable effect of removing that part of the tube with the fetus is the death of the fetus.

Yes.

This argument does not distinguish what is known to be moral (the operation) with what you claim is immoral (throwing the switch).

There is no moral object in “the operation” or “throwing the switch” as these only describe the physical act. See JP II’s discourse in Veritas Spendor,

“By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person.”

If you foresee that pulling a loaded gun’s trigger pointed at an innocent person sending a bullet that will injure him then are you not the direct cause of the bullet’s harm? Of course, you are directly responsible.

How is that act in any essential way different than if you foresee that throwing a switch sending a trolley to run over an innocent person that will injure him? Remember, intent or any other good moral object does not alter the evilness of an evil moral object.

The first principle of the double effect is violated by any act which has an evil moral object. In the concrete, no human act is neutral. The trolley case is concrete as the act, its moral objects and all the relevant circumstances are given.

The foreseen effect of the operation is the death of the fetus yet that is permitted. Again, your definition does not distinguish between the two situations

Yes, but only the procedure which kills the fetus indirectly as unintended and with proportionate reason is moral.

 

[Ender]

The first principle of the double effect is violated by any act which has an evil moral object. In the concrete, no human act is neutral. The trolley case is concrete as the act, its moral objects and all the relevant circumstances are given.

You have still not explained how the trolley case differs from the operation; you have simply asserted that one is moral and the other is not. Suppose the trolley was headed for five people on one track and there was no one on the other. The action and the intent in throwing the switch are identical in both situations; they differ primarily in the consequences, but the consequences do not change the moral nature of an action.

Yes, but only the procedure which kills the fetus indirectly as unintended and with proportionate reason is moral.

Then explain what makes the death of the fetus an indirect killing and the death of the person on the track a direct killing. You cannot simply assert that a difference exists.