Three moral dilemmas

[o_mlly]

You have still not explained how the trolley case differs from the operation [indirect abortion].

If you mean indirect abortion, I have explained. The bystander’s act directly kills an innocent person. How would you explain that the bystander’s act merely kills indirectly? Perhaps Pius XII address will help crystalize the difference. The inevitability of outcomes does not bear on directness or indirectness.

Pope Pius XII, address to the Family Front Congress on November 27, 1951, published in Matrimony , Papal Teachings [Boston: Paul Editions], 1963, pages 437 to 440.

It has been our intention here to use always the expressions “ direct attempt on the life of the innocent person” [and] “ direct killing.” The reason is that if, for example, the safety of the life of the future mother, independently of her state of pregnancy, might call for an urgent surgical operation, or any other therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable , the death of the fetus, such an act could not be called a direct attempt on the innocent life. In these conditions the operation can be lawful, as can other similar medical interventions, provided that it be a matter of great importance, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone it till the birth of the child, or to have recourse to any other efficacious remedy …. Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the child.

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.

The “action” is not the moral object of an act. Again, the merely physical act does not disclose the moral object of an act. Your revised scenario, with no innocent person on the track, removes the second moral object from consideration. Such a revision is an essential change to the case.

The foreseen consequences, if they have moral content, are in the moral object font, not in the circumstance font. Circumstances do not change the moral quality of an act but consequences which have moral content do.

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.

I have not merely asserted. Pius XII, Fr. Pacholczyk, Monsignor Smith have all explained in detail why the indirect killing of a fetus may be moral. Now, I believe it falls to you to explain how the bystander merely kills indirectly by showing the essential difference in pulling a trigger vs. throwing a switch.

 

[Elf01]

The foreseen consequences, if they have moral content, are in the moral object font, not in the circumstance font. Circumstances do not change the moral quality of an act but consequences which have moral content do

The death of the baby is a forseen consequence of the removal of the tube and is not in the object.

Why does it not have moral content, when the death of the bystander does?

 

[o_mlly]

The death of the baby is a forseen consequence of the removal of the tube and is not in the object.

Why does it not have moral content, when the death of the bystander does?

The death of the baby in tubal excision is a foreseen outcome and is in the moral object as Pius XII explains: “… her state of pregnancy, might call for an urgent surgical operation … which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable , the death of the fetus, such an act could not be called a direct attempt on the innocent life.”

 

[Elf01]

The death of the baby in tubal excision is a foreseen outcome and is in the moral object as Pius XII explains: “… her state of pregnancy, might call for an urgent surgical operation … which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable , the death of the fetus, such an act could not be called a direct attempt on the innocent life.”

If the death of the baby was in the moral object then removing the tube would be immoral, which I know you don’t agree with.

 

[o_mlly]

If the death of the baby was in the moral object then removing the tube would be immoral, which I know you don’t agree with.

But the death of the baby is in the moral object of tubal excision. ???

Perhaps Fr. Tad’s explanation which builds on Pius XII’s will help. I ask that you read it again.

This threat is addressed by removal of the tube, with the secondary, and unintended, effect that the child within will then die. In this situation, the intention of the surgeon is directed towards the good effect (removing the damaged tissue to save the mother’s life) while only tolerating the bad effect (death of the ectopic child). Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child. Ad-ditionally, the child’s death is not the means via which the cure occurs. If a large tumor, instead of a baby, were present in the tube, the same curative procedure would be employed. It is tubal removal, not the subsequent death of the baby, that is curative for the mother’s condition.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Were both acting morally?

Depends on their intent, now, (as always), doesn’t it?

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

It’s not. In the trolley case, it is relevant that the guy on the track is an innocent bystander, who would not be killed unless you toggle the switch and flatten him like a pancake.

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

Nope. That’s why I responded to you in post 186 in the way that I did. Let me repeat: the innocent on the tracks was not in mortal peril until you, the actor, send him to his death. That’s the point here.

 

[Elf01]

Depends on their intent, now, (as always), doesn’t it?

I thought I had implied the intent

Police Officers; Capture a criminal
Resident: Stop an intruder

It’s not. In the trolley case, it is relevant that the guy on the track is an innocent bystander, who would not be killed unless you toggle the switch and flatten him like a pancake.

Seems to be saying that the fact the baby is going to die is not morally relevant while arguing that it is.

This threat is addressed by removal of the tube, with the secondary , and unintended, effect that the child within will then die . In this situation, the intention of the surgeon is directed towards the good effect (removing the damaged tissue to save the mother’s life) while only tolerating the bad effect (death of the ectopic child). Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother’s body) rather than directly on the child. Ad-ditionally, the child’s death is not the means via which the cure occurs. If a large tumor, instead of a baby, were present in the tube, the same curative procedure would be employed. It is tubal removal, not the subsequent death of the baby, that is curative for the mother’s condition.

It does explain why removing the tube is permissable as opposed to just the baby, but I don’t see why this is not valid

This threat is addressed by redirecting the trolley , with the secondary , and unintended, effect that the person on the track will then die . In this situation, the intention of the bystander is directed towards the good effect (redirecting the trolley to save 5 people) while only tolerating the bad effect (death of the person on the other track). Importantly, the bystander is choosing to act on the trolley rather than the person on the other track. Ad-ditionally, the persons death is not the means via which the lives are saved. If there was nobody on the other track the same procedure would be employed. It is the redirection of the trolley, not the subsequent death of the person that saves the five people.

The fact that the same act would be performed to save the lives if nobody was on the other track is why I think throwing the switch is moral.

 

[Ender]

the innocent on the tracks was not in mortal peril until you, the actor, send him to his death. That’s the point here.

If you make the point that it is immoral to cause someone’s death who is not in mortal peril this suggests that it is moral to cause the death of someone who is under that threat. Is that your position, that we may justifiably cause the death of someone who will shortly die anyway?

 

[o_mlly]

Importantly, the bystander is choosing to act on the trolley rather than the person on the other track .

Your analysis I think is good until the above. The moral object always involves an effect on a moral agent. The “trolley” is not the moral agent acted upon, rather it is the innocent person.

If there was nobody on the other track …

Then there would be no moral dilemma just as there is no moral dilemma if a cancerous womb does not contain a child.

The fact that the same act would be performed to save the lives if nobody was on the other track is why I think throwing the switch is moral.

The above is categorically a different scenario. Of course, if the only moral object of the act is good then one ought to act if intent and circumstances are also good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

That is begging the question because you can’t call it murder until you have proven it was immoral, which is what you were trying to prove.

(Whoops. Already recognized by Ender a day ago.)

 

[Elf01]

Your analysis I think is good until the above. The moral object always involves an effect on a moral agent. The “trolley” is not the moral agent acted upon, rather it is the innocent person.

The tube isn’t a moral agent. Unless you see the surgeons act as on the mother?

Then there would be no moral dilemma just as there is no moral dilemma if a cancerous womb does not contain a child.

Agreed, I do think it points to how the act is directed though.

 

[mythbuster1]

Typhoid Mary died confined to a hospital because she refused to let the doctor’s remove her infected gall bladder. This was the correct decision, because she refused to comply with quarantine orders even after she killed people with typhoid. Furthermore, she refused to wash her hands before handling food, and made use of a false name to be hired as a cook after her infectious condition became widely known. At any time, she could have consented to have her gall bladder removed and been released from the hospital, but she refused, and so remained there for life.

 

[JamesATyler]

In an existence where a human being can only choose to kill people then they ought to kill the fewest possible. Old school order of importance was to spare the children first, then women, and lastly men. I have no idea how society prioritizes lives now.

In a situation where someone carries a lethal contagion they ought to be told their condition before anything.

 

[whatistrue]

However you define it, the bottom line is that taking a specific action that is intended, by the premises of the experiment, to kill an innocent is not morally permissible. The intention of removing the diseased/damaged tube is to save the woman. the death of the fetus is an unintended (albeit foreseeable) consequence (indirect result). Perhaps you could make a case for killing one innocent to be ethically permissible under certain ethical systems, but the title states moral so that is the framework I am using.

 

[Ender]

If you mean indirect abortion, I have explained. The bystander’s act directly kills an innocent person.

You have not explained this, you have only asserted it. Explain the difference between a direct effect and an indirect one that justifies the operation and condemns throwing the switch.

In the example given by Pius XII he seems to justify the operation because it would be necessary to save the woman even if there was no pregnancy, but clearly throwing the switch would be the right act if there was no one on the other track which seems to be a completely analogous situation. In fact it would seem throwing the switch cannot be a direct killing inasmuch as other events could occur after that point where the life would not be lost. How can it be considered a direct killing if it is possible the killing won’t even happen?

The “action” is not the moral object of an act.

What is the moral object then? If the moral object of the operation is the same whether or not there is a fetus, why would the moral object not be the same whether or not there is a person on the second track?

The foreseen consequences, if they have moral content, are in the moral object font, not in the circumstance font.

One foreseen consequence of the operation is the death of the innocent fetus, and this is allowed. One foreseen consequence of throwing the switch is the death of the innocent man. Again, where is the difference?

I believe it falls to you to explain how the bystander merely kills indirectly by showing the essential difference in pulling a trigger vs. throwing a switch.

C’mon, the intended, direct result of pulling a trigger is to shoot whatever the gun is aimed at. If it’s aimed at a person then the intent would be to shoot him. The intent of throwing the switch is to save the five, and it has the indirect result of (probably) resulting in the death of one. Again, the object of throwing the switch is identical whether there is a person on the second track or not. It is not possible to contend that killing him is in any way intended, which is totally unlike the case of “pulling a trigger.”

 

[o_mlly]

The tube isn’t a moral agent. Unless you see the surgeons act as on the mother?

That’s correct. The intended moral object has always been to save the life of the mother.

You have not explained this, you have only asserted it. Explain the difference between a direct effect and an indirect one that justifies the operation and condemns throwing the switch.

As already posted, the difference in indirect and direct has been explained. ?

The direct cause of the child’s death is a lack of nutrients. The indirect cause is the surgeon’s excision of diseased tissue.

The direct cause of the innocent person’s death is the bystander’s throwing the switch.

In the example given by Pius XII he seems to justify the operation because it would be necessary to save the woman even if there was no pregnancy …

That is not Pius XII’s primary argument but only secondary and almost given as an afterthought. If you wish to use Pius XII’s argument to somehow demonstrate that the bystander’s act is just, please show that his main argument is in error.

In fact it would seem throwing the switch cannot be a direct killing inasmuch as other events could occur after that point where the life would not be lost. How can it be considered a direct killing if it is possible the killing won’t even happen?

Wishful thinking. What only matters in determining the moral objects are the foreseeable outcomes in the actor’s mind prior to the act. The OP clearly states the bystander’s state of mind.

If the moral object of the operation is the same whether or not there is a fetus …

No, the moral object is not the same. If there is no fetus then the bad moral effect no longer exists.

One foreseen consequence of the operation is the death of the innocent fetus, and this is allowed. One foreseen consequence of throwing the switch is the death of the innocent man. Again, where is the difference?

The parallel case to the trolley is the always immoral salpingostomy, the direct killing of an innocent. In both surgical procedures, the death of the child is foreseen and unintended. Why do you think salpingostomy is immoral and salpingectomy may be moral? There is your answer.

C’mon, the intended, direct result of pulling a trigger is to shoot whatever the gun is aimed at. If it’s aimed at a person then the intent would be to shoot him. The intent of throwing the switch is to save the five

You confuse by conflating the font of intent with the font of moral object. Intention has nothing to do with moral object and vice versa. The goodness of one does not imply anything about the other. Both must be good to allow the morality of the act.

(continued)

 

[o_mlly]

Those who believe the bystander may kill the innocent person must provide two rationales to be in accord with Catholic teaching:

1. Using the pulling trigger/throwing switch comparison, explain how the bystander’s act merely indirectly kills the innocent person. (Direct killing an innocent is intrinsically evil.)
2. Explain why the innocent person has no right of self-defense against the bystander. (The bystander cannot be both just and unjust in the same act in the same circumstances. Self-defense is only employed against an unjust aggressor. Remember, intent has nothing to do with whether an act is just or not, only the moral objects.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As already posted, the difference in indirect and direct has been explained. ?

The direct cause of the child’s death is a lack of nutrients. The indirect cause is the surgeon’s excision of diseased tissue.

The direct cause of the innocent person’s death is the bystander’s throwing the switch.

This is still merely asserting a difference. Is not the direct cause of the one man’s death being struck by a trolley? The switch didn’t kill him. The trolley did. This makes exactly as much sense as saying the scalpel didn’t kill the baby. The lack of nutrients (which the scalpel bright about) did.

 

[Gorgias]

I thought I had implied the intent

Police Officers; Capture a criminal
Resident: Stop an intruder

Well, there you go, then. If the only intent is “capture” or “stop”, then we have to examine the act, if it turns into “kill”.

Seems to be saying that the fact the baby is going to die is not morally relevant while arguing that it is.

Nope: just highlights the fact that the guy on the tracks isn’t part of the equation until you decide it’s ok to kill him in cold blood.

If you make the point that it is immoral to cause someone’s death who is not in mortal peril this suggests that it is moral to cause the death of someone who is under that threat. Is that your position

Of course not. Quit putting words in my mouth, please.

I see that you very carefully avoided the analysis of “justice / mercy / grace”.

That’s because I’d already pointed out that your definition of ‘grace’ was deficient in this context. How many times do you need to be told “sorry; you’re wrong” before you actually hear it?

“grace”, we shall keep it. This is a totally secular concept.

Except on a Catholic forum. In a section on moral theology. In a thread about moral dilemmas. In that context, friend, we’re square in theological, not secular territory, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

Not to mention that there is no argument that saving 5 people while sacrificing one is somehow a sin or insult toward God. The principle is “do no harm, but if the circumstances force you to do harm, do as little as possible”.

Ummm… this whole thread, as well as a few more that are active on the forum at the moment, is all about the argument that “sacrificing one person” is precisely sinful. (Where have you been? What do you think you’ve been reading? )

The ‘principle’ you espouse is your own… not what the Church teaches. Catholic moral theology teaches precisely the opposite of your ‘principle’: “do as little harm as possible” isn’t part of that system. Yours, maybe. Not Catholicism’s.

That is begging the question because you can’t call it murder until you have proven it was immoral, which is what you were trying to prove.

(Whoops. Already recognized by Ender a day ago.)

Whoops. Already responded to a day ago. It isn’t “begging the question”, by the very definition of ‘murder’. You just don’t like the fact that it has emotional content that’s difficult to swallow.

 

[o_mlly]

Is not the direct cause of the one man’s death being struck by a trolley?

Nope. Asked, answered and, apparently, ignored. Let’s wee if the new posters can offer new arguments.