Trolley problem and white lies

[Rau]

No, you allow it - it neither motivates the act nor is integral to its success

Good intentions don’t cleanse the act.

you know that there will be less of a death count if you point it AWAY from the first group, which is the sole motivation.

Good intentions and improved consequences don’t cleanse the act. You propose more than pointing it away - you propose to direct it at innocent people presently in no danger.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s not a solution for the family as a whole, just for me to pass the buck. At that point either my brother has to lie or tell the truth.

He only asked you though. Really avoiding it is not that hard as you are trying to make it out and I highly doubt that your father is asking you about your brother’s medical history anyways. Simply saying something that recently happened should suffice.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

kapp19:

No, you allow it - it neither motivates the act nor is integral to its success

Good intentions don’t cleanse the act.

When God doesn’t stop bullet from hitting someone is He culpable? This seems same. We are not culpable for not doing anything in such case.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So you have forbidden your dad to talk to your brother?? Your is free to answer in the way he wishes. He can say “work is crazy, the kids are anxious to get back to school, Sally sends her love. I’ve got some seasonal allergies”

I don’t know where on earth you got that idea that my brother doesn’t speak to my dad. All four of his kids regularly speak to him. The problem is that if any one of us tells him of this news it could cause serious problems.

I have many health problems. This does not mean I read my med chart to every relative who calls.

But to say one is fine is to say one is without recent bad news, which this certainly is.

How would you have handled the scenario I mentioned in an earlier response to you about a Nazi asking someone about Jews who are hiding?

 

[Rau]

How would you have handled the scenario I mentioned in an earlier response to you about a Nazi asking someone about Jews who are hiding?

Perhaps say: “Do you wish to search”. Hard to imagine that is not the next step anyway no matter I might say.

 

[neophyte]

But Aquinas might offer a solution by saying something such as “I love you no matter what.”

As a happily married man I can assure you that that answer is a loser.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

He only asked you though.

Clearly he would ask my brother as well. That’s a given.

Really avoiding it is not that hard as you are trying to make it out and I highly doubt that your father is asking you about your brother’s medical history anyways. Simply saying something that recently happened should suffice.

How would you handle the scenario I mentioned to The Little Lady about a Nazi coming to your door and specifically asking if you know where Jews are hiding?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

How would you have handled the scenario I mentioned in an earlier response to you about a Nazi asking someone about Jews who are hiding?

You mean the fake one where if they have just a drop of intelligence they will search anyway.

Clearly he would ask my brother as well. That’s a given.

And passing it on to your brother was somehow a problem?

How would you handle the scenario I mentioned to The Little Lady about a Nazi coming to your door and specifically asking if you know where Jews are hiding?

I would tell them they could search if they wanted to.

 

[kapp19]

Choice is not intention - they are different… Intention stands in relation to choice as end to means. The intention comes first - then a choice is made in reference to it.

Alternate scenario - a grenade is thrown. I could jump on the grenade and save some lives - or everyone dies. Can I do it? Of course - in no way do I choose or intend any damage from the grenade to anyone, myself included. (This was a mistake that Grisez made - it was famous… and then, if I recall, you see some of this nonsense come up in the super-famous paper in The Thomist from him and Finnis and Boyle on craniotomy, defending their action theory, I think in the first issue in 2000).

De Lugo could be helpful, as would a closer reading of the Q 64 A 7 - and also Long’s Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act, specifically the first chapter. (There is a small problem in the first chapter which I think sets up later arguments for trouble, but I digress.)

 

[kapp19]

Moral agency is not a category which applies to God… Though there is a lesson to be drawn - by the doctrine of analogy - about the permissive will’s role in moral agency. We are to pursue good and avoid evil, not pursue every good and avoid every evil.

 

[Rau]

The intention comes first - then a choice is made in reference to it.

Correct. Choosing to kill the innocents (inherent to throwing the lever) who are otherwise in no danger is not a choice one has morally available even if it saves the nation.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I do not play the fictitious Nazi game.

You can keep information from your dad while not lying to him. Our Lord said there will never be a situation where sin is the only option. People can try to rationalize lies all day, does not make that promise null.

Praying for your dad and that your brothers diagnosis will be of a turtle instead of a bird.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Catechism still clearly teaches that lying is wrong no matter what. Only time one might “lie” would be if Priest is asked about Confession since he knows things in Confession not as a man but as God knows them hence such knowledge is not his private knowledge. I wonder if this could apply to other secrets too.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Only time one might “lie” would be if Priest is asked about Confession since he knows things in Confession not as a man but as God knows them hence such knowledge is not his private knowledge. I wonder if this could apply to other secrets too.

You don’t have to say anything in the first place so lying is not neccessary or justified.

 

[kapp19]

Okay - you are just not seeing the difference between the permissive will and a direct and targeted act on a person. Just like I can jump on the grenade, I can pull the lever. I don’t want anyone to die - it forms no part of any desire that I have - but I foresee a better outcome if I myself take this act which of itself produces nothing but a circumstance in se. There is no act UPON a person.

You will have to overcome the entire interpretive tradition on Q 64… and then also the intense debate around craniotomy in 1800’s took this same principle for granted (much of it building on De Lugo, which, frankly, was a problem for this particular scenario) - and finally the standard contemporary answers to cases of ectopic pregnancy, viz., the saplingostomy is not allowed, while the salpingectomy can be. It’s a mountain.

That’s all I can offer.

Out…

-K

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You mean the fake one where if they have just a drop of intelligence they will search anyway.

Not necessarily, Not all knocks on the door led to searches. If the Gestapo was searching a neighborhood they may not have the time to search each and every house and a lie could very well save lives. Not all people hiding fugitives have a foolproof hiding spot for them.

And passing it on to your brother was somehow a problem?

As a family we have agreed to keep mum on the sickness matter. Passing the buck just means someone at some point has to decide to lie or tell the truth.

I would tell them they could search if they wanted to.

I am sure there are many descendants of people who were alive at the time who were willing to lie to save their ancestors’ lives.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I do not play the fictitious Nazi game.

It was a very real consideration for people at the time.

Praying for your dad and that your brothers diagnosis will be of a turtle instead of a bird.

Thank you.

 

[Rau]

Okay - you are just not seeing the difference between the permissive will and a direct and targeted act on a person.

I have attended this rodeo before! Examine the nature of trolley tracks and levers. This is all I can offer!

I suggest the thread is best left to focus on lying.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I am sure there are many descendants of people who were alive at the time who were willing to lie to save their ancestors’ lives.

Only in extremely contrived circumstances.

Not all people hiding fugitives have a foolproof hiding spot for them.

They are doomed anyways.

As a family we have agreed to keep mum on the sickness matter. Passing the buck just means someone at some point has to decide to lie or tell the truth.

But it was going to happen regardless and even then you don’t have to mention medical history.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Only in extremely contrived circumstances.

They are doomed anyways.

You should read some of the harrowing and amazing stories of people who were in hiding during those times.