V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Then lying isn’t neccessary.
Last edited:
- Status
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
If you read those stories many of them involve people lying for them, whether it be “No, no one is hiding here,” to getting false documents for them, to lying to officials seeing these people out in the open saying “This is my sister/brother/daughter/son.”
W
Wesrock
Guest
Double effect, if I remember right, has a good end but has other effects accidental to it that are evil. A white lie uses an evil end (giving bad knowledge).
Though I will say I’m no expert on the principle.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Could you direct me to this discussion or the TL
R version? You have me curious as I don’t know what it’s about! Thanks.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Only one of those examples applies and is easily circumvented by preparation.
K
kapp19
Guest
@Rau - I have… I took several years of a deep dive into the issue - came up with a pretty good thesis which got high marks (on the craniotomy issue)… but everyone takes the answer for granted in this basic dilemma. “Mechanical contingency” does not define “per se order,” it is “targeting” that does that in this case, viz., adopting the end or means of “hitting people with a train” (like with the fat man example - the fat man would stop the train, if the train hits him, but you can’t try to run a train into someone, even for a good reason). Just like I don’t want to have shrapnel go into my body when I jump on the grenade, I don’t want the train to hit anybody. And if the grenade is a dud, or the train goes off the tracks, then my act was a success - everything I wanted was completed. Some authors take this principle too far (Grisez, Finnis, Boyle, etc.), but I really don’t know of any major Catholic author who thinks “not involving oneself” is acceptable, let alone obligatory. One is already involved by having the lever in front of oneself; the will can move toward minimizing damage or not, just like with the grenade (another case of “mechanical contingency”). I hope that helps. I’m really shocked, as you normally have such good takes on things… not on this one.
As to the craniotomy… @Pattylt - it is a long and complex story. The basic problem is that a child is undeliverable, but crushing the skull and extracting the child will save the mother’s life. It will, of course, also end with the death of the child. What can be done, and why?
Connery has a great summary of the 19th century debate in his book on the history of the Church’s view of abortion. (Astoundingly, the debate started out very public - in the back pages of the Acta Sancta Sedes - with Cardinal Avanzini, the editor, musing on these things… Eventually, the papal theologian suggested to His Eminence that if he really wanted the Acta to be the official journal of the Holy See, it might be better not to have speculative debates going on in the appendix! He agreed.) The grand conclusion was… “meh… it seems you can’t do that to the child.” That is the correct conclusion, but there were some pieces missing from the puzzle… Well, I think I found the missing pieces, after years of work on the question. Soon I hope to put the argument out for public criticism… we’ll see how it holds up.
As to the craniotomy… @Pattylt - it is a long and complex story. The basic problem is that a child is undeliverable, but crushing the skull and extracting the child will save the mother’s life. It will, of course, also end with the death of the child. What can be done, and why?
Connery has a great summary of the 19th century debate in his book on the history of the Church’s view of abortion. (Astoundingly, the debate started out very public - in the back pages of the Acta Sancta Sedes - with Cardinal Avanzini, the editor, musing on these things… Eventually, the papal theologian suggested to His Eminence that if he really wanted the Acta to be the official journal of the Holy See, it might be better not to have speculative debates going on in the appendix! He agreed.) The grand conclusion was… “meh… it seems you can’t do that to the child.” That is the correct conclusion, but there were some pieces missing from the puzzle… Well, I think I found the missing pieces, after years of work on the question. Soon I hope to put the argument out for public criticism… we’ll see how it holds up.
K
kapp19
Guest
Maybe I’m grossly ignorant of how the Nazis worked - but it strikes me as rather absurd as an actual historical example… “Are there Jews here?” “No, there are not.” “Oh, okay then, thanks! We trust you, friend.” Really? I think they would have just entered houses at will and looked around.
-K
-K
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I see. He claims he uses lie to make someone feel better- that is the supposed effect.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Reposting this for no other reason than to wish the best for your dad and your bro.TheLittleLady:
My dad is in a fragile state right now, both physically and mentally. My brother found out he has the early stages of prostate cancer, something dad went through some time ago. When I talk to my dad and he asks how my brother is doing, he’s not going to accept changing the subject so I either have to tell the truth or lie. The truth would put a level of worry on him that his body may not be able to take. In my opinion, and the opinions of my three siblings, lying about this matter is worth it for our dad’s well-being.
And in general dodging answers like “let’s pray for him” don’t work. The classic example is if it was morally right to lie to the Nazis about knowing where Jews were hiding. I’ve heard multiple times Fr. Mitch Pacwa say it’s wrong to lie, but you can say something like, “Why would I know where they’re hiding?”, grossly misjudging the persistence of one looking to kill another.
F
Freddy
Guest
It seems that the instructions to those doing the searches should have been ‘Search the houses of all Catholics first. Ask them is anyone is hiding there. Any other answer than ‘no’ means you tear the house apart to find those hiding. Shoot everyone’.Mike_from_NJ:
You mean the fake one where if they have just a drop of intelligence they will search anyway.
And passing it on to your brother was somehow a problem?
I would tell them they could search if they wanted to.
F
Freddy
Guest
Have you not read (or seen) Schindler’s List?Mike_from_NJ:
Then lying isn’t neccessary.
R
Rau
Guest
How do feel about the following approach to saving many lives: A sniper can fire a gun to prevent inevitable multiple deaths, but to do so, his high powered rifle bullet must pass through another person in no danger. By taking this action, 1 will die, but 10 will be saved from certain death. is this an acceptable act?
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
A poingnant film does not mean that lying is not sinful.
K
kapp19
Guest
You’ve touched on a real (but solvable) issue, which is how space fits into the paradigm of action-theory with respect to choice and means specifically. What is clear is two things - first, one may not adopt the means of “shooting through” someone, and second, that there is no relevant analogy between this example and the classic trolley problem, where one does not want the train to go anywhere other than “not there”… One does not try to move the train to a specific place, unlike with the bullet… one tries to move the train away from a specific place, and the way to do that unfortunately leads to a track where some people happen to be, unlike when I try to move something “through someone.” I don’t shoot the train through the people to get anything, I move the train away from people and something (less) bad happens as a result. The people being hit by the train is not a means or an end, moving the train away from the other people is a means to the end of saving their lives. That distinction rests pretty squarely on Thomas (despite possible problems remaining with finer dilemmas, like the horse and the bridge, or the craniotomy for sure), and the consensus of the authors agrees with the conclusion… You don’t want the bad effect except insofar as you are permitting it to occur.
The basic answer to the sniper question is “no,” though there’s lots to explore there, with many distinctions to make and some interesting things to discover…
The basic answer to the sniper question is “no,” though there’s lots to explore there, with many distinctions to make and some interesting things to discover…
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
My final remark on the issue is that the will is faced with a disjunctive - “this evil” or “that evil” must be allowed, which one do you want to allow? If we can clearly choose to allow for less evil without actually doing something evil (rather than merely creating circumstances which are foreseen to bring evil about - unlike with the craniotomy… this is why the integration with substance-theory is so important), then we should do it. It would be immoral not to move the train away from the larger number of people, ceteris paribus.
That being said, when actually faced with this kind of option, people usually just freak out…
And talk about white lies - with trollies!
I’m outta here. Spending way too much time on these forums, unfortunately I will not be around as much anymore. Ciao…
-K
That being said, when actually faced with this kind of option, people usually just freak out…
And talk about white lies - with trollies!
I’m outta here. Spending way too much time on these forums, unfortunately I will not be around as much anymore. Ciao…
-K
R
Rau
Guest
Try? One actually chooses to move the trolley specifically in line with the innocents - whose lives the bystander has no right to sacrifice. It is also true that the trolley is moved away from a specific target. Both are inherent to the chosen act, not mere consequences of it. Much like the sniper situation. Pulling the trigger no less murders than it saves. It is not permissible regardless of the balance of consequences.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
True, however the Trolley Problem was first presented in 1967 by Phillipa Foot in The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect.
St. Thomas Aquinas (in the Summa Theologiae II, Q. 64 Murder) addresses the double effect:
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It would have been a human tragedy beyond inagining if someone hadn’t lied in that real life situation.
Do you think God would consider Schindler a sinner or a saint?
F
Freddy
Guest
Bear in mind that there is no correct answer. The question isn’t looking for a solution. It’s looking to reveal the thought processes behind the answers.kapp19:
Try? One actually chooses to move the trolley specifically in line with the innocents - whose lives the bystander has no right to sacrifice. It is also true that the trolley is moved away from a specific target. Both are inherent to the chosen act, not mere consequences of it. Much like the sniper situation. Pulling the trigger no less murders than it saves. It is not permissible regardless of the balance of consequences.
R
Rau
Guest
Of course there is a correct answer. It just varies according to the ethics system to which you subscribe - or which you think you understand.
- Status