Trolley Problem

[vz71]

And who is the “initiating perpetrator”? The story doesn’t say. So therefore, there is none.

Again, not a moral issue, so my point stands untouched.

It is designed to make sure someone chooses evil. There is no choice. It is used to push the “lesser of two evils” idea, which is the same as pushing evil since even a lesser evil is still an evil. Resistance is futile, there is no choice.

No choice, no moral question.

This is a job for SuperVZ71!

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom, your post #61 strays from Catholic moral principles in numerous ways. Argue your case as you please, but don’t suggest Catholic principles support your conclusion.

Your saying so does not make it true. Is it according to Catholic teaching that:
One ought not to willingly destroy an instance of an intelligible human good for the sake of some other intelligible or sensible good?
Is it according to Catholic principles that one should act prudently and not rashly?

 

[Tomdstone]

Choosing to allow maximum harm by inaction (instead of minimum harm by action) is something I understand (even if not agree with), but either way you should have to acknowledge that you chose inaction. .

You don’t know what the maximum harm and minimum harm would be in the few seconds that you have to think.

 

[Tomdstone]

There was no objectively wrong act. The moral object of the act is not evil.

It is objectively wrong to act imprudently and rashly especially where your imprudent action will result in the murder of an innocent person. Aristotle says that the good and wise man is slow to take counsel. You have taken your decision to pull the lever quickly and rashly which flies in the face of what Aristotle has taught.

 

[Tomdstone]

I have neither time nor interest to debunk all of your statements

i didn’t think you would be able to debunk what I have written, since it is based partly on what has been taught by Aristotle and what has been written in Holy Scripture.

 

[Rau]

It is objectively wrong to act imprudently and rashly especially where your imprudent action will result in the murder of an innocent person. Aristotle says that the good and wise man is slow to take counsel. You have taken your decision to pull the lever quickly and rashly which flies in the face of what Aristotle has taught.

When no more information available, and there is no way to obtain more information, it is not unreasonable to act on the objective information which is available. I’ve not said I would pull the lever - I’ve said that the well-intentioned act to pull the lever to save 4 is not immoral. The judgement to do so, in the situation described, is prudent. It would be imprudent to “act in seconds” if hours were available to evaluate the situation, consider alternatives and make the decision, but nothing in the scenario suggests imprudence. You have simply made up the assertion that any act was done rashly.

 

[Rau]

One ought not to willingly destroy an instance of an intelligible human good for the sake of some other intelligible or sensible good?

One may not do evil to produce a good. That was not proposed here. Good was proposed to - in the prudential judgement of the one who pulls the lever - lessen the evil outcome already in train. Just as in ectopic pregnancy, tube removal leads to the baby’s death, but is not an evil act (of murder). It is a bad consequence of a good act (directed at the woman’s body).

 

[Tomdstone]

When no more information available, and there is no way to obtain more information, it is not unreasonable to act on the objective information which is available. I’ve not said I would pull the lever - I’ve said that the well-intentioned act to pull the lever to save 4 is not immoral. The judgement to do so, in the situation described, is prudent. It would be imprudent to “act in seconds”** if hours were available to evaluate the situation,** consider alternatives and make the decision, but nothing in the scenario suggests imprudence. You have simply made up the assertion that any act was done rashly.

Wait. If hours were available to act, as you have suggested here, then the best course would be to walk down the tracks and untie the rope holding the one person on the tracks and the pull the lever so that the train would move on the one track without anyone getting hurt. You claim that what I say is not Catholic teaching. Please tell us why it is not Catholic teaching that if there are hours available to evaluate the situation, then the best thing to do would be to untie the ropes which bind the innocent man. Hours available for that gives you the sufficient time to carry this out and save everyone. But if there is not time available to do that, you have to make a decision in a few seconds time, and according to Aristotle, the wise and good man takes counsel slowly. So pulling the lever in a few seconds notice is not prudent according to the teaching of Aristotle. And it is wrong and possibly sinful to act imprudently.

 

[Tomdstone]

When no more information available, and there is no way to obtain more information, it is not unreasonable to act on the objective information which is available.

It is imprudent as mentioned above because you have acted rashly without due considerations of other possible factors.

 

[Rau]

Wait. If hours were available to act, as you have suggested here, then the best course would be to walk down the tracks and untie the rope holding the one person on the tracks and the pull the lever so that the train would move on the one track without anyone getting hurt. You claim that what I say is not Catholic teaching. Please tell us why it is not Catholic teaching that if there are hours available to evaluate the situation, then the best thing to do would be to untie the ropes which bind the innocent man. Hours available for that gives you the sufficient time to carry this out and save everyone. But if there is not time available to do that, you have to make a decision in a few seconds time, and according to Aristotle, the wise and good man takes counsel slowly. So pulling the lever in a few seconds notice is not prudent according to the teaching of Aristotle. And it is wrong and possibly sinful to act imprudently.

I concur entirely with the first part of your post Tom - if the danger is hours away, evaluate options and choose the best. But if evaluation done, and no better option presents, no Catholic doctrine forbids one from acting to save the 4. Such action is not rash when one has but seconds to decide, and the only information to hand is that 1 may be saved or 4 may be saved.

 

[Rau]

It is imprudent as mentioned above because you have acted rashly without due considerations of other possible factors.

No. It is prudent to consider options during the time available for considering options, but not any longer. Like ectopic pregnancy. Dither, and we will have 2 deaths rather than one.

 

[Tomdstone]

No. It is prudent to consider options during the time available for considering options, but not any longer. Like ectopic pregnancy. Dither, and we will have 2 deaths rather than one.

With ectopic pregnancy you have time to take counsel and act prudently in accord with the teaching of Aristotle.

 

[Tomdstone]

I concur entirely with the first part of your post Tom - if the danger is hours away, evaluate options and choose the best. But if evaluation done, and no better option presents, no Catholic doctrine forbids one from acting to save the 4. Such action is not rash when one has but seconds to decide, and the only information to hand is that 1 may be saved or 4 may be saved.

You are deciding to play God and kill an innocent man within a few seconds which is against the teaching of Aristotle.

 

[Rau]

You are deciding to play God and kill an innocent man within a few seconds which is against the teaching of Aristotle.

No - the decision is to save 4. Like operating on the mother with ectopic pregnancy. Is that “playing God”? Is that a decision to kill a child?

BTW Tom, do you believe God chose to kill the 4? I think that choice was made by the man who tied them up and set the trolley on its course.

 

[Tomdstone]

No - the decision is to save 4. Like operating on the mother with ectopic pregnancy. Is that “playing God”? Is that a decision to kill a child?.

Ectopic pregnancy is entirely different because you have a lot of time to take counsel. In the trolley situation, you have little time and you have to make your decision too quickly so that you do not have enough time to take counsel. According to a teaching of Aristotle, the wise and good man is slow to take counsel.
Let me repeat it, since apparently you are missing the argument:
With ecoptic pregnancy, you have time to take counsel slowly.
With the trolley situation, you do not have time to take counsel slowly.
Aristotle teaches us that the good man takes counsel slowly.
The prudent man will take counsel slowly.
By pulling the lever within a few seconds or very short notice, you are not taking counsel with yourself slowly.
Such a rash action flies in the face of a teaching of Aristotle.

 

[Tomdstone]

The morality of this act is not influenced by things our hero does not know about the 5 men.

Well, I don’t see how you can square that with a teaching of St. Isidore of Seville who in Etym x has said that the prudent man will foresee the various uncertainties of an act before acting. So you are going against the virtue of prudence by acting rashly and not foreseeing the various uncertainties involved.

 

[Rau]

Well, I don’t see how you can square that with a teaching of St. Isidore of Seville who in Etym x has said that the prudent man will foresee the various uncertainties of an act before acting.

Aquinas writes: "The prudent man considers things afar off, in so far as they tend to be a help or a hindrance to that which has to be done at the present time. "

No doubt you came across Isidore in the work of Aquinas. Read a little more Aquinas. You will not find an exhortation to do nothing for lack of knowledge of the unknowable - unknowable “at the present time - the time at which something has to be done”.

 

[Rau]

Ectopic pregnancy is entirely different because you have a lot of time to take counsel.

You **might **have “a lot” of time (or you might not) - but the choice to be made is unchanged. No one is accused of murder (legally or morally) because the child dies in removing the tube - not if time is short (acute tubal rupture pending - emergency surgery required), nor if it is lengthy (early detection).

The time available to exercise judgment and/or seek counsel is only ever the time prior to which one must choose an action (eg. to flip a lever, or leave it as it is, to have surgery or not). The trolley problem (and ectopic pregnancy) both set a hard limit on that time frame. Whether it is short or long is irrelevant. Prudence requires doing what can be done within that timeframe. How fruitless to demand more time than exists - when the time has passed, the judgement is made for us. Our obligation is to use our best judgement in the time available for forming judgements.

It seems you are arguing it is immoral to “flip the lever” (or submit to surgery) if the circumstances are such as to require that decision to be made quickly (say, within seconds or minutes), but it is moral to flip the lever (or undergo the surgery) if the circumstances are such as to allow one to “take a lot of time to take counsel” and then decide to flip the lever. But previously, you claimed the act of flipping the lever was wrong because it was intentional killing. Now you say it is wrong because we did not think for longer than the available time for thinking. I think you need to think again Tom.

 

[dshix]

You **might **have “a lot” of time (or you might not) - but the choice to be made is unchanged. No one is accused of murder (legally or morally) because the child dies in removing the tube - not if time is short (acute tubal rupture pending - emergency surgery required), nor if it is lengthy (early detection).

The time available to exercise judgment and/or seek counsel is only ever the time prior to which one must choose an action (eg. to flip a lever, or leave it as it is, to have surgery or not). The trolley problem (and ectopic pregnancy) both set a hard limit on that time frame. Whether it is short or long is irrelevant. Prudence requires doing what can be done within that timeframe. How fruitless to demand more time than exists - when the time has passed, the judgement is made for us. Our obligation is to use our best judgement in the time available for forming judgements.

It seems you are arguing it is immoral to “flip the lever” (or submit to surgery) if the circumstances are such as to require that decision to be made quickly (say, within seconds or minutes), but it is moral to flip the lever (or undergo the surgery) if the circumstances are such as to allow one to “take a lot of time to take counsel” and then decide to flip the lever. But previously, you claimed the act of flipping the lever was wrong because it was intentional killing. Now you say it is wrong because we did not think for longer than the available time for thinking. I think you need to think again Tom.

Very well said!

 

[BobCatholic]

Choosing to allow maximum harm by inaction (instead of minimum harm by action) is something I understand (even if not agree with), but either way you should have to acknowledge that you chose inaction. Not acknowledge it - choosing one thing and saying “there is no choice” - is cowardly.

Pontius Pilate said “I am innocent of this man’s blood. It is your responsibility!” when he killed Jesus. He knew Jesus Christ was innocent, he knew the mob wanted to kill Jesus, but instead of acting to save to save Jesus he chose to let the mob kill Jesus and to pretend that there was no choice.

Hello?

Did I say anywhere that inaction is the correct action?

That was you putting words in my mouth. Naughty, naughty.

When I said there is no choice, that means there is no choice. Inaction, action, or whatever, none of it is a choice. Evil will happen regardless. Resistance is futile.

As I said, this scenario is propaganda, and pushing the “do the lesser of two evils” - in other words, evil is OK under this extreme scenario which does not fit reality.