Utilitarianism

[Flavius_Aetius]

What is the Catholic stance on this? What would be the correct position if your asked the (in)famous question about “if a train is going down a track with five people and it is possible to switch it to a track with one which is the moral choice?”

I believe I’ve heard that the Catholic position would be to do nothing and let the train go down the path it was headed (killing five), but that seems to just go against a person’s desire to save as many people as possible. I’ve heard some other situations where you have to directly kill a person to save more people, but in those cases I think the direct killing changes the situation because in the prior option your not the one murdering five people; your merely preventing it at the cost of one other persons life.

Also please no adding in that one side is innocent and the other are criminals, terminally ill, ect. These additions don’t help figuring out the end answer to the problem; it just is a cheat to feel better about letting five people die.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I believe I’ve heard that the Catholic position would be to do nothing and let the train go down the path it was headed (killing five)

That’s silly. I don’t believe the Church has addressed this situation as a de Fide doctrine, but I’m pretty sure the Church allows for common sense.

Assuming I am in control of a track switch, and I see that five people are tied up on one track (the track that the train is presently approaching), and one person is tied up on a side-track, and I must immediately decide what to do, then I will throw the switch, resulting in the death of the one person.

Either way, I am making a choice. I have the power to throw the switch (killing one person) or to leave the switch alone (killing five). Either way, I cause the loss of human life - but in once case it is one life, and the other it is five.

I have a choice. I choose life (as much life as possible).

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Might I ask what would be correct if instead you have to directly kill one man to save five? I wouldn’t be able to think of a senario, but honestly the question in itself is simple enough to understand. I would say in that point no, because your not “saving five” anymore your killing one which by the end result leaves five alive. Of course I’m not 100 percent with my decision.

That’s silly. I don’t believe the Church has addressed this situation as a de Fide doctrine, but I’m pretty sure the Church allows for common sense.

Assuming I am in control of a track switch, and I see that five people are tied up on one track (the track that the train is presently approaching), and one person is tied up on a side-track, and I must immediately decide what to do, then I will throw the switch, resulting in the death of the one person.

Either way, I am making a choice. I have the power to throw the switch (killing one person) or to leave the switch alone (killing five). Either way, I cause the loss of human life - but in once case it is one life, and the other it is five.

I have a choice. I choose life (as much life as possible).

 

[DavidFilmer]

Might I ask what would be correct if instead you have to directly kill one man to save five? I wouldn’t be able to think of a senario, but honestly the question in itself is simple enough to understand.

I think your original question posed this scenario. If I am the operator of the track switch, I would directly kill the one man on the side-track to save the five on the regular track. The moral culpability of the death rests with the person who tied this one man to the track, but the decision that lead to his death (instead of the death of the other five) was mine alone.

But I think I can get closer to the heart of your question.

Suppose there is an abortionist. I know this person will go to work today and murder five innocent babies in the womb of their mothers. Is it OK for me to kill this one man on his way to work, thus (potentially) saving these five babies? This is something that has actually happened in several instances.

The Church’s position in this situation seems ambiguous. The Church has always, in every single case, condemned such murders. Yet, the Church has also taught, to a large degree (though I don’t think infallibly) that Christians may use force to defend themselves or (especially) other innocent victims against an unjust oppressor, and this may include deadly force if this is the only countermeasure possible.

In another situation, where a terrorist has taken five children hostage and is holding a grenade and seems intent on killing the children, a sniper would generally be held blameless (by both the State and the Church) if he could kill this person and save the children. But, if this terrorist is instead an abortionist, and these five children happen to be unborn, and a sniper kills him before he can do his work, the sniper is condemned by both the Church and the State.

The State’s position is consistent, but the Church’s position is ambiguous.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Suppose there is an abortionist. I know this person will go to work today and murder five innocent babies in the womb of their mothers. Is it OK for me to kill this one man on his way to work, thus (potentially) saving these five babies? This is something that has actually happened in several instances.

The Church’s position in this situation seems ambiguous. The Church has always, in every single case, condemned such murders. Yet, the Church has also taught, to a large degree (though I don’t think infallibly) that Christians may use force to defend themselves or (especially) other innocent victims against an unjust oppressor, and this may include deadly force if this is the only countermeasure possible.

In another situation, where a terrorist has taken five children hostage and is holding a grenade and seems intent on killing the children, a sniper would generally be held blameless (by both the State and the Church) if he could kill this person and save the children. But, if this terrorist is instead an abortionist, and these five children happen to be unborn, and a sniper kills him before he can do his work, the sniper is condemned by both the Church and the State.

The State’s position is consistent, but the Church’s position is ambiguous.

Well all this goes against the original question being revised. I mean having to kill an innocent man knowing it was the only way to save five other people. With none of them being at fault being where they are and all of them being innocent.

 

[clmowry]

Well all this goes against the original question being revised. I mean having to kill an innocent man knowing it was the only way to save five other people. With none of them being at fault being where they are and all of them being innocent.

I’ve always wondered about this from an assassination prospective. i.e. Why is it OK to go to war with a country, but not OK to assassinate a leader that is taking that country to war?

This is likely more of a pragmatic rather than a moral issue *, but if you had your riffle sights on Hitler after he’s declared war, do you shoot him, whether he’s carrying a gun or not? *

If you have evidence that Hussein sponsored terrorist attacks on the US, do you drop a Bomb on Hussein’s house rather than invade Iraq?

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

The Church has always, in every single case, condemned such murders.

Yet, the Church has also taught, to a large degree (though I don’t think infallibly) that Christians may use force to defend themselves or (especially) other innocent victims against an unjust oppressor, and this may include deadly force if this is the only countermeasure possible.

At issue is whether or not deadly force is likely to save the innocent victims.

In this case, the violent action is not likely to save anyone but will certainly result in a murder.

So I don’t think there is anything inconsistent in the position of condemning murder and professing the just war doctrine or the right to self defense at the same time.

I the example you give, the woman and the doctor are accomplices in state sanctioned homicide.

There are plenty of other doctors willing to do the job and they are protected by law in doing so, all one would be likely to accomplish via their murderous actions is to cause a change of physicians and get themselves put to death for murder.

Lot’s of bad with no good results.

Chuck

 

[thistle]

What is the Catholic stance on this? What would be the correct position if your asked the (in)famous question about “if a train is going down a track with five people and it is possible to switch it to a track with one which is the moral choice?”

I believe I’ve heard that the Catholic position would be to do nothing and let the train go down the path it was headed (killing five), but that seems to just go against a person’s desire to save as many people as possible. I’ve heard some other situations where you have to directly kill a person to save more people, but in those cases I think the direct killing changes the situation because in the prior option your not the one murdering five people; your merely preventing it at the cost of one other persons life.

Also please no adding in that one side is innocent and the other are criminals, terminally ill, ect. These additions don’t help figuring out the end answer to the problem; it just is a cheat to feel better about letting five people die.

What does your question have to do with Utilitarianism?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Utilitarianism

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

What does your question have to do with Utilitarianism?

The question I asked normally goes hand in hand with the concept of Utiltarianism, that being it is more moral to switch the tracks which will kill one person in order to save the five that were on the original course.

I don’t know maybe I don’t get the idea of Utiltarianism; its not a great loss if I don’t because the question inside the thread was what I was conserned about. From the looks of it switching the track to save five people is considered morally correct. Anyone wish to argue this stance?

 

[thistle]

The question I asked normally goes hand in hand with the concept of Utiltarianism, that being it is more moral to switch the tracks which will kill one person in order to save the five that were on the original course.

I don’t know maybe I don’t get the idea of Utiltarianism; its not a great loss if I don’t because the question inside the thread was what I was conserned about. From the looks of it switching the track to save five people is considered morally correct. Anyone wish to argue this stance?

I don’t think these sort of questions are worth debating because the permutations are endless.

What would you do if the 5 on one track were strangers to you and the 1 on the other track was your son or daughter? Would you kill your child to save the 5?