What would be the moral choice in this situation?

[Edward_H]

What’s this question doing in a biology class? Did he give the class prior background in moral theology or moral decision making or did he just decide to free lance the question?

 

[3DOCTORS]

You should forever after avoid this professor. (Or is he/she merely an instructor? Worse! Report him/her to the Dean.)
1) What does this have to do with the subject (biology!) you are paying him to teach?
2) Does he have any more expertise in the area of human morality than does the janitor or any student in the class?
3) This sort of moral dilemma is designed to force a decision to do evil: to kill either one or four innocent people. The “exercise” therefore is in itself evil. Such exercises are rooted in moral relativism, and ought to be avoided like the plague that they are. They are poison in the conscience, because there is no good that is given as an option - only evil.
“We must not do evil so that good might result.” This is seeking to justify evil means to some good, which is never permitted of a Catholic Christian.

CCC 1756 … One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Thank you, Fide, for your well written summation. I am on this thread to vent and I will do so and, having gotten it out of my system, feel much better and take my leave again.

I was once in a Catholic hospital where the “Lifeboat Dilemma” was posed. Was forced to discuss it in one of several small groups. This was supposed to somehow be good for one’s mental health. It was sickening to me to even think about such a horrible dilemma. Much less to have to discuss it with people I barely knew, for totally lame reasons.

What was the point of thinking of bad scenarios that one would never wish to be in and making hypothetical moral decisions that one should be praying one should never have to face?! And if - God forbid - they did, they would be traumatized no matter what they chose?! UGH!!! There was nothing healing or helpful that could have justified this sick, absurd exercise.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Thank you.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I hope none of you guys ever have to be a triage officer and hand out black tags in a mass casualty situation.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I say “beam them up Scotty” so that no one gets hurt.

Actually I’d choose losing the one life and pray for the one soul then and the rest of my life. It would be much easier for me to lose the one life over the 4 and to allow chance to take its advantage would be neglectful in knowing I coul dhave saved 4 lives, rather than 1. Turn the order over to 1 evil man and 4 holy men. We could propose the idea that taking the 4 holy men would help the one evil man to be saved. I don’t buy it either way. God takes care of us and we should only choose the best scenario at saving lives. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. I’m a SPOK fan on that one. So beam me up Scotty.

 

[vera_dicere]

I’d like to know why these idiots are standing on the tracks, as large rails of steel are usually pretty obvious, especially if a huge train is barrowing along.

Anyway, I’d say maybe go for the option towards the four people, why? Because maybe one of those idiots would see the train and warn the others.

Of coruse, they could all be drunk or playing a game of dare, in which case, perhaps aiming towards the one? But I think it push came to shove I might just take my chances and hope that it works out.

Mind you, could I derail the train? If there were no passengers, just dirty blocks of coal, my chances of survival inside the train would be a lot greater then four peopel’s chances who are standing in its path.

 

[GEddie]

I hope none of you guys ever have to be a triage officer and hand out black tags in a mass casualty situation.

In fact, everybody should pray they never face that.

Situations that call for such are still rare outside of war zones; and when they do occur, things are not made any easier by having played mind games such as the OP’s.

I don’t have the background to be called to such, in any case.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

I’d like to know why these idiots are standing on the tracks, as large rails of steel are usually pretty obvious, especially if a huge train is barrowing along.

In the original form of the “exercise”, the potential victims are TIED to the track. There is no hope of anybody leaping aside.

Anyway, I’d say maybe go for the option towards the four people, why? Because maybe one of those idiots would see the train and warn the others.

No good; see above.

Of coruse, they could all be drunk or playing a game of dare, in which case, perhaps aiming towards the one? But I think it push came to shove I might just take my chances and hope that it works out.

Mind you, could I derail the train? If there were no passengers, just dirty blocks of coal, my chances of survival inside the train would be a lot greater then four peopel’s chances who are standing in its path.

The scenario is set up such that it can’t be thought out of; no third choices. Either you can’t wreck the train, or doing so would send it tumbling over their bound bodies.

Either way, this is a thought process that does no-one any good.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

In fact, everybody should pray they never face that.

Situations that call for such are still rare outside of war zones; and when they do occur, things are not made any easier by having played mind games such as the OP’s.

I don’t have the background to be called to such, in any case.

ICXC NIKA.

The OP’s hypo is a crude way of looking at the issue.

 

[PbloPicasso]

STOP IT!!! Are they standing, laying down, tied or nailed to the tracks. I just can’t take it anymore. GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

STOP IT!!! Are they standing, laying down, tied or nailed to the tracks. I just can’t take it anymore. GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!

Snidely Whiplash has tied Nell to the tracks.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Snidely Whiplash has tied Nell to the tracks.

Exactly my thoughts. LOL
Moral dilemmas spark quite a multitude of thoughts in conversation, even though they often are unlikely to occur. But it is fun, as I’ve probably inappropriately interjected my timely joke post. Sorry.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Exactly my thoughts. LOL
Moral dilemmas spark quite a multitude of thoughts in conversation, even though they often are unlikely to occur. But it is fun, as I’ve probably inappropriately interjected my timely joke post. Sorry.

I’ll let Nell know your thoughts, all three parts of her.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I’ll let Nell know your thoughts, all three parts of her.

:bigyikes:

 

[fide]

…

I disagree with your statement

3) This sort of moral dilemma is designed to force a decision to do evil: to kill either one or four innocent people. The “exercise” therefore is in itself evil. Such exercises are rooted in moral relativism, and ought to be avoided like the plague that they are. They are poison in the conscience, because there is no good that is given as an option - only evil.
“We must not do evil so that good might result.” This is seeking to justify evil means to some good, which is never permitted of a Catholic Christian.

She did not say which choice she believes to be correct. But you can’t say it forces a decision to do evil, because what if someone is put into the situation? It can’t be sinful and for sure not mortally if you happened to be the train conductor. You cannot condemn the conductor for having people walk onto the tracks. He didn’t put the people on the track himself. It is possible for a situation like this to happen. Maybe a slighty revised situation would be necessary, but mine gets the point across.

You say that no good is given as an option, but I can’t think of any directly good options for someone in this situation, I’d like you to tell me a “good thing” someone could do in this situation, braking will not slow the train in time.

I repeat my judgment that the participants are forced into specific choices that are all evil, and no good choices are mentioned or allowed. There are many variations of this “exercise”, and they all have the same purpose: force people to choose one evil over another evil. The purpose is sick and inhuman, and advances the agenda of moral relativism. In this case, the exercise takes an evil act (intentionally kill an innocent person), but seems to justify it by making it the “lesser of two evils” (“surely” it is better than intentionally killing 4 people - right?). This is moral relativism - I hope you can see this. One evil is “relatively” not so evil compared to a greater evil.

A Christian must choose good, and never evil. For example, a choice for good would be to take the track with the fewest people at risk, while putting on all brakes to possibly stop the train and making as much warning noise as possible to alert the person in danger. This would be a choice for good - a choice to try to save the life of the person remaining in danger. It is possible that the person will not hear the warning noises, or perhaps will not get out of the way for other reasons - but the conductor has done all that he can do to do as much good as he can do in the situation - and hence his conscience can be clear, no matter what happens.

Do you see the difference in outcomes? Never was a choice made to kill either one or four - rather, a choice was made to do as much good as possible in the situation. The requirement “braking will not slow the train in time” is put into the dilemma purposely to try to force a choice for evil - and this makes the exercise itself an evil manipulation of a captive audience of students. One cannot know in advance exactly how much distance is required to stop the train, and perhaps even slowing the train will sufficiently extend the time available for the one person to get out of the way, so that tragedy can be avoided. But those who construct such evil traps do not want any good options - that is the whole idea.

I am not saying that your instructor is personally deliberately evil - she may simply not know any better, having been trained by others to do exactly what she is doing. She may not know that there is absolute Truth, and that God, who is All-Good, is in ultimate control of this universe and not chances and choices and accidents. Our universities sadly are dominated by secular humanists who are mostly, if I can generalize, either practical or ideological atheists. For that reason, universities are the deadliest of places to study ethics. Guard your heart!

 

[fide]

Thank you, Fide, for your well written summation. I am on this thread to vent and I will do so and, having gotten it out of my system, feel much better and take my leave again.

I was once in a Catholic hospital where the “Lifeboat Dilemma” was posed. Was forced to discuss it in one of several small groups. This was supposed to somehow be good for one’s mental health. It was sickening to me to even think about such a horrible dilemma. Much less to have to discuss it with people I barely knew, for totally lame reasons.

What was the point of thinking of bad scenarios that one would never wish to be in and making hypothetical moral decisions that one should be praying one should never have to face?! And if - God forbid - they did, they would be traumatized no matter what they chose?! UGH!!! There was nothing healing or helpful that could have justified this sick, absurd exercise.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Thank you.

Yes, the “lifeboat dilemma” has made the rounds! And the variations of it - all aimed at the same target: the human conscience. Once sufficiently confused by such moral ambushes, the poor soul can hardly discern between right and wrong - all blacks and whites blur into one ambiguous and lifeless gray. God help us! We must teach our fellow Catholics the treasure of the Catholic Faith, including of course solid Catholic moral principles. Otherwise, our Catholic young are like lambs among the wolves when they get to college.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Yes, the “lifeboat dilemma” has made the rounds! And the variations of it - all aimed at the same target: the human conscience. Once sufficiently confused by such moral ambushes, the poor soul can hardly discern between right and wrong - all blacks and whites blur into one ambiguous and lifeless gray. God help us! We must teach our fellow Catholics the treasure of the Catholic Faith, including of course solid Catholic moral principles. Otherwise, our Catholic young are like lambs among the wolves when they get to college.

Ok, so you’re a triage officer and the situation is such that you have to hand out black tags, knowing that, under the circumstances, the deaths of the tagged persons is a near certainty, in order that limited medical resources on hand may be used to save those who have a chance at survival.

Do you see this as an ambush?

 

[fide]

Ok, so you’re a triage officer and the situation is such that you have to hand out black tags, knowing that, under the circumstances, the deaths of the tagged persons is a near certainty, in order that limited medical resources on hand may be used to save those who have a chance at survival.

Do you see this as an ambush?

No I do not see the work of a triage officer necessarily as evil, nor is the example of their work that you present a moral ambush. A well-intensioned triage officer is working to maximize life, to the best of his ability, in the situation of limited medical resources. His work is not to choose the “lesser of two evils”, which is the foundation of the moral dilemmas so often presented by moral relativists in their sabotage of true moral discernment. His work is to find the greatest good possible.

Do you see the difference? It is not sleight-of-hand or some word-game that I am arguing: this is of great moral consequence. A Christian is not to choose evil! Satan wants Christians to believe that they must, in the real world, sometimes choose evil. Satan is a liar and he seeks to confuse and degrade our faith that God is good, and God seeks only good, and He calls us to live a life of righteousness. Satan wants us to believe that we cannot, after all, really be holy - we have to compromise - we have to see life as gray and not as light vs. darkness. Satan is a liar. God is true and we can be true in Him.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

No I do not see the work of a triage officer necessarily as evil, nor is the example of their work that you present a moral ambush. A well-intensioned triage officer is working to maximize life, to the best of his ability, in the situation of limited medical resources. His work is not to choose the “lesser of two evils”, which is the foundation of the moral dilemmas so often presented by moral relativists in their sabotage of true moral discernment. His work is to find the greatest good possible.

Do you see the difference? It is not sleight-of-hand or some word-game that I am arguing: this is of great moral consequence. A Christian is not to choose evil! Satan wants Christians to believe that they must, in the real world, sometimes choose evil. Satan is a liar and he seeks to confuse and degrade our faith that God is good, and God seeks only good, and He calls us to live a life of righteousness. Satan wants us to believe that we cannot, after all, really be holy - we have to compromise - we have to see life as gray and not as light vs. darkness. Satan is a liar. God is true and we can be true in Him.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[one_luv]

I hope none of you guys ever have to be a triage officer and hand out black tags in a mass casualty situation.

I was actually going to post the exact same thing! I work in the ER, and we have disaster drills quite often. I can only pray that if the situation really did arise, that I would have the strength to make the “right” decisions!

 

[one_luv]

No I do not see the work of a triage officer necessarily as evil, nor is the example of their work that you present a moral ambush. A well-intensioned triage officer is working to maximize life, to the best of his ability, in the situation of limited medical resources. His work is not to choose the “lesser of two evils”, which is the foundation of the moral dilemmas so often presented by moral relativists in their sabotage of true moral discernment. His work is to find the greatest good possible.

Do you see the difference? It is not sleight-of-hand or some word-game that I am arguing: this is of great moral consequence. A Christian is not to choose evil! Satan wants Christians to believe that they must, in the real world, sometimes choose evil. Satan is a liar and he seeks to confuse and degrade our faith that God is good, and God seeks only good, and He calls us to live a life of righteousness. Satan wants us to believe that we cannot, after all, really be holy - we have to compromise - we have to see life as gray and not as light vs. darkness. Satan is a liar. God is true and we can be true in Him.

Thanks for this post! You have definitely given me something to ponder.