Whom will you save?

[Wesrock]

VanitasVanitatum:

I would choose what would bring the most good or save the most people so if the circumstances point to that then it’s likely.

But… but… but that is a utilitarian / consequentialist procedure. And that is a NO-NO for catholics.

Not entirely. Strict utilitarianism or consequentialism that disregards intent or immoral means is a “no-no.” However, when given multiple morally good or even neutral choices, there’s nothing wrong with pragmatism. It’s just not the highest guiding principle for ethics. It would be better to state that “the ends don’t justify unethical means.” Ends alone aren’t what determines whether an act is ethical or unethical.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Just another lifeboat dilemma. You are a doctor, who has one dose of medication. You have 11 patients, one adult, and ten children. They all suffer from a fatal malady. You can either save the adult, or the ten children (the adult needs more medication). Whom will you save? The one adult, or the ten children?

I don’t know if you are asking this question to find out what different people think they would do based on their personal opinion or whether you expect them to answer based on what some formal ethical system says to do.

I find the first case uninteresting. People have different personal opinions. So what? It is like asking who they like better, the Yankees or the Red Sox. So I will answer for the second case.

In the case of Catholic moral teaching, it is my understanding that Church says nothing about this dilemma. That is, people are free to apply their own prudential judgement on who they give the medicine to. They could give it to the doctor. Or they could give it to the children. Or they could attempt to split the doses to try to save all 11 people, even though you stipulate it is impossible. That does not mean it is immoral to disbelieve your stipulation and try anyway. All those different choices are acceptable to Catholic morality, because Catholic morality does not define a specific answer for every specific case. The Church relies a lot on the faithful exercising reason in the application of general principles. For example, it would be unreasonable to use the medicine to water my house plants instead of trying to saving anyone. But the two choice you give are both within reason, and therefore both allowable.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’m pretty sure that only applies when it involves harming someone in a grave manner.

 

[mythbuster1]

No, steering a trolley car into somebody is an act of homicide. It is a positive act which causes the death of the victim. The ONLY way it could be justified is if the person the trolley car is redirected into is the one who caused the trolly car to be threatening the lives of innocents, or if you yourself were the one who would be hit by redirecting the trolley car, for it is written, “Greater love hath no man than this: to lay down his life for his friends.”

 

[mythbuster1]

No, splitting the doses is reckless. Diluting lifesaving medicine carries with it the serious risk that nobody survives because the medicine will not be effective if diluted. Anybody who suggests things like splitting doses of medicine or ordering all the occupants of a lifeboat to swim in freezing water for a few minutes so that you don’t directly kill anybody hasn’t understood the problem and suggests a course of action that is likely to kill everyone.

 

[Economist]

Ends alone aren’t what determines whether an act is ethical or unethical.

Indeed! The act and the means - along with the intents are ALL necessary determine whether the act was ethical or not. As in - theft is bad. But theft in order to prevent starvation is good. As in - lying is bad. But lying to save potential victims from a death squad is good. Simply stating an “untrue” proposition is neither good nor bad.

The act itself is just a physical action, which is neutral - in and of itself. Only the intent and the circumstances can evaluate it as ethically good, or bad. Aiming a gun and pulling a trigger is ethically neutral. Aiming it and shooting in a target shooting competition is neutral. Aiming and shooting an attacker, who wants to kill you is good. And so on… the aim and the means are all necessary to determine the ethical nature of an act. There are no “intrinsically evil” acts. I hope that is what you meant.

 

[Wesrock]

Oh no. There are intrinsically evil acts. I don’t know why people think we can only evaluate things in generic terms without nuance, though. I think you’re using a stripped down definition for the word “acts.”

 

[MamaJewel]

Doctor, doctor, will I die?

Yes, my child, so will I.

 

[Economist]

I find the first case uninteresting. People have different personal opinions. So what? It is like asking who they like better, the Yankees or the Red Sox. So I will answer for the second case.

Agreed. Though it is quite frequent that several people present their own opinion and they all assert that they speak for the church. (or for God, or for Jesus)

In the case of Catholic moral teaching, it is my understanding that Church says nothing about this dilemma.

Possible. Though I think it is a very significant dilemma. As a generic principle: “how to deal with distribution of scarce resources”. Or “whom to save when you are unable to save everyone”. And that includes the infamous trolley problem.

 

[Wesrock]

The ends can’t be used to justify an unethical act as an ethical one. However, one can certainly consider the ends when choosing between morally good or neutral acts.

 

[Economist]

Oh no. There are intrinsically evil acts. I don’t know why people think we can only evaluate things in generic terms without nuance, though. I think you’re using a stripped down definition for the word “acts.”

I am involving ALL the nuances (details) in the analysis. And the definition of “acts” or “actions” is the physical activity. The rest are the important details and circumstances, which I take into consideration, but the church does not.

The ends can’t be used to justify an unethical act as an ethical one. However, one can certainly consider the ends when choosing between morally good or neutral acts.

Why do you repeat this? Whether an act is ethical or not can only be decided if one considers ALL the nuances and details.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Oh no. There are intrinsically evil acts. I don’t know why people think we can only evaluate things in generic terms without nuance, though. I think you’re using a stripped down definition for the word “acts.”

I am involving ALL the nuances (details) in the analysis. And the definition of “acts” or “actions” is the physical activity. The rest are the important details and circumstances, which I take into consideration, but the church does not.

I don’t think it worth arguing over the semantics.

Church philosophy of ethics is quite nuanced. It’s just as I said that the ends can’t justify an unethical act.

The ends can’t be used to justify an unethical act as an ethical one. However, one can certainly consider the ends when choosing between morally good or neutral acts.

Why do you repeat this? Whether an act is ethical or not can only be decided if one considers ALL the nuances and details.

I repeat it because it’s true. It’s not ethical to, say, snap a child’s neck if a terrorist threatens to otherwise blow up a building with 3,000 people in it. Saving 3,000 people doesn’t make snapping the child’s neck ethical or the right choice.

The Church recognizes the complex series of strains on a person that may reduce moral culpability for doing so. However, it does not make the act good or the “right” choice to do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Possible. Though I think it is a very significant dilemma. As a generic principle: “how to deal with distribution of scarce resources”. Or “whom to save when you are unable to save everyone”. And that includes the infamous trolley problem.

Oh, I agree it is a very significant dilemma. Not every significant dilemma is immediately answered by a formal ethical system. It is more complex than that.

A formal ethical system defines a set of principles - in some cases quite specific - that speak to right and wrong. Beyond that, adherents to that ethical system are free to establish their own personal set of values in the areas not specified by the formal ethical system. So in Catholicism, all Catholics affirm the divinity of Christ, the need for repentance, and many other principles. In addition, some Catholics have adopted the value that devotion to Blessed Solanus Casey should be part of their daily prayer. They don’t have to adopt that value, but if they do, it is OK too. You might call that particular value a subjective value because the person adopting it does so based on his own subjective impressions. But the other values of the Church are objective. They are defined by the Church.

 

[Economist]

I don’t think it worth arguing over the semantics.

Precision is not semantics.

Church philosophy of ethics is quite nuanced. It’s just as I said that the ends can’t justify an unethical act.

The problem is that it is impossible to determine what is ethical, until ALL details are taken into account.

It’s not ethical to, say, snap a child’s neck if a terrorist threatens to otherwise blow up a building with 3,000 people in it. Saving 3,000 people doesn’t make snapping the child’s neck ethical or the right choice.

Not every act is equal. Some acts are “more equal than others”. Even the church differentiates the severity of acts. So it is obvious, that when there are two possible actions, it is imperative to choose the less harmful one.

No one calls it “right” or “ethical”. It is simply the “lesser of two evils”.

I still subscribe to the Hippocratic oath: “Do no harm, but if the circumstances force you to do harm, then do as little harm as possible.” And so far I have not seen any rational argument against this principle.

 

[Economist]

Oh, I agree it is a very significant dilemma. Not every significant dilemma is immediately answered by a formal ethical system. It is more complex than that.

In that case at least a guideline must be established. As I keep saying, my guideline is the extended Hippocratic oath as presented in the previous post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Oh, I agree it is a very significant dilemma. Not every significant dilemma is immediately answered by a formal ethical system. It is more complex than that.

In that case at least a guideline must be established. As I keep saying, my guideline is the extended Hippocratic oath as presented in the previous post.

Wow. For an advocate of individual subjective systems of ethics, you show a surprising tendency to promote your own to others. (Not that there is anything wrong with that. People who advocate for absolute systems of ethics like me have been doing that for a long time.)

 

[Thom18]

Why didn’t you just post the trolley dilemma if you’re only going to modify it slightly?

You try to save everyone. It’s as simple as that. It’s the only moral option.

 

[Economist]

Wow. For an advocate of individual subjective systems of ethics, you show a surprising tendency to promote your own to others.

Of course. From the fact that there are many ethical systems it does not follow that I have accept others as equally valid.

There are two basic principles which have withstood the test of time. One is the inverse golden rule: “Do NOT do unto others that you would not want others do unto you”. The other one is the extended Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm. But if you are forced to do some harm, do as little harm as possible.” These are as generic as they can be. And during all these millennia there was nothing better either suggested, much less agreed upon. The other, positive version of the golden rule (Do unto others that you would like others do unto you) is inferior. If need be, I can explain why.

 

[Economist]

It’s the only moral option.

Which is not always available.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m going to throw the medicine overboard into the sea because the more important question is

What’s for dinner