Why Is This A Problem???

durangodawood said:

This level puller doesnt consider the act to be actively killing someone.

Click to expand...

The object of the act is a matter of fact, not opinion.
Does pulling the lever (trigger) direct a lethal projectile at an innocent person? Yes.
Does the actor foresee the proximate end, ie., that the trolley (bullet) will kill the innocent person? Yes.
Did the bystander's act of pulling the lever directly kill an innocent person? Yes.

durangodawood said:

The deadly peril is already built into the situation before it got to you.

Click to expand...

The innocent person is in no peril in the situation before the bystander acts.

durangodawood said:

I would place all blame for fatal outcomes on the trolley operator, or whoever let the thing loose.

Click to expand...

There is no trolley operator in the case. Whoever let the trolley "loose" did not foresee the death of any innocent persons so no blame can be assigned to him.

o_mlly said:

The object of the act is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Click to expand...

A couple of relevant articles since even many Christians do not understand this key aspect of our moral theology and why pulling the lever is evil from eternity to eternity:

The Object of the Moral Act
The Proper Definition of the Moral Object

The concept of the moral object of every knowingly chosen human act is one of the many reasons consequentialism in all it's forms is to be rejected by all Christians.

Abaxvahl said:

A couple of relevant articles since even many Christians do not understand this key aspect of our moral theology and why pulling the lever is evil from eternity to eternity:

The Object of the Moral Act
The Proper Definition of the Moral Object

The concept of the moral object of every knowingly chosen human act is one of the many reasons consequentialism in all it's forms is to be rejected by all Christians.

Click to expand...

And the linked article (second link) results in this conclusion: 'If you think an act is immoral, and yet you do it, then you sin'. So you can do right but if you think its wrong then you sin.

You'd think the corollary would stand. So you could do wrong but if you think it's right then you're ok.

Bradskii said:

And the linked article (second link) results in this conclusion: 'If you think an act is immoral, and yet you do it, then you sin'. So you can do right but if you think its wrong then you sin.

You'd think the corollary would stand. So you could do wrong but if you think it's right then you're ok.

Click to expand...

The reason it is not equal is because sin objectively harms the human person, but you are right in that God will not hold it against you (and this is a thing of old, even in the Mosaic Law there were provisions for unintentional violations) if you are genuinely ignorant of it being wrong. I am not good at analogies but it is like someone who in good faith doesn't know that stove burners are hot and they touch it, while you might not blame them for this their fingers would still get burned and so that needs to be mended. So it is with wrongdoing done in true ignorance. So you're "okay" in one sense but not in another.

Abaxvahl said:

The reason it is not equal is because sin objectively harms the human person, but you are right in that God will not hold it against you (and this is a thing of old, even in the Mosaic Law there were provisions for unintentional violations) if you are genuinely ignorant of it being wrong. I aold it againsy toum not good at analogies but it is like someone who in good faith doesn't know that stove burners are hot and they touch it, while you might not blame them for this their fingers would still get burned and so that needs to be mended. So it is with wrongdoing done in true ignorance. So you're "okay" in one sense but not in another.

Click to expand...

So the logic of that would suggest that God going to hold it against you in the first instance (thinking something was a sin yet doing it).

And who decides if something I do is wrong if it's not specifically written? Different religions have different rules. Although I see you are Catholic. I guess you'd say whatever the Catholic church says. Which will put you at odds with other Christians.

Bradskii said:

So the logic of that would suggest that God going to hold it against you in the first instance (thinking something was a sin yet doing it).

And who decides if something I do is wrong if it's not specifically written? Different religions have different rules. Although I see you are Catholic. I guess you'd say whatever the Catholic church says. Which will put you at odds with other Christians.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is held against you for primarily an evil intention (which there being three parts of a moral act, intention/object/circumstances, if one of them is evil then the action is evil).

God's Word on morality is in more places than Scripture, and even is in the intellect of the human soul itself, by which we can immediately discern moral truths, and in the active reasoning moral faculty of our souls we can derive answers from principles we learn or know.

"For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, although they do not have the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts one after another accusing or even defending them on the day when God judges the secret things of people, according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16)

The natural law of God is promulgated on our nature even when things are not written, by which Cain knew it was a horrible evil to murder his brother Abel even though they had no writings, which is why God punished him for it.

In other words God decides, and has both given internal and external rules for one to follow, which is what the conscience is for the first thing (co-knowing with God in your soul).

As for different religions having different moral systems I'd just go through the process of elimination to get to the true ones, and then the usual ways people get to the RCC (although it is still possible to go another way, such as those who become Orthodox on the same evidence, people do this in good conscience so it is not held against them if it is a simple mistake).

durangodawood said:

No. The trigger was pulled upstream of you. The deadly projectile is already in motion and the outcome is already set to be deadly to innocent people before it reaches you. Fact.

Click to expand...

Passive voice: Who exactly pulled the "trigger"?

The motorman could not be a "trigger" puller any more than the FedEX driver who delivered the bullets to the gunman. The projectile, bullet or trolley, is not deadly until the act that pulls the trigger or pulls the lever.

Bradskii said:

And the linked article (second link) results in this conclusion: 'If you think an act is immoral, and yet you do it, then you sin'. So you can do right but if you think its wrong then you sin.

Click to expand...

? A rational person would not think an act is immoral and the right thing to do.

Bradskii said:

So the logic of that would suggest that God going to hold it against you in the first instance (thinking something was a sin yet doing it).

Click to expand...

All sin involves evil acts but not all evil acts are sinful.

An actor who commits an evil act w/o full use of his intellect or free will may have the culpability for the act mitigated or even removed. The act, however, remains evil.

durangodawood said:

We dont know who pulled the trigger. That will be sorted out later by the investigating authorities.

Click to expand...

It's your hypothetical so tell us who did the investigating authorities determine as the "trigger" puller?

durangodawood said:

Can you think of how the cause of the runaway trolley might matter for the person at the switch, or for us discussing his dilemma?

Click to expand...

The cause of the runaway trolley does not matter to the bystander or weigh upon the moral choice he faces.

Abaxvahl said:

The Proper Definition of the Moral Object

Click to expand...

I absolutely love this link for it's reference to one single word..unjust.

Perhaps o_mlly should give the link a quick read, and reconsider his use of the word "unjust" in his argument for the preemptive use of mortal force.

partinobodycular said:

Perhaps o_mlly should give the link a quick read, and reconsider his use of the word "unjust" in his argument for the preemptive use of mortal force.

Click to expand...

Be glad to. What specifically do you think I should reconsider?

I can imagine the bystander who didn't pull the lever being tormented for the rest of their life by the faces of the people they could've saved, but didn't. And I can imagine them standing before God and asking Him why He didn't do something, and God replying, I did do something, I put you at the lever.

And I can imagine the bystander who did pull the lever being tormented for the rest of their life by the face of the person they chose to kill. And I can imagine them standing before God and asking Him why He didn't do something, and God replying, I did do something, I saved five.

Sometimes even Catholic reasoning isn't enough, and we face situations where there is no perfect choice, only hard ones. In such times it's best to heed the council of Micah 6:8...to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

partinobodycular said:

I can imagine the bystander who didn't pull the lever being tormented for the rest of their life by the faces of the people they could've saved, but didn't. And I can imagine them standing before God and asking God why He didn't do something, and God replying, I did do something, I put you at the lever.

And I can imagine the bystander who did pull lever being tormented for the rest of their life by the face of the person they chose to kill. And I can imagine them standing before God and asking God why He didn't do something, and God replying, I did do something, I saved five.

Sometimes even Catholic reasoning isn't enough, and we face situations where there is no perfect choice, only hard ones. In such times it's best to heed the council of Micah 6:8...to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

Click to expand...

I am not surprised you imagine such immoral things. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

On the contrary, God says: "He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt." There are no choices in which sin is necessary, and there is ALWAYS a right moral choice, else the Lord Jesus would not have commanded perfection if it was impossible. You are abusing the Scriptures presuming that your vain imaginations are what God means by "justice," but because you lack the phronema you can not even conceive of what "justice" is. But we have the mind of Christ, and the reasoning of God is with the Church when it comes to morality, and is correct, all other people vain in their thoughts and their hearts.

zippy2006 said:

This is basically a strawman. No deontologist would claim that what is at stake is their sense of righteousness. The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," not, "Thou shalt not lose thy sense of righteousness."

Click to expand...

But you know the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" actually included "...unless I command you to kill," which any deontologist would also understand.

For a deontologist, it's not the command to whom one owes duty, it's the commander.

durangodawood said:

I dont understand deontological thinking. It seems untethered and dependent entirely on human notions of what the divine wants. Its backstop is faith alone.

Click to expand...

Not so much faith, inasmuch as it has also been the real-world ethical system of military forces since time immemorial. The question facing each decision to act is, "to whom, in this moment, do I owe the greater duty?"

A real world situation I knew about: The commander of an Air Force Close Air Support (CAS) squadron got two competing calls for air support. One was from the Army Ground Liaison Officer (GLO) attached to his squadron to support an Army battalion (as many as a thousand soldiers), the other to support a rescue operation for one downed Air Force pilot.

The Air Force commander chose to devote his assets to the rescue of the pilot rather than the 1,000 soldiers.

Well, there was a lot to be said about his decision at the end of that day, and most of it was by that GLO.