Why Is This A Problem???

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,899
259
Private
✟66,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
? Your post suggested I reconsider "unjust" as it related to the thread entitled, "The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force".
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.

I guess this is a different comment now related to this thread, yes?

If so then why would you imagine that the bystander who followed his moral conscience be tormented for the rest of his life? He is not the cause of the five who died. And he did not offend God by following His commandment.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...For example:

Foot noted that such cases might motivate someone to accept the Doctrine of Double Effect, which distinguishes between harm that is strictly intended and harm that is merely foreseen. However, Foot argues that the cases can be explained by the distinction between doing and allowing harm: the judge must choose between killing one and merely allowing five to die, while the trolley driver must choose between killing one and killing five. Judith Jarvis Thomson (1986) modified the case so that it was a bystander, not the driver, who had to make the choice. The difference was important, since the bystander is clearly choosing between killing and letting die...

-https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/​

the difference being, deontologically, that the driver has a duty to act--inaction is a clear dereliction of his duty--while the bystander presumably has no duty to act.

But that is only "presumably." The bystander has no duty expected of him by the trolley company and probably not by society as a whole. That doesn't mean he doesn't feel a duty placed upon him by a "higher power" (his moral authority) by the fact that he has been given power to act, and that power to act creates a duty to act.

If he had not been given power, he would have no responsibility. Having been given power, he now has responsibility.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The flight attendant is not choosing to kill anyone to save others. She is merely steering the plane away from people as best she is able. In that scenario it is perfectly possible that no one dies at all, and this is clearly what she is trying to achieve. The logical necessity is very different in these two cases. The flight attendant is realistically able to achieve her aim of saving people without doing things that she knows will kill others.

In the scenario given, it is absolutely certain people will die with either choice.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,899
259
Private
✟66,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If he had not been given power, he would have no responsibility. Having been given power, he now has responsibility.
Do we ever have authority from the "Higher Power" to do evil that good may come of it? Is not directly killing an innocent person an evil act?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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.
Are you suggesting that decisions that hinge on duty are not really moral decisions in the deepest sense? I mean, I cant think of a Christian (deontological) way to decide where the commander should have sent his squadron. Can you?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟427,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...The innocent person is in no peril in the situation before the bystander acts.....
I think this is where we differ the most. I view the whole range of possible outcomes as "the situation".

Like with the airplane: it was heading one way, but really every possible path it could be guided is the situation, and all people in those paths are imperiled until someone at the stick acts - or decides not to
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
From the first study:
Rather than indicating fear in particular, the study says this shows an intense focus.​
What if we don't cherry pick one sentence?

When the babies saw pictures of the snakes and spiders, they consistently reacted with larger pupils than when they were shown control images of flowers and fish. This finding, published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, suggested that a fear of these creatures could be innate.

That's because dilated pupils are associated with activity in the noradrenergic system in the brain, the same system that processes stress. Closely measuring changes in pupil size has been used in previous studies to determine a variety of mental and emotional stress in adults.

"There was a definite stress response in the brain," said lead researcher Stefanie Hoehl. She noted that it's difficult to characterize the exact nature of the type of stress infants experienced, but dilated pupils show heightened states of arousal and mental processing. Rather than indicating fear in particular, the study says this shows an intense focus.​


A second source cited by the article:
"The current work, and indeed no existing work, has provided evidence that fear of snakes or spiders is innate," said David Rakison, a psychology professor at Carnegie Mellon University who researches early infant development.​
Again, look at the context if you want to know what it means (and the quote is grammatically difficult and probably contains a typo--either way it doesn't say what you claim it says):

"The current work, and indeed no existing work, has provided evidence that fear of snakes or spiders is innate," said David Rakison, a psychology professor at Carnegie Mellon University who researches early infant development.

"Infants possess a specialized fear mechanism that means that they are 'prepared' to learn quickly that snakes and spiders are associated with a specific emotional or behavioral response," he noted.​

Another study cited by the article:
Not all studies have concluded that fear of spiders and snakes is innate. A paper published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science found that seven-month-old infants noticed images of snakes more quickly but didn't show signs of fear. This indicated children may not have innate fears of these creatures but could identify them more readily.​

And this is the one study that I already noted in my last post.

There's three different sources...

One, like I said. You cherry-picked the first two to try to avoid the obvious fact that they are talking about stress responses and fear mechanisms. The whole article is about fear, with a short blurb at the end regarding a counter-study. Hoehl points precisely "to a human evolution that has coincided with historically dangerous snakes and spiders" to explain the stress response. "Therefore, Hoehl's study claimed, humans' innate fear of these animals could serve as a defense mechanism..." etc.

I don't disagree. You haven't offered a counter to what I've said here. People sacrifice themselves for what they consider to be a higher good because they believe it will make them happy since they like the way they feel when they do things they believe are good. That feeling of happiness is a sensation of pleasure. Or they do it because they believe they will be unhappy if they don't. Which again, gives a feeling of relief. To counter my claim you've got to tell me why they do it. Not what they're doing.

Is it just because they believe they ought? Why do they believe that they ought?

I quoted Aquinas who says that good is what is sought or desired. You tried to explain that in terms of pleasure. I pointed out why pleasure fails. I haven't offered an alternative beyond the quote from Aquinas. It's fairly obvious to me, though, that humans sometimes do things regardless of the pleasure or lack of pleasure those acts will bring. Kant's Categorical Imperative would fall clearly into this category.

I'd say they are. If you don't come up with a reason, then you haven't reasoned. Non-rational seems like a good term for something you do without thinking about it. But you're saying that a thing you haven't thought about at all is rational...

Discursive reasoning very rarely precedes our actions, so I suppose if you think the vast majority of our actions are irrational then you can go with that.

For example, most people don't require discursive reasoning to eat when they are hungry.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
7,964
2,883
Minnesota
✟207,869.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
Like other Christians we rely on the Ten Commandments and our own judgment which hopefully is well formed. But there are debatable issues which might be thorny or not apparent that theologians have discussed and analyzed, such as capital punishment, where the Church may take a formal position.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,899
259
Private
✟66,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think this is where we differ the most. I view the whole range of possible outcomes as "the situation".
I must assume then that you hold directly killing an innocent person is not an evil act. Is that correct?

And you presume that in pulling the lever, the bystander has sufficient knowledge of all the effects -- good and evil -- to take this radical act of killing an innocent person. Is that correct?

Moreover, everyone recognizes the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of evaluating all the good and evil consequences and effects — defined as pre-moral — of one's own acts: an exhaustive rational calculation is not possible. How then can one go about establishing proportions which depend on a measuring, the criteria of which remain obscure? How could an absolute obligation be justified on the basis of such debatable calculations? (Veritatis Splendor, p. 77).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you suggesting that decisions that hinge on duty are not really moral decisions in the deepest sense? I mean, I cant think of a Christian (deontological) way to decide where the commander should have sent his squadron. Can you?

Yes. It's done by fully understanding the mission of the top authority in the chain of command. In this case, there is a commander who is in authority of both the Army and the Air Force, and one action or the other is more in line with proceeding toward his goal. That is the action to be taken.

If the goal of the highest authority is to, for instance, occupy a certain hill, and it's the Army division that will occupy that hill, then providing CAS to that Army division would take precedence for everyone over rescuing the downed pilot. To be sure, it's important for the morale of all Air Force pilots to know that their service would never desert them, but that would still be a lesser concern than missing the goal of the highest authority.
 
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Explain how that works to the children of Jericho.

An order of death that comes from God is by definition not unjust but is perfectly just, as the Psalm says "the judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves." It is intrinsically evil to murder the "innocent" (none are except the usual exceptions before God) but a just execution of justice on people is not murder or unjust.

"The great master of life and death (who cuts off one half of mankind whilst they are children) has been pleased sometimes to ordain that children should be put to the sword, in detestation of the crimes of their parents, and that they might not live to follow the same wicked ways. But without such ordinance of God, it is not allowable in any wars, how just soever, to kill children."
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
As for the plane, a large plane going down in a densely populated is a deadly peril no matter how you slice it. Thats your best judgement in the scenario, as it says, and is a completely sensible way to assess the peril.

In "Modern Moral Philosophy" Elizabeth Anscombe defended the distinction between foreseen and intended consequences. Philippa Foot, who is credited with originally formulating the Trolley Problem, conceived of the hypothetical as a way to rebut Anscombe's distinction. This she did in her essay, "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect." Anscombe defended her thesis, and Foot conceded the point 18 years later in a book chapter entitled, "Morality, Action and Outcome."

In her book Intention Anscombe laid the groundwork for her consistent position which denies the legitimacy of pulling the lever. One of her most direct rebuttals of such impermissible uses of Double Effect came in her article, "Medalist’s Address: Action, Intention and ‘Double Effect’," page 23:

At this point the Doctrine of Double Effect helps itself to an absurd device, of choosing a description under which the action is intentional, and giving the action under that description as the intentional act. "I am moving what blocks that egress," or "I am removing a rock which is in the way." The suggestion is that that is all I am doing as a means to my end. This is as if one could say "I am merely moving a knife through such-and-such a region of space" regardless of the fact that that space is manifestly occupied by a human neck, or by a rope supporting a climber. "Nonsense," we want to say, "doing that is doing this, and so closely that you can't pretend only the first gives you a description under which the act is intentional." For an act does not merely have many descriptions, under some of which it is indeed not intentional: it has several under which it is intentional. So you cannot choose just one of these, and claim to have excluded others by that. Nor can you simply bring it about that you intend this and not that by an inner act of 'directing your intention'. Circumstances, and the immediate facts about the means you are choosing to your ends, dictate what descriptions of your intention you must admit. Nota bene that here "intention" relates to the intentionalness of the action you are performing as means.
Thats your best judgement in the scenario, as it says, and is a completely sensible way to assess the peril.

To be curt: they are different scenarios; pulling the lever is impermissible; if your plane scenario is logically parallel then it is also impermissible; the legitimacy of the parallel depends on the logical relation between the agent's action and the human death; in the trolley case the relation is one of strict necessity.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,899
259
Private
✟66,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Explain how that works to the children of Jericho.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2. Syncretism is no longer a problem in AD.

Does the bystander in 2021 AD have authority from the "Higher Power" to do evil that good may come of it? Is not directly killing an innocent person an evil act?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An order of death that comes from God is by definition not unjust but is perfectly just, as the Psalm says "the judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves." It is intrinsically evil to murder the "innocent" (none are except the usual exceptions before God) but a just execution of justice on people is not murder or unjust.

But you have to realize what's going on here for the deontologist: Morality is not in the act, but in obedience to the moral authority to whom the deontologist owes his duty.

The deontologist does not and need not make any moral judgement of the act or the reason for the command. To do that would be to place his own moral judgment above that of his moral authority. The only "intrinsic evil" is disobedience. As one Orthodox Jew explained to me, "We don't obey God because we agree with Him, we obey God because he's God."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Deuteronomy 7:1-2. Syncretism is no longer a problem in AD.

Does the bystander in 2021 AD have authority from the "Higher Power" to do evil that good may come of it? Is not directly killing an innocent person an evil act?

But a true divine command deontologist would acknowledge that if we can ascertain that we have properly heard and understood the command, then that command--whatever it is--is moral.

So here, then, the question is "Have we properly heard and understood the command of the moral authority?" and we are comparing this situation with past situations in which the command was more clear in order to determine whether we are properly hearing and understanding the command for this situation.
 
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
But you have to realize what's going on here for the deontologist: Morality is not in the act, but in obedience to the moral authority to whom the deontologist owes his duty.

The deontologist does not and need not make any moral judgement of the act or the reason for the command. To do that would be to place his own moral judgment above that of his moral authority. The only "intrinsic evil" is disobedience. As one Orthodox Jew explained to me, "We don't obey God because we agree with Him, we obey God because he's God."

Sounds like the Christian position, although a divinized person of course also agrees with the commands of the Lord and sees their justice, and God's moral commands are laid in our nature as well so there is justly a thing called "Natural Law." Moral reasoning in determining what God's command is in particular circumstances (which I call a moral judgment) is also still necessary, and there can be a multitude of good choices which are all licit to choose.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Moral reasoning in determining what God's command is in particular circumstances (which I call a moral judgment) is also still necessary, and there can be a multitude of good choices which are all licit to choose.

But, as I was explaining in my preceding post, that "moral judgment"--in terms of deontological ethics--is the process of determining exactly what the command is and being sure to understand it. It's not a judgment of any intrinsic morality of the act, but rather using past known commands in known situation to determine the applicable command for the present situation.
 
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
But, as I was explaining in my preceding post, that "moral judgment"--in terms of deontological ethics--is the process of determining exactly what the command is and being sure to understand it. It's not a judgment of any intrinsic morality of the act, but rather using past known commands in known situation to determine the applicable command for the present situation.

Because of God's Law in natures I don't see how particular acts can not be intrinsically immoral based on that. It is an impossibility that murder not be intrinsically evil, and what it is and what it isn't is crystal clear, these "intrinsic goods" and "intrinsic evils" flow from God's own nature. Commands do not create this but reveal this in many cases.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
What if we don't cherry pick one sentence?

When the babies saw pictures of the snakes and spiders, they consistently reacted with larger pupils than when they were shown control images of flowers and fish. This finding, published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, suggested that a fear of these creatures could be innate.

That's because dilated pupils are associated with activity in the noradrenergic system in the brain, the same system that processes stress. Closely measuring changes in pupil size has been used in previous studies to determine a variety of mental and emotional stress in adults.

"There was a definite stress response in the brain," said lead researcher Stefanie Hoehl. She noted that it's difficult to characterize the exact nature of the type of stress infants experienced, but dilated pupils show heightened states of arousal and mental processing. Rather than indicating fear in particular, the study says this shows an intense focus.
Okay, so the added context is the description of the physiological responses. What I quoted was the lead researcher's conclusions about those responses (the only pertinent detail). Your opinion of what those responses means is irrelevant. You're claiming that there is a consensus, and the expert is stating this study only shows "an intense focus".
Again, look at the context if you want to know what it means (and the quote is grammatically difficult and probably contains a typo--either way it doesn't say what you claim it says):

"The current work, and indeed no existing work, has provided evidence that fear of snakes or spiders is innate," said David Rakison, a psychology professor at Carnegie Mellon University who researches early infant development.

"Infants possess a specialized fear mechanism that means that they are 'prepared' to learn quickly that snakes and spiders are associated with a specific emotional or behavioral response," he noted.
Yep, that's another point for me. The specific emotional response you're trying to prove is learned according to the expert you cited. Thanks for the added context.

Since you pointed out the grammatical error in his quote, I'll cite a study of his so you can see that I interpreted correctly what he was saying: David Rakison

We have a propensity to focus on certain shapes. While focused, we are more likely to learn fear if something presents as dangerous.

Here's another source. Aposematic It isn't even about snakes, according to this study. This study also notes that the innateness of the fear is up for debate in the scientific community (i.e. not a consensus).
One, like I said. You cherry-picked the first two to try to avoid the obvious fact that they are talking about stress responses and fear mechanisms.
Those aren't the same thing as fear. You must really need for our feelings about second order things to be innate for your argument to work, huh?
I quoted Aquinas who says that good is what is sought or desired. You tried to explain that in terms of pleasure. I pointed out why pleasure fails. I haven't offered an alternative beyond the quote from Aquinas. It's fairly obvious to me, though, that humans sometimes do things regardless of the pleasure or lack of pleasure those acts will bring. Kant's Categorical Imperative would fall clearly into this category.
You didn't "point out why pleasure fails". You just keep spitting out examples of things you personally can't imagine have anything to do with pleasure. You even got to the point where you had folks not even seeking anymore, but merely acting without thinking, to show that folks aren't always seeking pleasure. Okay, but the reason we act the way we do is because we've associated certain kinds of acts with pleasure.

So, again I ask, why do they do it?

Discursive reasoning very rarely precedes our actions, so I suppose if you think the vast majority of our actions are irrational then you can go with that.
Ever heard of "So's Law"? You always strawman when you get desperate. I hope it's just because you stop thinking so clearly when you feel you're losing and it isn't because you're lashing out at me since you know it irritates me so. (see what I did there?)
 
Upvote 0