alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 2, 2022 2:44:51 GMT
..one could counter as follows: 1. The argument of those who would pull the lever is a utilitarian argument that it is better that one die instead of 7 die. But that argument is bankrupt because: Suppose the train is heading toward the 7 people on the track and these 7 people are criminals who have been convicted of murder and child sex trafficking. Now there is one person on the other track and you say that you should pull the lever to kill that one person instead of having the 7 die. But suppose that that one person is your dear mother. Would you then pull the lever to release these 7 guilty criminals from death and instead kill your dear innocent mother ? 2. The lawyers have no case against a person who did not pull the lever. That person can argue that he was not sure what to do in such a case and did not have time to think about the best action to take. He is not setting himself up as judge over who should live and who should die because he simply does not have enough time to think this thing through. By pulling the lever you are taking action and deciding who shall live and who shall die. You do not have the authority to do such. By not pulling the lever you are not taking action and it is possible to claim that you cannot take the decision at this point because you simply do not have enough information to act. No. I would not pull the lever. I don't have the authority to determine who should live and who should die. I don't have the information about the characters on the tracks. I don't have the time to reflect and make a prudent decision. I remember that prudence is a virtue that should be exercised in life as necessary. Without more information at hand, I would deem it seriously imprudent and wrong to make a reckless decision. 3. Here is another scenario. the train is headed toward killing 5 people tied to the tracks. You and a fat lady are on a platform in the front part of the train. If you push the fat lady over in front of the train, the train will stop and the 5 people will not be killed, but the fat lady will die. Should you push the fat lady off the train so that she will be killed but save the other 5 tied to the track? Does this differ ethically or morally from the standard trolley problem where you pull a lever to save the five but kill the one?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 2, 2022 4:39:07 GMT
..one could counter as follows: 1. The argument of those who would pull the lever is a utilitarian argument that it is better that one die instead of 7 die. But that argument is bankrupt because: Suppose the train is heading toward the 7 people on the track and these 7 people are criminals who have been convicted of murder and child sex trafficking. Now there is one person on the other track and you say that you should pull the lever to kill that one person instead of having the 7 die. But suppose that that one person is your dear mother. Would you then pull the lever to release these 7 guilty criminals from death and instead kill your dear innocent mother ? 2. The lawyers have no case against a person who did not pull the lever. That person can argue that he was not sure what to do in such a case and did not have time to think about the best action to take. He is not setting himself up as judge over who should live and who should die because he simply does not have enough time to think this thing through. By pulling the lever you are taking action and deciding who shall live and who shall die. You do not have the authority to do such. By not pulling the lever you are not taking action and it is possible to claim that you cannot take the decision at this point because you simply do not have enough information to act. No. I would not pull the lever. I don't have the authority to determine who should live and who should die. I don't have the information about the characters on the tracks. I don't have the time to reflect and make a prudent decision. I remember that prudence is a virtue that should be exercised in life as necessary. Without more information at hand, I would deem it seriously imprudent and wrong to make a reckless decision. 3. Here is another scenario. the train is headed toward killing 5 people tied to the tracks. You and a fat lady are on a platform in the front part of the train. If you push the fat lady over in front of the train, the train will stop and the 5 people will not be killed, but the fat lady will die. Should you push the fat lady off the train so that she will be killed but save the other 5 tied to the track? Does this differ from the standard trolley problem where you pull a lever to save the five but kill the one?
That would have to be one very fat lady.
As to the other points:
(1) It then becomes a calculus of "who is more worthy to live". (2) Yet another interesting twist could be two trains, one filled with 100 Catholics, and another train filled with 100 non-Catholics. You can only save one. I would save the 100 non-Catholics because, not having ever received any sacraments other than possibly baptism and (maybe) matrimony, their souls are in more jeopardy, than if they had received the various sacraments (Eucharist, Penance, etc.) that make it easier for you to save your soul. There is at least hope one, some, or all of them will come to the fullness of Catholic truth, visibly in the One True Church and receiving sacraments. (3) And if some (or all) of them are non-Christians, they still have original sin on their souls. I'd save the 100 non-Christians because, simply put, they're not as ready to die yet. (I speak of the objective, outwardly observable order. No one can judge their souls. We can only work with the information we have.) (4) By not pulling the level, you are indeed "judging" who will die. There is no way not to make a choice. (5) Redirecting a train is, in itself, a neutral act. The fact that the redirected train will kill one man is an unwanted effect. (6) And my mother is 91 years old, utterly broken in heart and soul, and would love nothing better, than to die and be with my father. She has told me so many times. She's lost without him.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 2, 2022 15:13:55 GMT
Well, I'm stumped. Well and truly stumped. Whilst I understand the plain words you have written I'm not sure why you have. I'm even far less sure how they relate to my previous post which you quoted. Please help.
My comments were simply a further elaboration on the concept of ex cathedra infallibility versus ordinary infalliblity, and how questions of moral theology may, by their very nature, not lend themselves to ex cathedra declaration. And moral decisions often cannot be reduced down to black-and-white definitions --- that is where casuistry comes in. The "trolley problem" comes immediately to mind --- I've never seen that as particularly complicated, you just have to choose between whether you fail to act, and many die while one is saved, or you act to save the many, and one dies, but many people do see it as complicated. Do we not say "what we have done, and what we have failed to do?".
I don't believe there is a difference unless you're employing the word 'infallible' in the same sense as 'magisterium'. Any infallible declaration by the pope has to be ex cathedra. It's one of the conditions. Whether making such declarations on moral matters is difficult or not it is one of the two areas in which the pope can make a declaration deemed infallible; the other being faith.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 2, 2022 21:00:26 GMT
My comments were simply a further elaboration on the concept of ex cathedra infallibility versus ordinary infalliblity, and how questions of moral theology may, by their very nature, not lend themselves to ex cathedra declaration. And moral decisions often cannot be reduced down to black-and-white definitions --- that is where casuistry comes in. The "trolley problem" comes immediately to mind --- I've never seen that as particularly complicated, you just have to choose between whether you fail to act, and many die while one is saved, or you act to save the many, and one dies, but many people do see it as complicated. Do we not say "what we have done, and what we have failed to do?".
I don't believe there is a difference unless you're employing the word 'infallible' in the same sense as 'magisterium'. Any infallible declaration by the pope has to be ex cathedra. It's one of the conditions. Whether making such declarations on moral matters is difficult or not it is one of the two areas in which the pope can make a declaration deemed infallible; the other being faith. When the Church teaches authoritatively and definitely, on a matter where there is no question of mere probability, or competing and long-standing schools of thought from theologians and other teachers, then we can speak of "ordinary infallibility". The Church's teaching on contraception is an example of this. Aside from dissidents of the past 50 years or so, there has never been a question as to whether unnatural prevention of conception was immoral. The Church never presented it as a doubtful matter.
However, it has never been proclaimed with ex cathedra infallibility, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the Church has never taught with ex cathedra infallibility on a matter of morality. Ordinary infallibility, as I cited, yes, ex cathedra, no. Thus I think it's a fair question whether moral questions, by their very nature, even can be taught with EC infallibility. Maybe they can, theoretically, but it's just never been done. Can anyone shed light on this?
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 2, 2022 22:15:46 GMT
By not pulling the level, you are indeed "judging" who will die. There is no way not to make a choice. I disagree with your analysis. Your culpability is great if you decide to pull the lever. By taking time to prudently think about what you should do and then within seconds the train moves on by default, your culpability is much less. You are not at fault if you are not given the time to make a prudent decision. Further, you do not have sufficient information to enable you to come to a decision. By pulling the lever you don't know if you will derail the train and with this imprudent act 30 people may be killed and 25 more may be seriously injured. It is wrong and possibly sinful to act against the virtue of prudence. Suppose for example the person at the lever had an 11 year old daughter and she was on the other track. No, I would not advise him to pull the lever and kill his beautiful and much loved 11 year old daughter.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 2, 2022 22:58:08 GMT
By not pulling the level, you are indeed "judging" who will die. There is no way not to make a choice. I disagree with your analysis. Your culpability is great if you decide to pull the lever. By taking time to prudently think about what you should do and then within seconds the train moves on by default, your culpability is much less. You are not at fault if you are not given the time to make a prudent decision. Further, you do not have sufficient information to enable you to come to a decision. By pulling the lever you don't know if you will derail the train and with this imprudent act 30 people may be killed and 25 more may be seriously injured. It is wrong and possibly sinful to act against the virtue of prudence. Suppose for example the person at the lever had an 11 year old daughter and she was on the other track. No, I would not advise him to pull the lever and kill his beautiful and much loved 11 year old daughter.
I wouldn't really be concerned about culpability at that point, I'd be concerned with saving as many lives as I could.
The model presented here assumes that harm will be totally prevented, either to many, or to one. It doesn't consider ancillary circumstances such as possibly derailing the train despite my efforts to save the many.
And just for the sake of argument, what if the 11-year-old daughter were ugly and much hated? (Think an aesthetically challenged Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka.)
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 3, 2022 20:59:28 GMT
what if the 11-year-old daughter were ugly and much hated? My personal opinion is that this would not be a good reason to kill your 11 year old daughter. IMHO, parents should love their children even if someone says that the child is not beautiful. This is what is wrong with the American secular culture. If your child does not meet the Hollywood standards of beauty, you feel justified in hating her and then killing her. I would not go along with this mentality. I would not recommend a father to pull the lever to kill his child.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 3, 2022 21:37:06 GMT
what if the 11-year-old daughter were ugly and much hated? My personal opinion is that this would not be a good reason to kill your 11 year old daughter. IMHO, parents should love their children even if someone says that the child is not beautiful. This is what is wrong with the American secular culture. If your child does not meet the Hollywood standards of beauty, you feel justified in hating her and then killing her. I would not go along with this mentality. I would not recommend a father to pull the lever to kill his child.
I was merely making the rhetorical point to counter the description of her as "beautiful and much-loved".
I have a 14-year-old son who is beautiful and much-loved as well. That'd be a hard call. What if it were 1000 people instead of 30? What if my son were 30 and, while remaining beautiful and much-loved, had just been convicted of murdering an entire family?
The "trolley problem" is a very useful tool for clarifying one's morality and values, and how to make "the least bad decision where no good decision exists". "Lifeboat ethics" is another example --- say, you have a lifeboat that will only hold six, but you have eight people. We did this in college (I don't recall the exact number), but one of the X people was a priest. I said "that's simple, obviously he would give his life for his flock, so you've got one of them out of the way before even get started". One would hope he would give general absolution to the others, and possibly even baptism if anyone hadn't been baptized and desired it.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 3, 2022 23:03:16 GMT
That is the problem I see with pulling the lever. What if the lever requires a certain finesse and without that finesse the train will derail and crash killing and injuring how many more innocent people. What if this. What if that.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 3, 2022 23:45:58 GMT
That is the problem I see with pulling the lever. What if the lever requires a certain finesse and without that finesse the train will derail and crash killing and injuring how many more innocent people. What if this. What if that. And that is why this good discussion, if more variables are thrown into the mix, can just keep spinning off into unforeseen directions either way.
The bare example presupposes that pulling the level will work seamlessly, and that it will effectuate just what the question presumes, viz. you pull it, the crowded train is safe, but the one man on the track is pretty much out of luck.
But the many things that could go wrong --- "the lever's stuck", "you turn it wrong and the train could derail instead of being out of harm's way", "it could jack-knife and kill everyone including the one man", "this lever works differently than all the others I've ever pulled" --- throw a whole lot of new conditions in the mix.
Another one that just came to mind, what if the man on the track has a terminal cancer diagnosis, and only has a month left to live? Six months? Two years? Then you get into sorites reasoning --- "how many grains of sand make a heap of sand? --- 47, you say? --- then what's wrong with 45? 42? --- how big are the grains? --- are they rough or smooth?". And so on.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 4, 2022 1:41:46 GMT
--how many grains of sand make a heap of sand? There is a continuity of development which does not have a clear line of demarcation. That is the problem that I have heard about mortal versus venial sin. Suppose that I steal a used pencil which is worth about one penny or so. That would be a venial sin which could land you in purgatory. Suppose now that I steal $10,000 from a poor widow and this was her life savings left to her by her late husband. This then would be a mortal sin which could land you in the everlasting fires of hell with no escape ever. Now let us work that down from $10,000 to $9,999.99. Still a mortal sin. Let us continue down in steps of one cent per step to $0.01. then it would be a venial sin at that point of one cent? Now at what point do you draw the line between venial sin and mortal sin. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the line is drawn at $100. So the theft of $100 or more is a mortal sin, but anything less would be a venial sin. So suppose you are unrepentant of your sin. If you steal $100 you will go to eternal damnation in hell and be tortured forever with no hope of ever getting out. But if you steal $99.99 you will go to Purgatory and be assured that after a time of punishment, you will go to heaven and eternal bliss and be happy forever in paradise. So in this case, assuming you are unrepentant, it is a difference of one penny which will determine if you go to heaven and be happy in paradise for all eternity or go to hell and be damned in horrible tortures and fire forever? Some Christian religions do not allow for venial versus mortal sin as they claim that there may be continuous shades of sins and the demarcation between those shades is fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 4, 2022 2:19:41 GMT
--how many grains of sand make a heap of sand? There is a continuity of development which does not have a clear line of demarcation. That is the problem that I have heard about mortal versus venial sin. Suppose that I steal a used pencil which is worth about one penny or so. That would be a venial sin which could land you in purgatory. Suppose now that I steal $10,000 from a poor widow and this was her life savings left to her by her late husband. This then would be a mortal sin which could land you in the everlasting fires of hell with no escape ever. Now let us work that down from $10,000 to $9,999.99. Still a mortal sin. Let us continue down in steps of one cent per step to $0.01. then it would be a venial sin at that point of one cent? Now at what point do you draw the line between venial sin and mortal sin. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the line is drawn at $100. So the theft of $100 or more is a mortal sin, but anything less would be a venial sin. So suppose you are unrepentant of your sin. If you steal $100 you will go to eternal damnation in hell and be tortured forever with no hope of ever getting out. But if you steal $99.99 you will go to Purgatory and be assured that after a time of punishment, you will go to heaven and eternal bliss and be happy forever in paradise. So in this case, assuming you are unrepentant, it is a difference of one penny which will determine if you go to heaven and be happy in paradise for all eternity or go to hell and be damned in horrible tortures and fire forever? Some Christian religions do not allow for venial versus mortal sin as they claim that there may be continuous shades of sins and the demarcation between those shades is fuzzy.
And it is indeed fuzzy. The rule of thumb has traditionally been a day's wage. But for whom? A day's wage for Jeff Bezos, assuming you can think of him as having a "day's wage", might be one million dollars. So if I stole $500,000 from him, would it be "only a venial sin"? That is ridiculous. A day's wage for someone making $20 per hour is $160. If they make the federal minimum wage (which is a shame) of $7.25, it would be $58. Yet that minimum wage worker desperately needs that $58. If you stole $40 from them, that could make the difference whether they eat the next three days or not --- some people's money is that tight. Again, it is fuzzy. I don't know where you would draw that line. Better not to steal at all.
But at the same time, I don't want a mischievous youngster to fear eternal damnation over stealing a York Peppermint Patty in the checkout line at the grocery store. I've seen neo-Jansenists in recent years call pretty much all fully deliberate and fully willed sin "grave", which further muddies the waters. I suspect that some people making such claims don't even know the distinction between mortal and venial sin. It's not like you hear much about it from the pulpit anymore. How sharply is the distinction made in RCIA? Youth catechism classes? In traditional instruction, yes, there was sometimes hair-splitting, but you had clear lines and clear direction, something I'm not so sure is "top of mind" anymore outside of self-consciously traditionalist circles, and nobody feared eternal hellfire over stealing a hotel ashtray (they'll charge you for it these days, assuming they even have ashtrays!), lying when they told Aunt Matilda that her ugly hat looked beautiful, of losing one's cool and making a rude gesture to someone in traffic. Making the error of calling all sin "grave matter" could help a psychiatrist make many a payment on a BMW or Lexus, when the scrupulous person ends up in their office (or worse). Is that what we want?
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 4, 2022 15:28:27 GMT
I don't believe there is a difference unless you're employing the word 'infallible' in the same sense as 'magisterium'. Any infallible declaration by the pope has to be ex cathedra. It's one of the conditions. Whether making such declarations on moral matters is difficult or not it is one of the two areas in which the pope can make a declaration deemed infallible; the other being faith. When the Church teaches authoritatively and definitely, on a matter where there is no question of mere probability, or competing and long-standing schools of thought from theologians and other teachers, then we can speak of "ordinary infallibility". The Church's teaching on contraception is an example of this. Aside from dissidents of the past 50 years or so, there has never been a question as to whether unnatural prevention of conception was immoral. The Church never presented it as a doubtful matter.
However, it has never been proclaimed with ex cathedra infallibility, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the Church has never taught with ex cathedra infallibility on a matter of morality. Ordinary infallibility, as I cited, yes, ex cathedra, no. Thus I think it's a fair question whether moral questions, by their very nature, even can be taught with EC infallibility. Maybe they can, theoretically, but it's just never been done. Can anyone shed light on this?
I still believe the term you want is 'magisterium' and not 'infallibility'.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 4, 2022 23:19:06 GMT
When the Church teaches authoritatively and definitely, on a matter where there is no question of mere probability, or competing and long-standing schools of thought from theologians and other teachers, then we can speak of "ordinary infallibility". The Church's teaching on contraception is an example of this. Aside from dissidents of the past 50 years or so, there has never been a question as to whether unnatural prevention of conception was immoral. The Church never presented it as a doubtful matter.
However, it has never been proclaimed with ex cathedra infallibility, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the Church has never taught with ex cathedra infallibility on a matter of morality. Ordinary infallibility, as I cited, yes, ex cathedra, no. Thus I think it's a fair question whether moral questions, by their very nature, even can be taught with EC infallibility. Maybe they can, theoretically, but it's just never been done. Can anyone shed light on this?
I still believe the term you want is 'magisterium' and not 'infallibility'.
There is such a thing as "ordinary infallibility of the magisterium". Again, this refers to matters that have always been taught by the Church, with no teaching ever to the contrary, such that they are not up for debate. Ex cathedra infallibility is one step beyond that. It is as rock-solid as infallibility gets.
Short answer, EC is not the only kind of infallibility, it is just the absolute highest, most solemn form of it. It is used very sparingly.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 5, 2022 16:00:22 GMT
I still believe the term you want is 'magisterium' and not 'infallibility'.
There is such a thing as "ordinary infallibility of the magisterium". Again, this refers to matters that have always been taught by the Church, with no teaching ever to the contrary, such that they are not up for debate. Ex cathedra infallibility is one step beyond that. It is as rock-solid as infallibility gets.
Short answer, EC is not the only kind of infallibility, it is just the absolute highest, most solemn form of it. It is used very sparingly.
I have never heard of this. It looks like I have some reading to do to get up to speed.
|
|