Bruce Jenner vs. Gavin Newsom
#31
(05-06-2021, 01:58 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-06-2021, 11:50 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: As Catholics, we don't throw the switch.
Could you elaborate? It seems to me that in the common trolley problem I know, it is good to throw the switch. That is: The trolley is going towards five people on a track, if you throw the switch you save these five, and as an unintended effect, one person (who would not die unless you throw the switch) dies.
I would not throw the switch. By throwing the switch I would be assuming responsibility for killing an innocent person. He would not have died if I had stood aside. i might think about throwing the switch, but going over the pros and cons in my mind would take a lot of thought and time and it is not clear if i would be able to come to a conclusion in time anyway. Killing an innocent person is not something that I would be able to decide on the spur of the moment as a train is passing by. 
Another thing to consider is the family of the person who you are killing. No doubt they would be hiring aggressive and hostile lawyers who will be making life very unpleasant for you and for your family. After all, you are the cause of the death of that one person if you did pull the switch, or at least their lawyers will argue such and demand payment for the loss of a loved one who you killed by throwing the switch. It will be expensive for you to defend your actions in court; and even if you win the case you could go bankrupt because of the legal costs involved in your defense. Is it morally acceptable to put your family through the trauma of bankruptcy when you could have easily avoided such?
Reply
#32
(05-06-2021, 01:58 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(05-06-2021, 11:50 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: As Catholics, we don't throw the switch.
Could you elaborate? It seems to me that in the common trolley problem I know, it is good to throw the switch. That is: The trolley is going towards five people on a track, if you throw the switch you save these five, and as an unintended effect, one person (who would not die unless you throw the switch) dies.

I can't do evil (condemning one innocent to death) to achieve good (saving five Innocents from death.)
Reply
#33
(05-06-2021, 04:53 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: I can't do evil (condemning one innocent to death) to achieve good (saving five Innocents from death.)
The act of throwing the switch is not intrinsically evil, and the death of that one person is not essential to the act. You are not saving five people by means of killing one. The five would be equally saved without the death of the one person, whose death is not at all willed.

It is somewhat analogous to surgery in the case of life-threatening cancer on the uterus of a pregnant woman. This is at times lawful, provided the infant be not directly killed, even when it is foreseen that the infant will die as an indirect consequence of the surgery.
Reply
#34
(05-06-2021, 05:16 PM)Marmot Wrote:  The five would be equally saved without the death of the one person, whose death is not at all willed.

I thought the problem was that if you didn't throw the switch, the five would die, but if you did they would be saved whilst another would die.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#35
(05-06-2021, 05:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-06-2021, 05:16 PM)Marmot Wrote:  The five would be equally saved without the death of the one person, whose death is not at all willed.

I thought the problem was that if you didn't throw the switch, the five would die, but if you did they would be saved whilst another would die.
Sorry, I was being unclear. I meant that the five would be equally saved if there was nobody on the other track. That is: the death of the one person is not a means of saving the five, rather, it is a consequence, not at all willed, of saving the five.
Reply
#36
Perhaps a better question would be is there a moral imperative to abstain from voting altogether if two candidates have particular views contradictory to Catholic thought. Given a pro-life adulterer (usually an oxymoron I know) and an abortionist would I be sinning for voting for the adulterer in an attempt to push back the tide on abortion? I can't see partaking in such a system altogether as being inherently evil, there's plenty of saints who served in pagan armies yet never owed allegiance to any pagan god.
With no king to rule me I owe my fealty only to God.
Reply
#37
Read the article I linked to in post #25.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)