Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

5 Specific Situations

Rate this topic


spadeaspade

Recommended Posts

In reference to the first one, I'm reminded of Dr. Peikoff saying: "to be evil some of the time is to be evil. To be good is to be good all the time."

Since when do doctors go on strike? I can't recall ever hearing of such a thing. Doctors are usually independant entities with little or nothing in common with other doctors, so how would a strike benefit them? Even in a big hospital doctors are, at minimum, middle-managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. A is a 13-yr old and the class prefect. In the school he studies at, there is a rule that no student can play in the classroom. Some of A's classmates, who also are A's friends, start playing in the classroom which disturbs the principal in his office directly below the classroom. A warns them not to play but they don't pay any heed (being 13-yr olds B)). On being asked by the principal for the names of the students who were playing, A refuses to give the names. A's contention being 'protection' of friends (of course not told as such to the principal). The principal gives A two choices - either give the names or get punished which includes loss of prefect badge. What should A do?
If I were A, I would certainly not turn in my friends. Here's why: We are assuming A is rational. So in order for him to be rational, his choice in friends must be somewhat rational also. That means if they were doing anything truly wrong, he wouldn't be friends with them anymore. If what they were doing really was wrong (and not just a violation of some stupid school rule), then, while he might feel disappointed in them and mad at himself for misjudging their character, he would have no problem turning them in. On the other hand, if they were just breaking a stupid school rule that shouldn't even be there in the first place, then he shouldn't turn in his friends. Though they in turn shouldn't expect him to sacrifice himself for their cause.

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me what you would do. You're a woman. Would you think a guy who raped you was a great guy after he saved your life, if you believed that he would rape you again and might also save your life again, given the chance to do either?

Of course not. No rapist can be 'great' ever. Period. Then there's that 'if you believed'. In this circumstance how can one tell that about a stranger? He may or he may not - that is if I choose to dwell on it in the first place.

Neither can "cancel" the other.
You hit the nail. But both together dwelling in the recesses of memory is not a easy or simple thing. The life-saving part is a good act whether or not one uses it to judge B on the whole.

More importantly, one does not judge people as good and bad without a reason for doing so. If one is judging this person in actual life, then one is doing so for some purpose. That purpose would define how one would view the particular mixture of good and bad that presents itself to you.

Exactly. So what is the reason and purpose in this case? So, that was my last question - should A take the incidents as happened and leave it at that? Also, the problem is not so much with judging B as with the feelings and mental conditions of A in the aftermath (the facts won't go away; they will remain forever in the memory). What I mean is it will be way too much privilege to B if A reacted negatively - B simply doesn't deserve it (I would say the least deserving person)- A cannot let him affect her mind the way he forced her body. Many times rape affects women 'mentally' rather than just 'physically' and that is what I wouldn't want A to let happen - a rational woman with good psycho-philosophical standing won't. That is not to say that she shouldn't judge B or anything like that - only she shouldn't let it affect her in any negative manner like for eg. getting angry. Bcoz, that, I think, is giving way too much importance to B (and the evil act) when the opposite must be true. Also, regarding the saving-life part, even though B is evil and this is known to A, it would be difficult not to be grateful (assuming A values her life dearly). This does not mean A judges B as good but merely that she is grateful. In effect, what I am asking is can a person be grateful to another person for saving his life despite knowing he is evil? Also, would it not be that concentrating on the rape and ignoring the life-saving would be to put evil over good which is not healthy?

Another perspective is with relation to the following from AS :

F D'Anconia "If there is anything of importance in this world,it is how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that." (Correct me if I have quoted wrongly - I don't have the book at hand)

In our example the first part is clearly violation of 'doing work well' through one of the most heinous acts (so it is a double whammy). But the second (life-saving) part is work well done. So, only from this angle it is a contradiction - that is two contradictory instances in one man within a short period of time. Could A's thinking in this regard go something like 1. If work well done is the only important thing then forget the rest. Concentrate only on that. 2.'B is unstable mentally'. I am not able to conclude conclusively in this regard and hope you help me out with it.

Edited by spadeaspade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on the immorality. Generally, no: in fact a contract that obliges one to do something illegal or unconscionable is unenforceable. I believe that a contract that required one to lie would be invalidated by the courts. However, realising that a contract puts you in an icky bind doesn't make the contract immoral, it means you were incautious in making an agreement.

Ok. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......... Then the question reduces to the issue of whether it is ethical for a doctor to refuse to treat a person who is probably dying and could be saved. This is really an issue of specialised professional ethics, but I'll go out on a limb and say that the doctor has an ethical obligation to treat the patient. This is a conventional ethical requirement, so I may simply be wrong about medical ethics.

No that is not the question. I mentioned that A refuses to go and check meaning he did not know the condition of the patient either. So, the question actually is when a doctor is on strike - meaning he won't carry out his normal work - should he go and check a patient bcoz it may be an emergency case? And then decide his course of action - if it is an emergency, he does his work breaking the strike and if it is not, he decides on the basis of the severity? Also, if we generalize that doctors are ethically obligated, then even when their rights are not upheld they would have to work. But I wonder how long they would last under such circumstances.

........ so how would a strike benefit them? Even in a big hospital doctors are, at minimum, middle-managers.

You should check the plight of doctors in government-run hospitals (especially in India as sNerd has rightfully mentioned). There was a big strike just a month or so back in my city. At logger-heads with the government. I think private doctors were also backing the strike though not participating (don't remember clearly). And it lasted quite a few days. Was front-page news. Their working conditions are really pathetic. God alone knows how they work under such conditions! Sheer passion - but then that can go on under their conditions only so much - thus far no further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned that A refuses to go and check meaning he did not know the condition of the patient either.
We love to overlook details, like that. So that really eliminates any question about possible ethical obigation -- he has no obligation at all. I totally take back my previous answer: since the doctor is not on duty at the hospital at that time, it doesn't matter what the patient's condition is. I was distracted by the presumption that the doctor was for some reason informed that a person was admitted to the hospital. The underlying assumption would have to be that doctors have no right to their own lives so anytime they are informed that a person wants attention, they should give attention. This is, obviously, sick ethics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hit the nail. But both together dwelling in the recesses of memory is not a easy or simple thing. The life-saving part is a good act whether or not one uses it to judge B on the whole.

IN case number 2, I would still judge the man evil (at least, with the facts presented). He's a cop, right? That means he's paid to save people in those situations. So we take his personal life, in which he's sexually molested people, and his professional (i.e. PAID) life where he saves lives. Which one do you base moral judgement on? I know which one I choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...