literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

A friend of mine is a very devout Roman Catholic. She considered herself a
Democrat during most of her adult life, but has now registered as a Republican
because she admires President Bush's positions on such controversial issues as
abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and physician assisted death.

She does have one son who is of draftable age. She mentioned that she might
favor the Democratic candidate, such as Kerry, if his policies would keep more
young men out of combat. Our conversation inspired me to ask her a question
which is for me potentially fascinating:

"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a magic crystal ball which
allows you to see what the future will be like based upon which candidate wins a
presidential election. Suppose you foresee that a very liberal candidate, whose
positions or personal beliefs are not to your liking, will successfully bring
about many things beneficial to society as a whole, such as solving the health
care crisis, balancing the budget, reducing unemployment and greatly reducing
military action around the world, but through his liberal policies will legalize
gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and physician assisted death. On the
other hand, your magic crystal ball shows you that the opposing candidate, a
conservative whose beliefs coincide with your own, would forever ban gay
marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and physician assisted death, but would
cause an increase in unemployment, inflation, the demise of social welfare
benefits, and plunge us into a world war which would cost many lives. Which
candidate would you choose then?"

She objected that such situations would never arise; that my example is too
extreme.

I replied, "But, you miss the point of our hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. The
point is not WHAT might actually happen in the future. The point of the exercise
is to help you determine what your values really are if forced to make a tough
decision, when you cannot have your cake and eat it too."

There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." Our wisdom and
ethical metal is never tested until we are confronted by a
damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont choice. Ethics is only easy in movies where
the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys all wear black hats and
mustaches.

Emmanuel Kant offered as a moral rule of thumb that we should never make any
person a means to an end, but always strive to make each person an end in
itself. Jean-Paul Sartre was brilliant at contriving real life scenarios which
truly test these the limits of our character. Sartre describes the dilemma of a
young man in war-torn, occupied France during World War II. This young man is
the sole support and comfort of his aging mother. He sees his comrades risking
their lives to join the underground resistance movement to fight against the
monster of fascism and defend the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. If
our young hero chooses to be patriotic and join his comrades in their noble
cause, then he treats his mother as an object, a means to his patriotic end, and
her abandonment and suffering becomes a means to a greater end, the end of
self-sacrifice to win the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet, if he
choses to be a good son, and remain with his mother, then he treats his comrades
and his country as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

What is the answer? What is the rule of thumb or formula to guide us? It becomes
as essential and existential as Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham's dilemma when
a divine voice commands him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Or, consider the famous
"Gauguin Problem" in ethics. The painter, Gauguin, abandons his wife and
children, which society sees as something bad, but in so doing, is free to go to
Tahiti and become a famous artist, which society sees as something good. So does
the good of the result outweigh and justify the evil of the means? You may
substitute a scientist in this scenario if you like, who abandons his family
responsibilities but succeeds in discovering a cure for cancer and AIDS. In some
sense, the success and prosperity of our great American society is founded upon
a century of black slavery, the genocide of the native American, and various
acts of colonial aggression and oppression in world history. The Pharisees would
not take back the pieces of silver from Judas, but the land of the free and the
home of the brave can never wash away the historical fact of the blood-money in
its coffers which funded its success.

And the ultimate of all ethical paradoxes from antiquity is Plato's dialogue,
"Euthyphro," when Socrates asks whether God loves the Good because of its
inherent goodness, or is the Good good simply by fiat, because it happens to be
what God likes or commands. And let us not forget that our very word "fiat"
comes from the first words of Genesis in Latin vulgate translation: "Fiat lux"
(let there be light.) If we say that God loves what is good for its inherent
qualities, then we cast a doubt upon God's omnipotence. God is not free to hate
what is good. God is not free to lie. This is the position of the
Judeo-Christian heritage. If, on the other hand, we take the opposite position,
and say that God is so powerful that, by fiat, whatever God proclaims as good,
IS good, ipso facto, because of God's endorsement, well then we wind up in the
position of Islam, which portrays God as so omnipotent that God may even
abrogate His own commandments. Such a God is a capricious God who is not even
bound by His own words.

Well, we have possibly uncovered here some sticky wickets. I wish I could be
like a magician and pull a rabbit solution out of my top hat, but I have no
solution for you; no easy answer. There is a joke in which someone is shown a
vision of hell, and he sees a long table at which are seated people with very
long spoons bound to their hands, far to long to reach the plate of food set
before them, so all are frustrated in their inability to feed themselves, and
slowly die of starvation. Then, he is shown a vision of heaven. He sees the SAME
long table, and people with long spoons tied to their hands, BUT the difference
is that each person dips his spoon into the plate of his neighbor across the
table, and then places the food in his neighbor's mouth, so all are fed and
satisfied. Sometimes I suspect that right and wrong, good and evil, are the same
banquet, with the same utensils, but everything depends on how we choose to deal
with the situation; on how we play our hand, the cards which have been dealt to
us.

In the independent film, Zentropa, a young, idealistic German-American moves to
Germany to help with the reconstruction. He meets a German Catholic priest and
asks, "each side in this war prayed to God for victory, believing their cause
was right, but BOTH sides cannot possibly be right. How does God judge amongst
them?" The priest replied that God does not look to the outward right or wrong
of the issues at stake, but to the heart of each individual. The priest quotes
the verse from the New Testament about the person who is neither hot nor cold
(i.e. has taken up no side or cause), but is merely lukewarm, and those who are
lukewarm God spews from his mouth (i.e. rejects).

Once upon a time, a Buddhist monk had just taken his vows, which including a vow
never to harm living creatures, and also never to tell a lie.

This newly ordained monk was taking a walk through the woods when, suddenly, he
saw a terrified rabbit race by his feet and jump into a thicket of bushes. A
moment later, a group of hunters arrive and ask the monk "Did you see a rabbit?"
So, what is our poor monk to do? If he betrays the presence of the rabbit hiding
in the bush then he harms a living creature but if he tells the hunters that he
did not see a rabbit, then he has lied.

A young doctor in a hospice one commented to me, "it is not the hand of cards
which you are dealt, but how will you choose to play it."

Epilogue:

I am reminded of a recent conversation with an old college mate of mine who
became a physician. I have always perceived him as a model of ethics and
compassion. We were discussing the topic of physician assisted death. I argued
that a long slow death by removal of feeding tubes and hydration was more cruel
and degrading to the patient than a quick death by the administration of a drug
overdose. My friend argued that the cessation of feeding and hydration was more
ethical, since a doctor is not ethically obligated to extend life artificially
when there is no hope of recovery, and that the doctor is simply ceasing all
intervention allowing nature to take its course. This is death caused through
inaction rather than the overt act of administering an overdose.

I realize that my friend is a devout Christian and has no notions of karma or
rebirth, but it seems to me that the physician who elects to simply pull the
plug and stand back is in on some level doing so to avoid the karmic
consequences of taking a positive action to hasten death and diminish suffering.
Actions cause us to become implicated and involved.

I suppose I would not be a very good doctor, but were I a doctor in such a
situation, I would prefer to take upon myself the sin of euthanasia, the sin of
action, for the sake of the other, to diminish suffering, rather than choose the
sanctity and blamelessness of inaction.

In an odd way, one may see Christ's submission to the authorities, allowing
himself to be captured and crucified, as a form of suicide. Presumably, if we
foresee our execution, but do not take measures to prevent it or escape it, then
we are suicidal in our actions. Socrates is another example of someone who
might have escaped his death sentence and survived, but chose to stay and submit
to the judgement. Various Cristian theologians assert that Christ BECOMES sin,
in that he takes upon himself the sins of all mankind throughout all past
present and future.

If this is so, then there is something very Christ-like about someone who would
willingly take sin upon themselves for the sake of alleviating the suffering of
another.

I am rather pleased with the interpretation that I developed regarding King
David, who wrote the 51st Psalm in repentance for his sin against Uriah.

As I see it, on the surface of things, David did nothing wrong TECHNICALLY. As
a King, it was his right and duty to direct military battles and send anyone to
the front lines whom he saw fit. Once Uriah perished in battle, his wife
Bathsheba was now a widow, and there is no sin in marrying a widow. As a King,
David is entitled to take many wives. So, where is the sin? The sin lies in the
subjective aspect of David's "wickedness of the imagination," in David's hidden
agenda, and "malice of forethought." Another King might have performed the
same actions, but with a different heart, and there would have been no sin.

There is an old Taoist saying: "When the wrong person undertakes the right
means, then the right means yield the wrong results."

There is always a dilemma, a tension, a dissonance between the letter of the law
and the spirit of the law, between willing spirit and weak flesh. Perhaps our
dilemma between good and evil is like e. e. cummings "dilemma of flutes:"

"in thy beauty is the dilemma of flutes

thy eyes are the betrayal
of bells comprehended through incense"

- e.e. cummings, "My Love"

Rachel · Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:26 am Post subject:

i agree that it is easy to wax poetical until you find yourself in the crunch.
when i was in labour with my last child everything that could go wrong did and because no drug had yet been found(one came a couple of years later) that i could tolerate without the complication of death I was in an agony of suffering. the cord was wrapped four or five times around baby, i had lost my water days before and she was posterior.
finally i had to sign a paper, make a decision who was to live, be fought hard for in the event we both began to die.
i had two sons at home, little, afraid. we had fled from an abusive husband'father and they were all i had and i was all they had. on the other hand none of this was baby's doing and she had every right to live and be happy.
i lay there coming in and out of consciousness and finally i cried out to a God i wasn't sure was there."please let me live and go home to my sons and raise this little one" was all i managed to say. i then chose for the baby to be the one they saved if it came to it.
and then it did come to it and i felt my life ebbing. suddenly a woman came to the doorway of the birthing room watched a moment and then said something privately to one of the doctors attending. then she disappeared and in a few minutes came back in gowned. she told me she was going to ask something of me that would be the most painful thing i would probably ever have to endure but to try and trust her. she was not only a registered nurse for this country but was a midwife in australia.
what choice did i have, i was dying. i nodded yes.
well it has been years and here we are. i was weak and sick and a wreck for a while but it passed. i would make the same decision again but am of course terribly grateful it turned out the way it did
_________________
The universe belongs to one who can look at the world as 'once upon a time' rachel

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

You really suffered, and were faced with a tough decision!

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

I suppose the most remarkable thing to observe in Admin's dilemma, but something which might go unnoticed by many, is that Admin was moved to amend the rules in order to accomodate a new and unforseen circumstance or situation.

If we look at the modern democratic constitutional forms of government which have become prevalent since the time of John Locke, we notice that they make provisions for amendments to their laws and constitutions.

The essense of life is change. Things which do not change or cannot change have either died, or else were never alive to begin with.

Human nature fears change and desires what is absolute and dependable. We are always looking for some hero to come down from the mountain top with unchanging rules etched in stone by the finger of God. Or we are looking for a final "seal of the Prophets" to reveal for us some unchanging sacred scripture of God's will.

The laws of Hammurabi and Solon saw property as something that livestock walk upon, and could not foresee the problems of intellectual property or the need for laws to govern it.

Seventh century Islamic law saw lending upon interest only as a form of usury, to be condemned, and could not forsee a world and international economy where banking and interest is not the byproduct of some cold-hearted Shylock seeking his pound of flesh, but rather an indespensible tool for growth and progress.

Get your own free IRC Chat room