This is my fourth post for the #pht402 professional ethics course that I’m participating in for the next few weeks. In order to stimulate thinking, each participant in the course was required to engage with materials which can be found at topic for 4th Week.
Thinking about this topic brings me to an exercise my grade 6 teacher posed to the class.
And she posed the question, if you could save one persons’ life who would it be?
People in the boat:
- A fireman
- A policeman
- A mother with a baby in her arms (for the exercise they are counted as one)
- A garbage collector
- An accountant
- A politician
- An educator
- A surgeon
Drawing connections to last week post of equality, the morally right conclusion to draw would be that you cannot choose, as each life is important; equally important…
Essentially, some would argue that the policeman’s’ life is of more importance as he protects the land or the surgeon cause he saves many lives, or even the mother and child as the child has the most potential and the child could grow up knowing his life was spared and that he should not let it be in vain (this of course works on the assumption that all people are good natured and all people will make good choices but we know that is not the case).
Which one person would you choose to save if perhaps, a loved one of yours was also in the boat? Whichever decision you make, it’ll be an informed one.
I am of the opinion that all lives are equally valuable, but if my mother was in the boat, yes id save her first, because her life is more valuable to me.
After reading the pre-scribed texts, I had to draw the same conclusion to that of Um’r, that the topic seems to be about Zero Dark Thirty rather than torture per se, and rather than sift through a detailed article on the character Maya, I entertained myself with a few trailers of the movie to gain some context. And just like Adam, in his post, I associate torture and torturous activities with Medieval devices (although, maybe a bit of an Elizabethan old English as well). Adam also draws on the conclusion that if we indulge torture it means that we aren’t treating people equally, which also stems off last weeks topic of equality.
Making reference to Zero Dark Thirty which involves the torture of detainees to gain information which could potentially save many people’s lives, I have to agree with Wendy Walker who draws a great conclusion (which is logical and could argue a good point), that torture is morally wrong, but on rare occasions is morally justifiable. Do you believe torture is morally justifiable?
Torture is wrong, as simple as that.
I also do not believe that the criterion “an eye for an eye” should be a measure of our responsibility towards other human beings, ‘cause we all know that “an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind”, and we already have enough of retinitis pimentosa and Lebers congenital amaurosis going around to take care of the blindness quota.
The US medical establishment has taken a stance of: “See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil”. As a health care professional what is your stance? As a moral and (fairly) just human being, what is your stance? Do you shy away from any situation which will challenge you to do the morally just thing instead of what is easiest for you?
“Do good. Be good. Love”