Thursday, June 09, 2005

2 Cents on "Consequentialist Ethics" and "Christian morality" or "rule based morality"

Here's an illustration of why Buddhists furrow their brows at some ethics discussions:

There is no greater honor that I have that my patients trust me to give them anesthetic medications and perform surgery while they sleep. I believe it is a great crime, worthy of great punishment, when that trust is broken in cases where a patient is inappropriately touched while anesthetized by a doctor like this. To be specific I am discussing a scenario when a doctor fondles a female patient while they are asleep for surgery. I believe this is one of the most immoral acts a doctor can perform.

However, according to utilitarian ethical theory, if the patient does not find out about the fondling, was an immoral act committed? ...

Since there was no "tangible harm" that was done to the patient, there is no basis in which to state the doctor's actions were immoral.

There is at least one gaping problem with this:

The harm has already been done: the mind of the dentist has changed. To me, this is tangible enough. Harmony is disturbed.

Phenomena exist like box and lid fit.
Principle responds like arrowpoints meet.

No comments: