Ethics vs Morals [SPLIT]: contains some House spoilers
PantsB
Fake Thomas JeffersonRegistered User regular
Fake Thomas JeffersonRegistered User regular
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that for lawyers, doctors - and hell, even fucking priests - the ethics of their profession supersede everything else. Yes, they are above personal morality. And yes, you'll lose your license (or get censured or punished or whatever) if you "do the objectively right thing" but break the vows of your profession. It's important. It's a big deal - for everyone. Every person needs to know that their lawyer will never tell any of your secrets, no matter how horrible. Anything else compromises the integrity of the profession. And if you can't handle that, you have no fucking business being a lawyer.
Same with being a doctor.You don't kill your patients. Ever. It sunders the profession, it destroys his credibility - and the credibility of all doctors - and Chase should be thrown in prison for it. And that's that.
no profession supersedes basic morality. You can argue that it wasn't a moral action, but you can't argue that because my job is this, that you have to act immorally. That is a ridiculous argument.
Yes, yes you can. That's the point. That's why the ethics are so powerful. A priest who broke the seal of confession to turn in a murderer would get thrown out (well maybe, kinda). A lawyer who broke his confidentiality and turned in his own client would get disbarred or worse. A doctor whoMURDERS HIS OWN PATIENT (who is a murderer)should get his license revoked and then should go to jail.
And if you can't handle that, don't become a lawyer, priest, or doctor. Those ethical rules are there for a reason.
There are proper channels to handle these things. Being a vigilante and breaking your professional ethical obligations - which, yes, supersede everyday "normal person" ethical obligations - is always bad.
No because A- there are limits on confidentiality and B- what Law and Order says about professional ethics is not what real life says about them. If a person says he is going to commit a crime, confidentiality does not apply for priests, lawyers or doctors for instance. Professional codes of ethics don't overrule laws.
Additionally, the Hippocratic Oath that includes "do no harm" is mythical. The idea that a promise one makes as part of one's profession - and many doctors never take that oath - supersedes any and all other ethical obligations is nonsensical. If one promises a course of action that is unethical, the promise does not make the action ethical. If I promised to curb stomp babies as part of my Nazi Stormtrooper Code of Evil that doesn't make it ethical, because the greater demands of society override any lesser demands. Killing a patient is unethical normally not because of a professional oath but because killing a person is unethical under normal circumstances. And while promising a course of action that is ethically neutral and not following through can introduce an unethical characteristic to an action, if society demands actions contrary to your professional code then it wins out.
Now if you want to argue that the dictator's actions were insufficiently imminent, that's a reasonable objection. But I would suggest that the dictator's protection under subsequent potential circumstances and the gravity of his planned and prepared violence make the violence effectively imminent.
PantsB on
0
Posts
Furthermore, the ethics of Chase's profession do indeed demand that if he's going to be on the case that he give an appropriate standard of care. And that he not falsify medical information in order to kill his patient. I'll give the AMA a fucking call if you think this isn't true.
Our laws have been constructed to prevent vigilantism. There is due process. A court system. International bodies and laws. Police. The military. Congress. There are proper channels for this sort of thing, and a doctor deciding to take his patient's life - the head of state of another sovereign nation - violates the law on almost every level of society: our domestic laws, the laws governing the practice of medicine, international law, the rules and procedures of the hospital.
Society has already decided this issue and would find Chase quite guilty. He should not have done what he did.
ed
The AMA is also not a governing body and ~80% of physicians are not members.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
you misread his statement you quoted, or are pretending it means something else...
The AMA is a reliable source of information, though, obviously.
And of course Chase had no real recourse to do anything. But just because he as an individual has no recourse doesn't mean our society has collectively determined that it's okay for
Furthermore, there are indeed procedures to deal with all types of foreign leaders, including dictators who go on genocidal rampages on their people. Congress and the executive branch of the federal government are the ones who have authority to communicate with them on behalf of the United States, as well as form/participate in international lawmaking bodies, like the United Nations. And it is the Congress of the United States that has been authorized by our society to wage war, not a doctor who has been charged with safeguarding a life.
I, for one, don't want us to start putting up individual Australian doctors (with a hint of English!) who work in research hospitals as our defacto foreign policymaker/assassin. That does not make for a well-functioning society, and certainly does not set a great example for what's left of the Unnamed African Nation's cabinet.
If not, then I will just establish my own profession. I am a professional mugger. My code of professional ethics dictates that I am bound to beat Melkster over the head and steal his money. I mean, yeah, it may be against society's idea of morality, but fuck, it's my professional code of ethics. My hands are tied. Now Melkster, give me your fucking wallet before I bludgeon you unconscious with my ethics and also with this tire iron.
:whistle:
The medical professional code of ethics is another case of ethic manifest.
Ethic, what ought to be, is an ideal.
Tagging profession to it doesn't cheapen its overall intent.
Might I suggest that the reason Chase should follow the ethics of his profession have nothing to do with his profession at all, but rather with the fact that his professional ethics match up pretty well with society's notion of morality? If somewhere in his code of conduct it said it was okay to steal the wallets of all his patients, you wouldn't be arguing that he should do that, I presume.
"Code of ethics" is a red herring, here. You're arguing against what Chase did because it violates morality, not because it violates his code of ethics.
I knew we were gonna find something to disagree on. :P We never agree 100%!
But yeah, practically speaking, sometimes killing is necessary - but when it is, it needs to be authorized by society as a whole. It needs to be done legally, publicly, openly, with due process and the rights of the accused fully protected.
Speaking from a position of where I would like humanity to be - and I do think we can get there someday - it would be nice if we just stopped killing eachother altogether. War and capital punishment included. But that world is a long way away.
The ethical considerations of the professions of law and medicine are set up by society; they are enforced by law. It's a collective decision that we, as a society and as a government made of up elected representatives of the people, have aimed towards a greater good: a higher "morality" than any one subjective incident. We want a word where
And yes, it supersedes one doctor's subjective morality.
Do no harm ---> Only Cure People ---> No Killing!
Also, ethics are different from morals.
Something can be ethical and yet immoral. A lot of folks seem to be using the terms interchangably.
No, because you are conflating ethics with morality. If the whole point of a doctor's code of conduct is that it matches up perfectly with the same morality we all use, then why bother to have something distinct? And the ethical considerations are not enforced by law - they are enforced by the AMA which has the right to revoke your license. Big difference, there.
I mean, some of the rules governing doctors are enforced by law. But not all of them. And for the ones that are, it has nothing to do with morality. I mean, there's a reason that morality doesn't match up with legality in the general sense.
I would love to agree with you and all, but the arbitrary code of conduct I just made up for myself says differently. The American Mugging Association has tied my hands, so sorry.
But hey, that's just made up. Let's talk about, say, the mafia. Would anyone here like to argue that the mafia does not have its own very distinct code of ethics? Would anyone further like to argue that it lines up very well with standard morality?
Again, ethics != morals.
BOO! Get off the stage!
The AMA's leadership is elected. It's democratic. So is the government that authorizes it and sets up medical boards. If we as a society decided that doctors can sometimes
Again 80% of the physicians in the US are not members of the AMA. If the Neckbeard Association of North America decided that talking to girls was against the gamer code of ethics that's pretty much irrelevant to any non-members and if they voted that pirating video games was an ethical duty that doesn't effect whether pirating games is ethical or not for members or non-members alike.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The "ethics that society has set up" has an accepted exception in the case of self-defense and the defense of others. Its illegal to shoot someone in the head. Its not illegal to shoot them in the head if they are about to kill you or another person. The test is "imminence" which is determined by whether other means such as the law could prevent the action. As the dictator acted outside the law in the US - and one could argue was thus in a state of war with society anyway - and as such could not be constrained by the legal framework - a point made explicit with the "civil suit" at the beginning of the episode - and showed determination that he would continue and escalate his genocidal behavior and as these actions was so extreme and unrecoverable, the ongoing policy of genocide was imminent.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That removes cultural relativism and the just murder argument.
As a doctor, your main function is to heal.
Killing is not healing.
Medicine is blind and so forth.
If Hitler showed up on a gurney, I would heal him, because my function is to heal.
R v. Morgentaler comes to mind. His professional ethics demanded that he be able to perform abortions, but procedure made it too difficult to do it legally and taboo made it unacceptable to the public at large. Long story short, he didn't go to jail and abortion is legal in Canada, although the public debate is still far from over.
As a side note, the ruling was on the same day I was born.
We have an agreed-upon ethic that, by design, is meant to overrule any personal moral judgment. Right or wrong, we are saying the immoral decision to violate the ethical standard outweighs any possible moral positive in the acts that violate it. That's the point.
Is it ok for a doctor to kill his patient to feed his starving family?
In Texas, what Chase did would indeed be
By the way, here's a big list of ethical violations in Texas which will get your license revoked (or other disciplinary actions).
Of course, what Chase did would also be
And generally speaking, what this means is that society as a whole has decided is that vigilantism is wrong. We have decided that the best way to deal with crime is through the police and courts - which, again, is closely regulated and governed by the popularly elected representatives of the people. The best way to deal with foreign leaders is via the United States Congress (particularly the Senate, if I'm remembering the constitution well enough) and the Executive branch of the Federal Government, such as the President and the Secretary of State and their agencies and staff, both of which are democratically selected (or approved by the senate, in the Secretary of State).
And the whole point of this is ordered towards something bigger than one homicidal old dictator or one crazy doctor (or any individual act of vigilantism). In the case of every day vigilantism, it's about preservation of due process, which is linked to keeping our society free (of government/political oppression, crazy people who just want to put you in jail, or whatever). In the case of Chase, it's about keeping our international dealings public and between the elected leaders of our government, where they remain accountable for their actions. And the point of that is that we think that having a public, transparent, democratic society is better than not and will result in a better world. Which, of course, is generally linked with our society's moral compass, too.
Civil disobedience rabble rabble rabble
What? No.
Rule Utilitarians claim that actions should be judged as good or bad on the basis of the expected consequences were those actions to be universalized. So, for instance, even though killing the dictator might lead to good consequences as an individual act, were society to adopt the rule that doctors could kill patients, that would lead to negative consequences overall. That's rather hand-wavy, but it's more or less the distinction at issue.
There have been numerous occasions where people have told priests that they're about to murder or rape somebody and the priest informed the police and the guy was stopped. I believe they had to get permission from somebody, but it's an encouraged practice.
My main quibble isn't with the assertion that Chase's actions were wrong. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on that. My only problem is with saying that his actions are wrong because of his professional ethics code.
I mean, I agree that he is violating his code of ethics. But I think it's silly to say that violating a professional code of ethics is, by definition, always immoral. Just as it's silly to say that violating the law is always immoral.
Okay, let me rephrase then. Let's put this in very clear terms. When I say that what Chase did was wrong, I mean, he should have chosen not to do the thing that he did.
Let me be even clearer:
1) .... intentionally falsify lab results in order to justify a treatment that, in his medical opinion, would likely result in the swift death of the patient?
2) .... treat the patient as he normally would?
He did #1. I'm saying Chase should have picked #2, and a big part of the reason is upholding our societal codes - both the duty of a doctor to provide a sufficient standard of care for the patient - and the duty of a normal citizen not be a vigilante murderer. I link both of these back to society's well being as a whole and what I think a good society should be.
And, by the way, I'm not alone, obviously. That's why our laws are set up the way that they are - they reflect the will of the people. Or, at least, they're supposed to.
Let me put it this way: There are times when it is not immoral to do something in violation of either the social contract or a certain code of ethics. This doesn't necessarily indicate that the social contract or the code of ethics are bad.
Example: It is not immoral for me to jaywalk across a clearly deserted street. It is still illegal, though, and anti-jaywalking laws are good things. In the general sense, it's not something that should be left up to personal decision-making skills, because lots of dumb people will wind up causing accidents.
Another example: It is illegal for me to run into a burning building if firemen on the scene are telling me not to because the house is about to collapse. (At least it is in some areas.) That doesn't make it immoral for me to run into such a house so I can save an armful of babies I know are in there. It's still against "society's rules", though.
More pertinent example: It's illegal in most places to perform euthanasia, even on a person who is clearly going to die soon and is in an obscene amount of pain. I would say that euthanasia in such a situation would be perfectly moral. It would, however, be against the law and against the medical profession's code of ethics.
Ethics and social contracts run into morality all the time, and it's not always the ethics that win out. That's my point.
That got me thinking. What if the criminal is planning on committing a crime against the Church? Like killing one of the figure heads or locking up a church while mass is going on and setting it on fire? Does that Canon Law flinch then? I'm not trying to be funny, it was actually the first thing that came to my mind.
I'll be honest, I don't know if I believe in the idea of morality - or, even, if I know what the word means in a non-theological setting. I used to be very religious and was brought up on the whole idea of God and God's law and all that - and morality was simply another word for "What God Wants People To Do." And luckily for me they were all listed in a book for me to read. (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in fact.)
But over the past three years (holy shit it's been three years) I've been trying to figure out how to define right and wrong in a non-theological setting - and what that even means. I suppose the only thing I'm comfortable with saying is, for me, morality means that thing which you should or shouldn't do. And how do you know what you should or shouldn't do? Well, it all depends on what world you want to live in. How should people behave? How should people act? To what end are our collective actions ordered?
I think I understand your point. It's foolish to simply look at these issues in a vacuum. It would be foolish to say, absolutely, refusing to offer any explanation or exposition, that breaking the law is always something you shouldn't do.
But there's certainly a line, too, where it is okay to temporarily ignore the law. Where is that line? I would place it pretty far down at they very very end of the spectrum, preferring order, democracy, and the stability of our society. There are very few situations where I think we should betray those core values, and they would only be in the most extreme cases - or in the cases where the law broken is of such low consequence that it really doesn't particularly matter. (Like, say, jay walking, as you said.)
I guess if you could put me in a classic Dungeons and Dragons alignment, I'd be on the "Lawful" side, haha.
it's like.., all those crazy christians who keep yelling that it's impossible to be a moral person without having god in your heart are actually right in your case... That is depressing.
Are you talking to me?
If so, be specific. When you say "it's impossible to be a moral person," what do you mean by "moral person"?