|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Name That Sin !
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Name That Sin !
This post is intended as the first in an occasional series, almost a Purgatorial game. The idea is as follows:
The questioner describes a hypothetical situation in which someone acts in a manner that the questioner considers morally dubious. Everyone else is invited to say:
- whether or not they think the action is a sin (or morally wrong)
- if so, what’s the name of the sin – what should we call it ?
- what is the nature of the sin – why is it wrong ?
- how does it relate to any typology of sins or morally wrong actions (10 commandments, 7 deadly sins, 8-fold path, whatever) ?
Responses of the form "it depends on..." are welcomed. But don't stop there. Feel free to round out the answer e.g. "if X is true then it's no sin at all, but if X is not true then it’s a clear case of simony ".
Respondents are asked to stay within the spirit of the hypothetical scenario posed, and not go on to talk more generally about real-life applications.
The aim is to gain insight from a comparison of different people's moral intuitions. If the scenario is too clear-cut then it's no fun...
SCENARIO 1 - The Militant Vegetarian
A 19th century American philanthropist comes up with a treatment for a disease. The disease is endemic in Africa, is often painful and sometimes fatal. The treatment involves a combination of drugs and food hygiene practices. The philanthropist advertises for American people to go to Africa, live among the Africans, distribute the drugs and teach the other elements of the treatment. He offers to pay their passage and basic living expenses while there.
Mr V volunteers. He gives up his job, his lifestyle and his friends, and goes out to a corner of Africa where there are no other Americans, and starts teaching the treatment and giving out the drug.
The issue is that Mr V is a strong believer in vegetarianism. What he teaches to the Africans is vegetarianism and how to follow the treatment in the context of a vegestarian diet. He has successes amongst all the tribes he encounters, but more so in tribes where the meat-eating is less firmly embedded in their culture and tradition. He distributes the drugs to all who indicate that they will follow the treatment. (The drugs without the other elements are worthless).
Some people who encounter him continue to die from the disease because they reject the idea of sticking to a vegetarian diet.
Mr V sincerely believes that vegestarianism is both healthy and moral. He believes that he has honoured to the letter his commitment to the philanthropist - he turns no-one away, will talk the talk to anyone, and will give the drugs to anyone who says to him that they will follow the treatment as he describes it. He has saved many lives.
Is there a sin, and if so what is it ?
Does it make any difference if another American volunteer comes to the same part of Africa, so that the Africans have a choice as to who they listen to ?
Over to you...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Shirley.
I'm not sure if there is a 'sin' as such, but I'm not sure he has really fulfilled the spirit of the contract with the philanthropist in that he has arbitrarily set his own additional moral standard.
I think the fact that the philanthropist is sending the worker means that he (the worker) owes it to the philanthropist to act 'as the philanthropist would act' - so if the philanthropist is not also a militant vegetarian, then it seems outwith of his philosophy to instruct vegetarianism.
But then, there is a serious issue as well about how the philanthropist is operating in that he appears to be content to send workers to deal with the issue from a great distance. Which feels to me a little bit like the 'efficient cooking stove' story, where someone outside decided that a particular shape of stove would save woodfuel but failed to understand the cultural issues which mitigated against its use.
Generally speaking it appears to make most sense to have partnerships with local organisations who understand the underlying issues and to ensure you have staff who are not likely to operate to their own additional agenda. Difficult one, though.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'd call this the sin of pride--deliberately imposing additional requirements that he knows are not necessary and that will lead to a foreseeable preventable loss of life, solely to effect what he considers to be moral improvement in the lives of a few. Moral improvement is not a sufficient reason to justfy holding people's lives hostage. Even salvation would be doubtful, given God's respect for human free will. But this man does not espect it, is willing to sacrifice lives over it, and so commits the sin of pride. And since the Commandments tend to drag each other along, he also breaks the one about murder--though by omission--and about bearing false witness. And certainly does not love his neighbor as himself.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Russ, do we know for certain that non-vegetarians would be cured if they received the treatment, or is it possible that the worker has discovered the treatment is only effective when taken with a vegetarian diet?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I'm just left wondering if Mr. V. is a Seventh-day Adventist, because he sure sounds like one.
I'm going with Lamb Chopped on the sin of pride.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Russ, do we know for certain that non-vegetarians would be cured if they received the treatment, or is it possible that the worker has discovered the treatment is only effective when taken with a vegetarian diet?
Reading the thing it seems that Non-Vegetarians won't be cured with the treatment, without a different diet. But this different diet needn't be vegetarian, but in that case he'd have to be actively involved in teaching a different way of cooking meat.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
As far as I can see Mr V. has done nothing strictly wrong.
He is giving out the drugs and teaching food hygiene practices (as per the philanthropists original request) to all who ask.
IF he tells the people he gives stuff out to that being vegetarian AS WELL AS the drugs and the food hygiene practices is effective without any evidence, then he is being fraudulent.
But this statement says otherwise:
quote:
He has successes amongst all the tribes he encounters, but more so in tribes where the meat-eating is less firmly embedded in their culture and tradition.
The only sin would be the sin of omission.
i.e. If he told people vegetarianism is part of the treatment. As opposed to telling all and sundry that he accepts for drugs and food hygiene that he believes vegetarianism helps the treatment process even more.
[ 21. October 2012, 13:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The sin of omission is a pretty big sin, though. And if I read the OP correctly, he's not in ignorance--he knows full well that the treatment will work for non-vegeterians, and could be taught in a way that would work for them as well. He simply refuses to do so--and is apparently not telling them that a life-saving but meat eating regiment is even possible, so that they might seek it elsewhere than from him and live. To make a groaner, he's saying "it's my way or the die-way." Which makes him culpable in my book.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
When I hear the word 'Principles' I reach for my gun... to misquote yet again Hanns Johst (1890-1978) (German playwright and Nazi SS officer).
What are principles ? Arrogance ? Opinions ? I'm more moral than you attitude ?
All men have their price. Men with principles command a higher price.
A definition 'A principle represents a set of values that orientate and rule the conduct of an individual'.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Well the sin is clearly missionaryism. He is there to heal the sick and he has the scientific knowledge to do so. However, he sees this as an opportunity to teach his own world-view to those he helps. He believes that his world-view is the only really valid one, so he sees no problem with this approach. The people are sinners, and the only way for them to be forgiven is to understand that they must forsake their former lives as meat-eaters and accept the truth of his gospel of vegetarianism. This is how the Gospel was spread to most of Africa, is it not? The OP is simply using vegetarianism as a metaphor for this. Presumably the rest of the series will challenge us with other Christian "sins"?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Mr V would strenuously deny that he doesn't love his neighbour as himself. He believes that vegetarianism is both moral and healthy, and wishes to share those benefits with everyone.
He would also deny anything to do with murder. He has saved hundreds of lives by what he's done. Just not quite as many as he might have done. If those who died had done what he told them to, they wouldn't have dIed of the disease. All those people who saw but didn't respond to the original ad didn't save any...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
On the sin of "missionary-ism"--we're not all like that, you know. In my case we make our services available to anybody and everybody who wants them, and we go out of our way to make it plain that we don't want conversions or church attendance or what have you as a precondition or even as a form of thanks. (which leaves us in the embarrassing situation of occasionally discouraging baptism, hey ho)
Seriously, I know that's the stereotype, but since we're in the position of personally providing pastoral care for the Buddhists, ancestor worshippers and just-plain-nothingests of this city, as well as accessing medical, legal and a zillion other kinds of care, it kinds of gets me on the raw.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
If the vegetarian is being honest and clear, and therefore inviting people without coercion to accept both the treatment and the vegetarianism as good things independent of one another, no sin has been committed imo.
ISTM that if he ties the two together where they are not inter-dependent, he is comitting the sin of false testimony. If he refuses to provide the treatment to people unless they convert to vegetarianism, (again provided that there is no correlation), then he is both misrepresenting the philanthropist and neglecting to help people who may be helped. The latter would be a sin of omission, I'm not sure how to categorise the former.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, I know that's the stereotype, but since we're in the position of personally providing pastoral care for the Buddhists, ancestor worshippers and just-plain-nothingests of this city, as well as accessing medical, legal and a zillion other kinds of care, it kinds of gets me on the raw.
But coming at it from Mr V.'s point of view, you've covered their material needs and shown your love for your neighbour. You can't be criticised on that score. But what about their mortal souls? Particularly these "nothingests"; they're going to hell aren't they? Why don't you have a responsibility to make them aware of that and make sure they get to heaven?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Certainly we don' t just sit there mumchance and leave them in total ignorance that we have something much better we'd be happier to give them too, if they care to hear about it; but we neither shove it down their throats nor make a difference in the quality of care if they aren't interested.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the vegetarian is being honest and clear, and therefore inviting people without coercion to accept both the treatment and the vegetarianism as good things independent of one another, no sin has been committed.
ISTM that if he ties the two together where they are not inter-dependent, he is comitting the sin of false testimony.
Good point. It's somewhere in between. I guess he doesn't Intend to deceive, but doesn't feel any need to portray his principles at optional extras.
Hadn't heard of missionary-ism before...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I would say the sin is deception. He has claimed, by implication, that the treatment is only effective as part of a vegetarian diet when in fact treatment is possible for meat-eaters too.
My feeling is that when you commit deception it is impossible to predict what the consequences are, but you are responsible for them anyway. Conversely, if you tell the truth so that people can make an informed decision, they may still do bad things on account of that information, but that will be their responsibility, not yours.
I think there is a certain inconsistency in Mr V's position even on its own terms. I presume Mr V believes he cannot explain the meat-eating treatment because that would be encouraging meat-eating, and he would therefore be responsible for the increase in meat-eating.
However, even accepting that meat-eating is a sin, he can't have it both ways - he is either a strict consequentialist or he is not. If he wants to disclaim responsibility for the deaths among tribespeople who die for not giving up meat (on the grounds that they had the option of embracing his vegetarian treatment), then he should also be able to disclaim responsibility for encouraging meat-eating among the tribes (likewise on the grounds that they had the option of become vegetarians).
(Incidentally, I think I can guess what this scenario is based on, which makes it quite interesting to see how people respond ...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
The OP raises the case of a Vegetarian but it actually masks a very deep dilema. When can you impose you ethics or morals on others especially when they don't agree.
Our British Society has always been good at doing it, - and its the moral problem behind the Iraq and Afghan wars. 'We know better than you mentality. Democracy is the way forward so you're going to have it.Global warming is happening so you must do X Y and Z' ' In the recent past we maintained that we were not having other people force their ways (morals ?) on us. So for example World War 2.But we now seem to have extended this into a more militant stance. (eg no Foreign Aid if you prosecute Gays)
So a question. Is there any difference between an individual imposing their views or a Parliament/Society imposing its morals/ethics or someone else ?
Recently I met a Budhist who are incidentally vegetarians. He said that had to beg/ask for their food when out visiting. I posed the question what would happen if their host gave them a meat dish. He replied ' We would eat it. Insulting your hosts generosity is so much worse than eating meat'.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossymole
Apprentice
# 17339
|
Posted
As I read the OP; Mr V has deceived both his employer and the tribes-people in that he has equated food hygiene with vegetarianism and withheld treatment and food hygiene education from some people he was sent to help. He's borne false witness against the philanthropist (and, importantly; whoever did the research and evolved the treatment in the first place).
The scenario reminds me forcibly of a few missionary movements which seem to insist upon their own particular narrow reading of scripture without giving their perfectly genuine converts access to any other views. Surely they should trust God enough to at least provide a few books and have some discussion.
Posts: 43 | From: Derbyshire UK | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Ross, may I turn around the question?
Instead of Mr V, the missionary is you, oh reader. You have volunteered to go to Africa, you are being supported by the philanthropist, who you met once at an interview. You are now thousands of miles away and have no way to contact him.
You are a believer in vegetarianism. You did not deliberately deceive the philanthropist, but artfully did not mention this fact during the interview because you didn't believe it would make any difference and that you'd be able to convert all the meat-eaters to vegetarianism.
You now believe that the best chance the local people have is to become vegetarians as well as take the treatment. You believe you have seen anecdotal evidence that suggests you are correct in this belief. But more than this, you know that you have limited resources of the course of treatment and could not possibly treat everyone that needs it.
You feel conflicted because you feel that you owe the philanthropist to Do the Right Thing. But he is not here to ask. The disease has now got to epidemic proportions and you know beyond any doubt that in the time it would take you to go back to the philanthropist to discuss your moral quandary, thousands of vegetarian people who might have accepted the treatment + vegetarian option will certainly die, along with all meat-eaters. There is nobody else.
Now, which is the greater sin, being partial to the vegetarian cause or walking away from thousands of people you are very likely to have been able to help?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Mr V hasn't walked away from anyone. He's travelled thousands of miles to be where he is, for the sole purpose of helping others.
He turns no-one away, but isn't interested in talking about how the food hygiene procedures he teaches could be used in the context of eating meat. That would be an inferior way, he believes, to the way that he advocates. There's only one of him, he has a huge area to cover, and he chooses to spend his energy making the case for treatment-with-vegetarianism.
He tries to tell no falsehood, and also to say nothing - true or false - that would undermine his message.
There may be some dark corner of his soul where pride reigns, which says to him that those who reject his way of life deserve to die of a painful illness. My understanding is that having such thoughts is something we can't help; there is sin in encouraging them, relishing them, dwelling on them. But in any case that seems to be going beyond the facts of the scenario.
He doesn't exactly impose anything on anyone. You could perhaps say that the help he offers people is qualified or conditional. But only by what he believes is best for them.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Incidentally, I think I can guess what this scenario is based on, which makes it quite interesting to see how people respond ...)
Not hard to guess - it's only thinly disguised.
Clearly the philanthropist stands for God, and the mission to bring drugs and teach food hygiene to the Africans to save them from the unnamed disease stands for the Christian mission to bring salvation to all people by word and sacrament.
Mr V's action is to make his own cultural practices part of what his listeners have to "buy into" if they want to be saved.
I was hoping that some Shipmate more learned than I would know of a precise label for such an action.
To some extent this is something we all do. Any community has a culture which forms the context for whatever members of that community say about it.
But it seemed to me that there is some sort of moral obligation to try to minimise the extent of confusion between the Gospel itself and whatever our particular communities do or say in response.
The immediate prompt for this thread was a comment, on a thread about Catholicism, to the effect that minimalism is foreign to Catholic culture, that trying to get Catholics to distinguish bare essentials from cultural accretions is imposing Protestant ideas on them.
So I wanted to see what others thought. Am I alone in thinking this a moral duty rather than just a cultural tendency ?
Thank you to everyone who took part in the experiment.
My own summary of the results is that no-one thought that passing on the message with our own cultural added requirements for salvation is harmless. The three answers given were that this is
- pride (do it my way or you can go to hell)
- deceit (we'd all like to believe that our own ways are what God really wants; we're honest enough not to say that outright but not honest enough to correct the impression when we accidentally-on-purpose imply it)
- "missionaryism" (which I take to be using good deeds to promote our own ideas and culture. cf "the last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason")
If the format is worth repeating, perhaps someone else will do the next scenario.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
...an if it isn't the thread will just die...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
OK Let's see whether it's a runner, or doomed to die:
SCENARIO 2
Lady M is in the early stages of dementia, and has moved into a care home as she knows that she will need more care as the disease progresses. As it is, she sometimes forgets the names of her friends and family, and they are visiting less frequently as they find it very difficult.
One of the carers is very rough and surly. Lady M hates it when she's on duty. One day she heard this carer bullying the man in the next room. She heard a smack and the man cried out. He now has a black eye, which has been put down to a fall. Lady M is afraid to say anything, in case the carer takes revenge on her, but she knows that of all the residents, she is the most likely to be believed if she speaks out.
Is there a sin, and if so what is it?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Presumably the sin would occur after she has made a decision ? Or the sin is on the part of the carer and is the sin of being an abusive bastard (assuming he hit the other resident).
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Do you think it would be a sin for her to say nothing, Doublethink? Does her fear excuse her from speaking out?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(Incidentally, I think I can guess what this scenario is based on, which makes it quite interesting to see how people respond ...)
Not hard to guess - it's only thinly disguised.
Clearly the philanthropist stands for God, and the mission to bring drugs and teach food hygiene to the Africans to save them from the unnamed disease stands for the Christian mission to bring salvation to all people by word and sacrament.
Mr V's action is to make his own cultural practices part of what his listeners have to "buy into" if they want to be saved.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) OK, that wasn't what I'd guessed.
I'd interpreted the unnamed disease as AIDS, vegetarianism as not using condoms and following an abstinence-only sex education programme, meat-eaters as people who used condoms but didn't necessarily follow classical Christian sexual mores, and the volunteer as the Catholic Church.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'd interpreted the unnamed disease as AIDS...
That would have the same "best is the enemy of the good" sort of aspect to it..
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
As for Lady M, the issue seems to involve uncertainty about the likely consequences if she complains.
If the likely outcome is that the bullying nurse gets a token slap on the wrist and the manager then continues to be happily oblivious of what goes on, then she could make things worse for both herself and the old man.
Being afraid is not a sin. Acting on a genuine perception (whether this turns out to be accurate or otherwise) that she is unable to improve the old man's position is also not a sin.
Classical Christian thought has a virtue of courage but also a virtue of prudence.
But acting out of fear is not good...
Best wishes,
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
I'd agree with Gwai. If Lady M reasons that the right course of action is to speak out and complain, and then backs away from that decision because of fear, then she has indeed fallen short. If at the end of her life (or indeed at any other time) her life flashes before her eyes and she recollects the good that she could have done and didn't do, she will regret that choice.
There's a slightly different question about whether the level of courage needed in this situation is so small that any normal person would be expected to find it within themselves to do, or so great that only saints and heroes would be expected to possess it (or of course anywhere on a spectrum in between).
Making a mistake in an exam and still achieving a "pass" mark is not unknown...
Is that what you're getting at with this scenario ?
Seems to me there's a further issue. If the old man were in full possession of his faculties, the right thing to do would I suggest be to consult him over what action to take, given that there is a risk that any complaint might make life harder for him as well as for Lady M. Deciding - either way - about the acceptability or otherwise of the risks involved without asking him seems to me like a sin - treating someone as being less than fully human.
Although if he is so far gone in dementia that he can't make meaningful reply to the question then life has already put him in that position.
In which case there seems to me no sin if Lady M genuinely tries to do what she thinks he would want. Which may indeed be to keep quiet and say nothing.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd agree with Gwai. If Lady M reasons that the right course of action is to speak out and complain, and then backs away from that decision because of fear, then she has indeed fallen short. If at the end of her life (or indeed at any other time) her life flashes before her eyes and she recollects the good that she could have done and didn't do, she will regret that choice.
There's a slightly different question about whether the level of courage needed in this situation is so small that any normal person would be expected to find it within themselves to do, or so great that only saints and heroes would be expected to possess it (or of course anywhere on a spectrum in between).
Making a mistake in an exam and still achieving a "pass" mark is not unknown...
Is that what you're getting at with this scenario ?
I'm not getting at anything in particular, simply exploring the concept of sin. It seems to me that it would clearly be a sin if the carer had assaulted the man, but it may be the other way around. Perhaps he did fall over. If he had assaulted the carer, given that his disease has taken away his capacity to know what he's doing, was his action a sin?
If Lady M reports the incident and the carer is dismissed having done nothing wrong, may that be a sin even though it was reported in good faith?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Yes, I'd agree.
Any adequate ethical theory has to include the possibility of the honest mistake. We cannot always know accurately the consequences of our actions.
If Lady M honestly and reasonably expects the consequences of her action to be good, and she does it with the intention of securing those good consequences, then it seems to me that that is almost but not quite enough to conclude that her action was right.
The "not quite" is to do with risk. If she perceives or should perceive a small risk of a catastrophically bad outcome (perhaps in this example the institution being shut down and all the old people thrown out onto the street) then even though she doesn't expect that to happen, prudence would seem to require that she heed the possibility ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
No-one's mentioned the family and friends who are visiting less and less. Is there any sin there?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Thank you to the people who engaged with this.
If anyone wants to pick up the thread and bring in their own scenario, now's the time to do it.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
