Medical Ethics:Should people care more about doing the right thing, or doing things right?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

OSUkid

Membership Revoked
Removed
7+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
505
Reaction score
251
Should people care more about doing the right thing, or doing things right?

Members don't see this ad.
 
How do you mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
they don't have to be mutually exclusive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
This is basically is it better to be moral or to be ethical. I have yet to find a situation where it is better to be ethical than moral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well this is ambiguous. Could I get one example, please?
 
Steelersfan takes the cake! It is better to do things right than trying to do the right thing determined by a set guideline. Thus begging the question...
Can you really experience anything objectively? (Relevance to the guideline of rules, for those a bit confused)
 
It is better to do things right than trying to do the right thing determined by a set guideline.

So essentially, don't follow any rules if what you feel you are doing is "right."
 
You're equivocating the term "right." I think what you mean to ask is "should we care more about doing the right things or about doing things correctly."

I vote for right, right guys?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Should people care more about doing the right thing, or doing things right?

How do you know what you're doing is right in the first place? The most dangerous kinds of people are those who think that their actions are absolutely justifiable.
 
How do you know what you're doing is right in the first place? The most dangerous kinds of people are those who think that their actions are absolutely justifiable.
Mike ross,
answer this question..
Can you really experience anything objectively?
Now answer yours
 
You're equivocating the term "right." I think what you mean to ask is "should we care more about doing the right things or about doing things correctly."

I vote for right, right guys?
No what I meant was exactly that. Right seems more suitable, correctly relates to set guidelines
 
Mike ross,
answer this question..
Can you really experience anything objectively?
Now answer yours

People who think that they're 100% "right" tend to be dangerous to not just themselves but the people around them. They think that they're so special that they're above everyone else. There's a difference between the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do.
 
People who think that they're 100% "right" tend to be dangerous to not just themselves but the people around them. There's a difference between the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do.
The right thing and smart thing are not mutually exclusive
 
I.. what? I think one beauty of medicine is that correct actions must be those that will likely best help the patient according to the physician's education and experience, and are thus aligned with morality.
 
The right thing and smart thing are not mutually exclusive

You're absolutely right. They're not always mutually exclusive. But often, they are. It's better to be smart, skeptical/questioning of your beliefs, and step carefully because changing things for the better is a marathon, not a sprint. It's the "damn-everyone-my-beliefs-are-the-most-important-thing" self-rightenous folk who end up being blinded by their beliefs and wrecking those around them. You'll find that these kinds of people care not about doing the right thing, but about seeking attention. Eg. Gandhi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You're absolutely right. They're not always mutually exclusive. But often, they are. It's better to be smart, skeptical/questioning of your beliefs, and step carefully because changing things for the better is a marathon, not a sprint. It's the "damn-everyone-my-beliefs-are-the-most-important-thing" self-rightenous folk who end up being blinded by their beliefs and wrecking those around them. You'll find that these kinds of people care not about doing the right thing, but about seeking attention. Eg. Gandhi.

@OSUkid: Since this is a med forum, one person in our field exhibiting this "I-know-what's-best-for-everyone-paternalism" is Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel.
 
@OSUkid: Since this is a med forum, one person in our field exhibiting this "I-know-what's-best-for-everyone-paternalism" is Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel.
I don't concern myself with things that don't interest me. However I agree, that mindset is not rational. You need to take a step back and reflect with a neutral cool mind before deciding, or even hopefully even criticizing your own beliefs as you mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Doing the right thing, obviously. The rules are a means aimed at that end. It's like asking whether it's better to save a starving child's life or give them food.

The issue is whether what you view as the right thing is really the right thing when it conflicts with the rules...
 
Doing the right thing, obviously. The rules are a means aimed at that end. It's like asking whether it's better to save a starving child's life or give them food.

The issue is whether what you view as the right thing is really the right thing when it conflicts with the rules...
Find the means between two extremes. That's how life should be lived.
 
Find the means between two extremes. That's how life should be lived.
Well, I'd have to argue basically the opposite to that, that society progresses by finally taking hard stances on the morally correct extremes one topic at a time. For example some people think homosexuality should be punishable by death, others see it as having no need for criminal punishment whatsoever. If you were going to teach this mixed group what the correct way to behave is, you'd find a middle ground and punish homosexuality with long prison sentences or something?
 
Well, I'd have to argue basically the opposite to that, that society progresses by finally taking hard stances on the morally correct extremes one topic at a time. For example some people think homosexuality should be punishable by death, others see it as having no need for criminal punishment whatsoever. If you were going to teach this mixed group what the correct way to behave is, you'd find a middle ground and punish homosexuality with long prison sentences or something?

Go live in Saudi Arabia, and take a hard stance that gay individuals should be fully pardoned. Have fun being accused of being an infidel, and then stoned to death.
 
I don't concern myself with things that don't interest me. However I agree, that mindset is not rational. You need to take a step back and reflect with a neutral cool mind before deciding, or even hopefully even criticizing your own beliefs as you mentioned.

Recipe for disaster if you're considering medicine as a career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well, I'd have to argue basically the opposite to that, that society progresses by finally taking hard stances on the morally correct extremes one topic at a time. For example some people think homosexuality should be punishable by death, others see it as having no need for criminal punishment whatsoever. If you were going to teach this mixed group what the correct way to behave is, you'd find a middle ground and punish homosexuality with long prison sentences or something?
Not quite. I meant living in moderation. I meant not being too honest where you tell her your breath stinks, also not to dishonest to not even tell her. But rather be clever about it and pull out a piece of gum for you her.
Recipe for disaster if you're considering medicine as a career.
Not really, do you make your own decisions or let others make them for you?
 
Go live in Saudi Arabia, and take a hard stance that gay individuals should be fully pardoned. Have fun being accused of being an infidel, and then stoned to death.
" If you were going to teach this mixed group what the correct way to behave is "

Have you not had any classes that did thought experiments?
 
Not quite. I meant living in moderation. I meant not being too honest where you tell her your breath stinks, also not to dishonest to not even tell her. But rather be clever about it and pull out a piece of gum for you her.
I have to say I can't really see the parallel there to any kind of situation where your moral code would be at odd with medical ethics codes. Maybe if I had some deep moral reason to need to be honest but that was at odds with social rules?
 
"Doing the right thing" is part of Moral law. For a given situation, you either do the right thing or the wrong thing.

"Doing things right" is a process for how you do things. For any given task, you can do it correctly, or you can do it incorrectly.

You first decide whether to the right thing or the wrong thing. Then, you decide how you will do the right or wrong thing you decided upon. You can do it right, or you can do it wrong.

You can do right things wrong, and you do the wrong thing right. For a doctor, you wan tot do the right thing right. ;)
 
I have to say I can't really see the parallel there to any kind of situation where your moral code would be at odd with medical ethics codes. Maybe if I had some deep moral reason to need to be honest but that was at odds with social rules?
Parallel it to finding the means between 2 extremes. There is always a middle ground. I can't just give you generic example, but I am sure you come across these situations all the time. It's pretty simple.
 
The question I asked is a great philosophical question, so please don't think there is one true answer.
 
Go live in Saudi Arabia, and take a hard stance that gay individuals should be fully pardoned. Have fun being accused of being an infidel, and then stoned to death.

Yes but an organized movement that garners exponentially more supporters over a wide time frame may be able to improve this social flaw. Just like it did in the West after like a million years. Point is revolution requires an extreme stance
 
I think OP was asking more about conflicts between what they'd see as right vs what is allowed. For example, having a moral code like utilitarianism that would make you want to help someone with a terminal disease to end their life, but being unable to due so because it is illegal in your state.

Parallel it to finding the means between 2 extremes. There is always a middle ground. I can't just give you generic example, but I am sure you come across these situations all the time. It's pretty simple.
Please try to give me an example relevant to medical ethics. Take the situation above where someone clearly wants assisted suicide and you believe that to be morally right and know you could avoid detection, but it goes against the rules. How do you meet in the middle?

The question I asked is a great philosophical question, so please don't think there is one true answer.
There have been (and continue to be) many arguments made about what the correct value ethics and morality is. There has not been continuous debate over whether the correct morality, if discovered, should be compromised or departed from to "meet in the middle". You can argue about whether someone should subscribe to Kantian ethics for example, but given that they do you cannot argue that they should ever make exceptions to the categorical imperative.
 
Y'all are missing the point of the gay example. It's a thought experiment. Reminds me of my intro phil class where we read Nozick's experience machine and people wouldn't stop talking about how impossible it would be to actually make such a machine
 
I think OP was asking more about conflicts between what they'd see as right vs what is allowed. For example, having a moral code like utilitarianism that would make you want to help someone with a terminal disease to end their life, but being unable to due so because it is illegal in your state.


Please try to give me an example relevant to medical ethics. Take the situation above where someone clearly wants assisted suicide and you believe that to be morally right and know you could avoid detection, but it goes against the rules. How do you meet in the middle?


There have been (and continue to be) many arguments made about what the correct value ethics and morality is. There has not been continuous debate over whether the correct morality, if discovered, should be compromised or departed from to "meet in the middle". You can argue about whether someone should subscribe to Kantian ethics for example, but given that they do you cannot argue that they should ever make exceptions to the categorical imperative.
I would meet in the middle, just not in your middle. Helping killing someone is not what I am getting at. That's isn't the right thing to do. It all depends in real time, I'm sure I would find a solution. I would find that solution by thinking rationally and finding a mean between two extremes. If you think assisted suited is good, I can debate you on that for years, simply because that is also a philosophical question.
 
I would meet in the middle, just not in your middle. Helping killing someone is not what I am getting at. That's isn't the right thing to do. It all depends in real time, I'm sure I would find a solution. I would find that solution by thinking rationally and finding a mean between two extremes. If you think assisted suited is good, I can debate you on that for years, simply because that is also a philosophical question.
Again, it's an example / thought experiment, not an actual case you have to consider. Forget what your code is. Forget whether assisted suicide is good. Take your rational analysis and apply it to this: given a utilitarian doctor and that scenario, in what way could he compromise or meet in the middle?

The answer I arrive at is that he can't both satisfy his morality and the rule set; he must either depart from his moral code, or break the rule (or conceivably both). Let me know if you find such a choice that satisfies his morals without disobeying the rule.
 
Again, it's an example / thought experiment, not an actual case you have to consider. Forget what your code is. Forget whether assisted suicide is good. Take your rational analysis and apply it to this: given a utilitarian doctor and that scenario, in what way could he compromise or meet in the middle?

The answer I arrive at is that he can't both satisfy his morality and the rule set; he must either depart from his moral code, or break the rule (or conceivably both). Let me know if you find such a choice that satisfies his morals without disobeying the rule.
At the end of the day I will analyze any problem with a cool rational mind. Ethics are determined by people, we have so many different philosophies on ethics like you mentioned Kant, virtue ethics(mine) etc.... . I will do the right thing but if I am stuck in a dilemma, I will indubitably try to do the thing right
 
There is no response to what I put forth anywhere in your answer as best I can tell. Glad to hear you have so much faith in your ability to solve the problem if you actually had to....

As a side note, you're in quite the minority as a value ethics lover. That, or you just read some Plato/Aristotle but haven't yet gotten to the Kant and Mill. Few people are given the trolly problem and think "what would each choice reflect about my character" rather than "of course save the most people" or "it is always wrong to act such that you cause a death"!
 
I guess it's time to get into my monthly argument with @efle about Kant.

I'm not quite sure what the distinction is in the OPs question. I read it the same way @On Eagle's Wings did but I'd like for the OP to clarify a bit further if they could.

In any case, I believe it's always more important to do the right thing. External factors like the law or other normative forces don't really factor into the way I view morality. I disagree with @ElCapone and believe that falling into moral relativism is more dangerous than acting on the assumption that there are objectively moral actions. However, that is not to say that it is not extremely dangerous that people be inflexible in their views on right and wrong, rather I would say that one must be able to defend their moral view from first principles without having to appeal to normative forces in the way Utilitarianism does. I'm not making statements about the moral validity of Utilitarianism but I am saying that it does not answer the question "is this action right" rather it answers "is this the right thing to do". While most of the time the answer is equivalent, utilitarians like to focus on problems where the distinction is muddled.

Why do I say that moral relativism is more dangerous than moral objectivism? The answer is simple and it lies within Burke's conception of the "moral imagination" that is using both knowledge and values in order to imagine a better state of affairs. The development of a moral imagination on both normative and value terms I believe is another way to formulate the end of being a moral being since it represents the ability of a society (or an individual) to "improve" in the only important sense (morality). It is difficult to apply your knowledge for strictly moral ends if the terms of your morality are in no way consistent or constant and depend entirely on context. It is this kind of thinking that leads to the preservation of the status quo; I.e you can't oppose slavery because they will hang you so there is no point in being an advocate for the end of slavery, etc.
 
I would say that one must be able to defend their moral view from first principles without having to appeal to normative forces in the way Utilitarianism does. I'm not making statements about the moral validity of Utilitarianism but I am saying that it does not answer the question "is this action right" rather it answers "is this the right thing to do". While most of the time the answer is equivalent, utilitarians like to focus on problems where the distinction is muddled.
Bit lost here. Both deontology and utilitarianism are normative. One draws power from the view that there is intrinsic good in absolute respect for rational minds/humanity and the other from the view that there is intrinsic good in health/happiness/well-being. Both are sets of ideas to guide behavior according to those (normative) axiologies. Those are the same questions; the definition of the right action is the action that is the morally correct thing to do. Can you give me an example where there there is muddling and the answers might differ?

We can at least agree that descriptive/relative moral reasoning is no bueno
 
" If you were going to teach this mixed group what the correct way to behave is "

Have you not had any classes that did thought experiments?

Because thought experiments aren't reflective of reality (Eg. How often do you see an out of control railcar at the train station AND have the ability to change its course to kill the fewest amount of people?). I prefer addressing problems that we see everyday rather than philosophers who live in their abstract thought experiments. The latter line of thinking is how eating meat is justified as being worse than getting a DUI -_-


In any case, I believe it's always more important to do the right thing. External factors like the law or other normative forces don't really factor into the way I view morality. I disagree with @ElCapone and believe that falling into moral relativism is more dangerous than acting on the assumption that there are objectively moral actions. However, that is not to say that it is not extremely dangerous that people be inflexible in their views on right and wrong, rather I would say that one must be able to defend their moral view first from principles without having to appeal to normative forces in the way Utilitarianism does.

I'm not making statements about the moral validity of Utilitarianism but I am saying that it does not answer the question "is this action right" rather it answers "is this the right thing to do". While most of the time the answer is equivalent, utilitarians like to focus on problems where the distinction is muddled.

Why do I say that moral relativism is more dangerous than moral objectivism? The answer is simple and it lies within Burke's conception of the "moral imagination" that is using both knowledge and values in order to imagine a better state of affairs. The development of a moral imagination on both normative and value terms I believe is another way to formulate the end of being a moral being since it represents the ability of a society (or an individual) to "improve" in the only important sense (morality). It is difficult to apply your knowledge for strictly moral ends if the terms of your morality are in no way consistent or constant and depend entirely on context. It is this kind of thinking that leads to the preservation of the status quo; I.e you can't oppose slavery because they will hang you so there is no point in being an advocate for the end of slavery, etc.

I think that your argument still bites back into mine. "Deciding what's right" and "acting upon what's right" are two separate things, and your argument perfectly applies on how someone can decide what's right. My argument subsumes yours since I argue that people ought to be skeptical of their moral beliefs and always question them. They should repeatedly examine whether they have chosen the right principles to construct their moral view.

Your last statement however is a non-sequitur. There are other ways to oppose slavery besides pulling off a John Brown (Dumbly raiding Harpery's Ferry and getting hanged in the process). You could mobilize support by arguing that slavery threatens the wages of poor Whites. Or you could provide shelter to fugitive slaves escaping North. As Harvey Spector says, "What are your choices when someone puts a gun to your head? You take the gun, you call their bluff, or you do one of a hundred and sixty four other things".
 
Because thought experiments aren't reflective of reality (Eg. How often do you see an out of control railcar at the train station AND have the ability to change its course to kill the fewest amount of people?). I prefer addressing problems that we see everyday rather than philosophers who live in their abstract thought experiments. The latter line of thinking is how eating meat is justified as being worse than getting a DUI -_-




I think that your argument still bites back into mine. "Deciding what's right" and "acting upon what's right" are two separate things, and your argument perfectly applies on how someone can decide what's right. My argument subsumes yours since I argue that people ought to be skeptical of their moral beliefs and always question them. They should repeatedly examine whether they have chosen the right principles to construct their moral view.

Your last statement however is a non-sequitur. There are other ways to oppose slavery besides pulling off a John Brown (Dumbly raiding Harpery's Ferry and getting hanged in the process). You could mobilize support by arguing that slavery threatens the wages of poor Whites. Or you could provide shelter to fugitive slaves escaping North. As Harvey Spector says, "What are your choices when someone puts a gun to your head? You take the gun, you call their bluff, or you do one of a hundred and sixty four other things".
Reality is messy. Thought experiments exist to simplify things and isolate people's reasoning. This is why they've been a primary tool for advancing philosophy for thousands for years. I suppose I should know better than to expect the "everything must be applicable" engineer to tolerate exercises purely in logic though :p you're the type of person to read the experience machine and write a response paper about how the technology is unrealistic
 
if you find an exception, you should tell a hospital administration and inform them about certain changes that would make delivery of medicine proper. You should never do what is told right to you that you know is wrong. This is why we have people in addition to machines.

If you are like me, you'd probably tire administration with your logical arguments in trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense ethically.
 
upload_2015-7-26_13-19-38.png
 
Top