I'll try again and be very blunt this time.
- If we look at the Trolley Problem we'll see that it is highly artificial and we might assume that this artificiality was intended on Foot's part. after all, it's only a casually tossed off example.
- But if we look at another example, we find that it too is equally implausible even though, in this case, it is painfully obvious that Foot intends this to be a realistic example.
A man may murder his child or his aged relatives by allowing them to die of starvation as by giving poison; he may also be convicted of murder on either account. In another case we would, however, make a distinction. Most of us allow people to die of starvation in India and Africa, and there is surely something wrong with us that we do; it would be nonsense, however, to pretend that it is only in law that we make the distinction between allowing people in the under developed countries to die of starvation and sending them poisoned food.Let me repeat the relevant bit again. Foot says, and means it when she says this,"Most of us allow people to die of starvation in India and Africa, and there is surely something wrong with us that we do." That is so detached from reality that it cannot be taken seriously and yet she had no trouble writing it and believing it.
Ok, now I understand. Her argument is ridiculous, now I know why she wasn't taught in any of the Ethics classes I took, she's a hack! Or was a hack! I Googled her and Judith what's her name's name came up too. Unless I misunderstood, her story about the Violinist is equally ridiculous. These people are Aristotle wannabees, and 2nd rate at that! Thank you for clarifying.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean that. Lots of very smart people take this stuff very seriously.
ReplyDeleteMy point is about the arguments and not the person.
It's worth remembering, by the way, that Foot didn't think the Trolley problem was that important. It's just an example she tosses off. The people who've made it famous since then are the generations of applied ethicists and applied medical ethicists and values clarification gurus. If there are any hacks in the euqation, they are the ones.
ReplyDelete(Just to be clear, I don't mean to include all applied ethics people here. There has been some very good work here by people such as Margaret Somerville.)
I don't want to get into a discussion of Foot or Judith, I haven't read either of them to be able to comment intelligently, and I'm in way over my head here. However, from what I have read,and with my background, as I see it, in their attempts to bring clarity to some of these weighty moral questions, they in fact did the opposite by creating situations that are so implausible or introducing extraneous factors that obfuscate what the real issues are. Example: the guy was kidnapped, hooked up to the Violinist without giving his informed consent. End of moral argument, call 9-1-1 and have the music lovers arrested. Judith should have known that all of the research that Hitler's scientists did on human subjects was invalidated and banned from being used because the subjects had not given their informed consent because they weren't allowed to. That's why I can't give the violinist story any credibility because its very premise is the most flagrant violation of a cardinal principle--maybe THE cardinal principle--of Medical Ethics. Its the work of a hack.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, this whole thread started with your criticism of this type of story as a legitimate pedagogical tool, based on the flaws of the Trolley Problem. I still maintain that the right story--like the Lifeboat which is simple and straigtforward, and not all that implausible--can be a useful tool to introduce students to and get them to start thinking about some of the issues in Medical Ethics.