The Use of Force - William Carlos Williams
6.18.2007
Though the story seemed to have little in the way of a profound point, it does inspire some questions about the actions of both the doctor and the child. Was the escalation of hostilities due to the fault of the doctor? the child? both of them? or perhaps neither has fault in the situation, insofar as moral responsibility is traditionally attributed to free will?
Determinism shows how people tend to have sympathy for criminals when they learn of all the past causes that necessarily got them into jail, such as childhood abuse, psychological problems, family disputes, etc. until there lies no room for what we would call free will, which in itself is a fancy way of inscribing responsibility into an individual due to ignorance of the prior causes that leads to an individual's actions.
In class, some have reasoned that it was the parents' fault for what we would call a crappy upbringing, and some have reasoned that it was the doctor's fault for being rash and impatient. One could also argue that it was the child's fault, since she presumably has the necessarily faculties to understand conversation and make decisions. If being at fault is defined as being morally responsible due to contra-causal free will, then I would say that no one holds this so-called state of faultness, for I am a determinist. However, if being at fault can be described as a moral error of sorts regardless of responsibility, then I would have to say that all involved would have a hand at the necessitation of the situation assuming that we all have a uniform moral standard, which is vastly improbable. This is still open to more conjecture since this spawns a great many questions, but addressing all of them would simply be too long for this entry.
Edit:
The main point of the story is presumably the use of force, which is presented in a utilitarian perspective. Is the use of force justified when it accomplishes a greater good? I would absolutely think so, insofar as it propagates happiness (not necessarily pleasure) and virtue.
Rationality aside, it did infuriate me when the child just stubbornly refused medical examination on what is presumably a petty basis. I despise kids, if you didn't already know that.
So, there you have it. In the end, the doctor broke his objectivity and can thus be called a hypocrite for the time being, but I think that hypocrisy does not in any way detract from the value of one's arguments and/or actions, assuming that the latter accomplished a greater good. A "so what?" would be a sufficient reply to such an accusation.
I for one approve of the use of force.
6.18.2007
Though the story seemed to have little in the way of a profound point, it does inspire some questions about the actions of both the doctor and the child. Was the escalation of hostilities due to the fault of the doctor? the child? both of them? or perhaps neither has fault in the situation, insofar as moral responsibility is traditionally attributed to free will?
Determinism shows how people tend to have sympathy for criminals when they learn of all the past causes that necessarily got them into jail, such as childhood abuse, psychological problems, family disputes, etc. until there lies no room for what we would call free will, which in itself is a fancy way of inscribing responsibility into an individual due to ignorance of the prior causes that leads to an individual's actions.
In class, some have reasoned that it was the parents' fault for what we would call a crappy upbringing, and some have reasoned that it was the doctor's fault for being rash and impatient. One could also argue that it was the child's fault, since she presumably has the necessarily faculties to understand conversation and make decisions. If being at fault is defined as being morally responsible due to contra-causal free will, then I would say that no one holds this so-called state of faultness, for I am a determinist. However, if being at fault can be described as a moral error of sorts regardless of responsibility, then I would have to say that all involved would have a hand at the necessitation of the situation assuming that we all have a uniform moral standard, which is vastly improbable. This is still open to more conjecture since this spawns a great many questions, but addressing all of them would simply be too long for this entry.
Edit:
The main point of the story is presumably the use of force, which is presented in a utilitarian perspective. Is the use of force justified when it accomplishes a greater good? I would absolutely think so, insofar as it propagates happiness (not necessarily pleasure) and virtue.
Rationality aside, it did infuriate me when the child just stubbornly refused medical examination on what is presumably a petty basis. I despise kids, if you didn't already know that.
So, there you have it. In the end, the doctor broke his objectivity and can thus be called a hypocrite for the time being, but I think that hypocrisy does not in any way detract from the value of one's arguments and/or actions, assuming that the latter accomplished a greater good. A "so what?" would be a sufficient reply to such an accusation.
I for one approve of the use of force.
No comments:
Post a Comment