My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs

by onacruse 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gamaliel

  Craig,

  Just a quick summary in case we have an audience...

  The question I was originally responding to was: "Would we try to make sure that a JW relative in an emergency situation could get blood even though we knew they were against it." Some said yes, some said no; most said yes if it were a minor. I said yes that I would if I could under many conditions, for all of my JW relatives, both minors and adults. I was only speaking for myself, but some of my reasons made it easy to disagree. I think my reasons that got to you the most were:

  I currently don't know anything about future life, spirit, or resurrection, so I couldn't base a decision on that. Any decision I would make has to based on how sure I am that I'm actually saving their life

  and then the infamous:

  My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs, not theirs. Why should I care if my good deeds will be punished or if they will be rewarded?

  Because I admitted to knowing nothing about future life, spirit or resurrection you said my ambivalence should keep me from saving their life against their will. My answer is maybe it should, but I would still do it, right or wrong, moral or immoral, for my own reasons, selfish as they may be. (and without ambivalence, in my opinion.) My own code of ethics cannot be explained or codified for someone else. It's based as I said on a lot of factors including principles I still appreciate from Christianity, my own knowledge, conscience and common sense. I would hope that, at the time, my decision would be based on my faith in the righteousness or morality of whatever was motivating me. For the particular situation in question I said:

  Although I don't believe the Bible is inspired, I believe we can still effectively follow Christian ideas as a guide (except where common sense, pyschology and science supersedes). But in this case, there would be no conflict. Jesus said, "If a sheep falls into the pit, wouldn't you try to save it -even on the Sabbath?" The very fact that Jesus said Christians SHOULD BREAK THE LAW when a life is endangered should have been enough for JWs never to have forbidden transfusions in the first place.

  I didn't want to just repeat the details of the other thread, because we all had our own ways of dealing with the specifics of when we would and wouldn't actually try to "force" something physically against the will of another, or how we would know for sure that we were really talking about a true life-or-death situation.

  You questioned especially the idea that: My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs, not theirs. To that I can only say that this is how it must work practically in any emergency situation. I can't ask them: "By the way, are you wavering a little bit in your faith in the WTS' stance on blood? Or, Did I get called instead of Brother Hospital-Liaison-Elder because you thought there was a slight chance I might allow them to use blood to save your life? I can't ask them if they might thank me some day in the future when 15 years from now the WTS drops the blood issue altogether."

  Also, as I explained in the other thread I was speaking more generally of all emergency situations. The Samaritan doesn't ask about "their beliefs" before giving medical attention to the Jew on the side of the road. The fireman who pulls the woman out of a burning car or house doesn't care that she is screaming for them to let her die with her children inside. We don't choose to save lives of Christians over Muslims in an emergency, do we?

  Most people admitted that they would over-ride the Blood Card of a minor if they could -- or even that of a "wavering" JW adult, as you said you would. Why? Because we haughtily believe we have better knowledge than the minor. As I said before if my motive for helping the child was out of love, and that is the ethic I wish to live by, then why wouldn't I do the same thing (if I could) for an adult relative? I shouldn't have to feel guilty just because I "knew" (had knowledge) that I was right. It may sound haughty, but I know where their belief came from, and I know that among JWs, even the adults, accept the Watchtower beliefs as innocent children. I can't generalize this stance for most any other medical treatment, but for the situation we hypothesized, I hope that I would save them, in spite of legal or personal consequences I may have to face for my faith.

  I know we ended up getting at least this far in the other thread, but here we have a chance, if you wish, to question the morality of our stance(s) in a more general way.

  Gamaliel
• 

  onacruse

  Hi Gamaliel, and thanks for your thoughts Believe me, the issues that were raised on min's thread, and which we are partially carrying over to here, have really got me tossing and turning. If you like, I'll focus on the philosophical dimensions of what you say:

  My own code of ethics cannot be explained or codified for someone else. It's based as I said on a lot of factors including principles I still appreciate from Christianity, my own knowledge, conscience and common sense.

  That being the case, then how can you justify imposing your conscience on another adult? What categorical imperative would support your action?

  It may sound haughty, but I know where their belief came from, and I know that among JWs, even the adults, accept the Watchtower beliefs as innocent children

  And so where, and how, and by what standard, do we somehow objectively decide that "This person is no longer a child in an adult's body? This person has finally met up to my own scale of intelligent decision-making ability? This person has finally started thinking for themselves?"

  I just don't see how you can get from A to B on this, unless you invoke simple selfishness (which, as I said to expat, is not necessarily bad).

  Craig
• 

  Gamaliel

  onacruse,

  how can you justify imposing your conscience on another adult? What categorical imperative would support your action? ;

  I don't justify imposing my conscience alone on another adult. The categorical imperative is the imminent danger to life; the motivation is love -- and what I am imposing is not just conscience, but a combination of knowledge, conscience, and common sense.

  The example might extend to pulling poison out of the hands of a suicidal relative or getting medical attention to a relative who might join a religion that doesn't believe in doctors. It might also extend to taking the keys away from a drunk adult who wishes to drive home from a party. Emergency workers like firemen and policemen and EMTs and ER doctors do the same thing all the time except that many have had to learn for practical reasons to leave their conscience out of it.

  And so where, and how, and by what standard, do we somehow objectively decide that "This person is no longer a child in an adult's body? This person has finally met up to my own scale of intelligent decision-making ability? This person has finally started thinking for themselves?"

  The standard is your own: how sure you are of your belief. "Each man must be convinced within his own mind." In the case of the party drinker with car keys, you might have faith that he can make it home without hurting anyone, you might not. You might ask for an additional opinion, but if you are the one motivated to take action, then it is ultimately your own beliefs, not theirs, and definitely not the beliefs of the person you wish to help. Thinking that we have to have some other Law or Code or Standard to make an objective decision is just part of what Paul said was "immature" thinking (when he was a babe, he used to think as a babe). Needing a "standard" is JW-type thinking, but there is nothing pejorative about JW-thinking. Law is always the stepping stone to developing a conscience. I include JWs attitude toward blood in the category of child-like acceptance of a life-threatening belief because they have consistently proved that they do not use a conscience in this matter. (Religions don't have a conscience; people do.)

  On the same question I know that I am at odds with Paul who agrees that a mature Christian with a "stronger" conscience will gladly eat meat sacrificed to an idol (and therefore eat meat that is potentially bloody or strangled) in direct contradiction to Acts 15 where James and company wanted all Christians to be under at least some Law or Standard. Paul would not think that I should impose my conscience over the weaker Christian, but Paul was not speaking of life and death matters. Of course, in matters of life and death, Paul also spoke from the viewpoint of his knowledge about future life, spirit and resurrection, etc. (I still have to base my knowledge more on the viewpoint of Ecclesiastes.) Paul said:

  But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

  I just don't see how you can get from A to B on this, unless you invoke simple selfishness (which, as I said to expat, is not necessarily bad).

  As long as my motivation was love (for life, for the relative, for their children) then I'm not terribly concerned about how much selfishness was also involved, or how much I will suffer for having "imposed my beliefs" on them.

  Gamaliel
• 

  Brummie

  Totally interesting thread!

  I agree with both you Onac and also with Gamaliel, seems both are right to me, and both of you are very apt in defending your view.

  IMO we could be considered selfish on either stance, if say it was our most beloved relative that needed blood, then we would most likely go to great lengths to keep them alive, even if it means going against thier belief system. Especially if we do not believe in an afterlife and feel this is it for them.

  Yet what if it was elder snot from down the road? Perhaps we could easily assume that "He made his decision, he's an adult, byeeee" lol. A bit extreme, but the point is, our relationship to the person who is on the verge of dying will cause us to go against our own conscience, our own belief system may not be strong enough to let the person die. It may be more pleasurable to let them kick our ass afterwards than to let them die feeling we could have done something.

  Brummie
• 

  onacruse

  Gamaliel:

  If you'll indulge me here, I'll try to work my way through your last post, point-by-point:

  I don't justify imposing my conscience alone on another adult.

  Then you are selfishly acting without justification.

  The categorical imperative is the imminent danger to life;

  There's no universal objective evidence that ameliorating imminent danger to life is a categorical imperative.

  the motivation is love

  Love, as selfishly defined by you.

  and what I am imposing is not just conscience, but a combination of knowledge, conscience, and common sense.

  Again, all as selfishly defined by you.

  The example might extend to pulling poison out of the hands of a suicidal relative

  Even in the case of volitional euthanasia?

  or getting medical attention to a relative who might join a religion that doesn't believe in doctors.

  And who are you to selfishly and arbitrarily say that anyone should or should not believe in doctors? Or, the Pope? Or, the Mormon Prophets? Or, the GB? Or, the President? Or, Jesus Christ? Or, God?

  It might also extend to taking the keys away from a drunk adult who wishes to drive home from a party.

  Yeah, I've been faced with that. He was an adult, I determined to the best of my ability that he was making a deliberate and capable adult decision. His selfish choice was just that...his selfish choice.

  Emergency workers like firemen and policemen and EMTs and ER doctors do the same thing all the time except that many have had to learn for practical reasons to leave their conscience out of it.

  In other words, they act in accord with determined ethical standards of their social profession. They have, thereby, surrendered their own conscience to the dictates of an external authority, which they have themselves, as selfish adults, pre-determined to consider valid.

  The standard is your own: how sure you are of your belief. "Each man must be convinced within his own mind."

  Ok, then again, its purely selfish.

  In the case of the party drinker with car keys, you might have faith that he can make it home without hurting anyone, you might not. You might ask for an additional opinion, but if you are the one motivated to take action, then it is ultimately your own beliefs, not theirs, and definitely not the beliefs of the person you wish to help.

  Then again, admittedly a selfish act on your part.

  Thinking that we have to have some other Law or Code or Standard to make an objective decision is just part of what Paul said was "immature" thinking (when he was a babe, he used to think as a babe).

  Exactly. But if Paul is in fact asserting that we must individually make what is essentially a selfish choice, based on our own moral evaluation (and not in accord with some "law"), then on what basis do we impose our own selfish decisions on others? Simply because we can? perhaps because that other person is temporarily incapacitated? If so, then would you (or I) concur that some other person, acting in accord with their own conscience, is right in forcing their decision on us, even if they knew for a fact that you or I expressly do not concur with their decision?

  Needing a "standard" is JW-type thinking, but there is nothing pejorative about JW-thinking. Law is always the stepping stone to developing a conscience.

  I disagree. Law is the reflection of communal conscience, a codified and socially mandated diplomacy of the individuals' conscience; the legal rights of the many outweigh the conscience of the few, or the one.

  I include JWs attitude toward blood in the category of child-like acceptance of a life-threatening belief because they have consistently proved that they do not use a conscience in this matter. (Religions don't have a conscience; people do.)

  I disagree. Religion is nothing more, and nothing less, than the reflection of a community's collective conscience. Religion incorporates into society via political and legal mechanisms.

  but Paul was not speaking of life and death matters.

  Death comes to us all, so all matters are life-and-death. To selectively classify one action as justified because it's "life-or-death" is to discount the entire body of cultural beliefs held by mankind all through history.

  Of course, in matters of life and death, Paul also spoke from the viewpoint of his knowledge about future life, spirit and resurrection, etc.

  You yourself admit that there is no objective evidence about life after death. Therefore, that too is fundamentally a selfish choice that we can only make individually and personally: either I believe in life after death because I want to, or not. And if I believe in life after death, then I'm entitled to make decisions about my life now before my death.

  But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

  So, then, if you know that a JW would be stumbled by having a blood transfusion, how could you live in the spirit of Paul's statement and force that JW to take blood anyway?

  As long as my motivation was love (for life, for the relative, for their children) then I'm not terribly concerned about how much selfishness was also involved

  And I haven't used the term "selfish" so frequently above in an effort to demean selfishness as a valid motivation. I just don't like having what amounts to nothing more than selfishness paraded around under the wonderfully pretty raiments of "ethical" and "moral." Let's just call a spade a spade.

  or how much I will suffer for having "imposed my beliefs" on them.

  That's one of the consequences of selfish acts performed in a defined community. That one would suffer social sanction for such an act would, I submit, give pause for thought that "Maybe I really don't have the 'right' to do that." Very respectfully, Craig
• 

  SixofNine

  There's no universal objective evidence that ameliorating imminent danger to life is a categorical imperative.

  When you find yourself writing sentences like this, it's time to go have sex with Katie, lol.
• 

  onacruse

  LOL @ Six

  Yeah, I think I've blown a fuse here...LOL

  Craig
• 

  SixofNine

  Putting the word "collective" or "community" in front of the word "concience", sodomizes the word concience. The last person who did such awful things to that word in my presence was a Circuit Overseer named Osbeck, who was trying to convince me I should respect the congregational contempt I was recieving for wearing a neat, well groomed beard.
• 

  SixofNine

  geez, at least you have an outlet, lol
• 

  onacruse

  Six:

  Putting the word "collective" or "community" in front of the word "conscience", sodomizes the word conscience.

  That's a good point. The Greek word for "conscience" is sunoida, meaning "to see together." It is variously translated as "to share in the knowledge of a thing, a present idea, persisting notion, impression of reality" as well as referring to "the inward moral and spiritual frame."

  The idea of a "collective conscience" makes more sense when we consider how Greek culture viewed the relation of the individual to the community. In essence, a person without a community, or in a community but not involved with it, was hardly more than an animal. Participation in, and cooperation with, the polis ("city," and hence our Eng. word "politics") was a cornerstone of that entire culture.

  And, of course, billions of people on this planet today derive their own cultures, directly or indirectly, from that Greek viewpoint.

  This is why I've argued that what is mandated as "law" by the community is what actually constitutes ethical behavior. It's not the individual that matters, insofar as our communal conduct is concerned.

  I know, I know, that sounds really weird, even to me! But pragmatically, it makes sense.

  Craig