"You cannot have a greater ideal with the smaller ones being compromised." Helping more people surely must be ethical, right? That goal being gaining more resources to help those who would actually benefit from their help, instead of tying them up for people who have no practical use for the resources or ever will. While it may not appear ethical at first sight (that's why they don't call it 'manipulating' when it so clearly is), it serves a greater goal. Though you might think 'surely when a person makes a decision that's it, surely a decision is a decision', but that is only true if it is the decision the doctors want, otherwise it is only a temporary setback. And not just in the case of pulling the plug on braindead patients or harv. Sure, belief in the medical system is a huge part of getting better, but often patients (and/or their relatives) are put in front of a choice where there is only a single accepted answer.
Even if the people do not accept that as the truth. convincing people that what doctors deem to be best thing to do is actually factually the best possible thing to do. But that is not to say ethical problems are smaller in real life. Then again, would a 'good' man kill millions of beings for doing what they believe in just because he fancies it?īut of course fiction is riddled with ethical dilemmas, it is what makes it so addictive and educative. If he chose not to, his planet would still have died.
TOLERATE A WORLD OF DEMONS FOR THE SAKE OF AN ANGEL FULL
It was whether or not to use a planet full of life as bait to lure yet another civilization to near extinction. Now we know the choice was not whether to save a few and sacrifice the many or to save many and sacrifice the few. We were told that was the choice he had to make, yet it is not the choice that was described afterwards. On a personal scale, it is trading all he knows, everyone like him, his home, his life, for people he knows nothing about. On a mathematical scale it is no choice at all, one life for billions. Just look at the Doctor: there is a man with a choice, either let a single planet of his own kind perish or spell doom for the whole Universe. Situations that befall us are rarely so black and white. Now that is a difficult guideline to follow. If Eudaimonia, or happiness, is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence and this will be that of the best thing in us." - Aristotle "The happy life is thought to be one of excellence now an excellent life requires exertion, and does not consist in amusement. In essence, he/she will choose the action presenting in the least harm coming to the fewest people. For instance, a 'good' person would not willingly betray someone's trust if there is an option not to and not cause a more negative effect by the act of non-betrayal. While it is difficult to define 'good' actions, some generalizations can be made. After all, it is the actions that we can observe, so far we have not been able to peek into the soul of a person. But the most objective way of determining whether a person is 'good' or not is by observing the actions. Sometimes due to peer pressure, sometimes due to necessity, sometimes because they really are pricks. People who don't act as good as they are, for one reason or other. There are plenty of people who don't appear to be very noble or 'good', but are told to have hearts of gold. What is a good person like, how would he/she act?
Now that we've assessed what a good leader is like, time to go wider.
0 kommentar(er)
