How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik »

-1- wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:57 am Mark my words well, Logik: I said, "harm can't be avoided". You read something into this, and kept on fighting some quixotic battle against an argument I did not make, but you imagined I had made.
These are your words:
You can't avoid doing harm. That's the basic bottom line and bottom hitter of "DO NO HARM".
The fine-print you left out is that you can't avoid doing harm in the particular HYPOTHETICAL scenario you CONTRIVED.
and used that as a counter-argument to the generality of the principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Further, you are still trying to interpret it from a deontological perspective.

The principle doesn't tell us what to DO in the precise sense of the DOING.
The principle tells us how to evaluate our options in the general sense of decision-making.

It's not prescriptive in action - it's prescriptive in choice.

Given three choices available: A,B and C resulting in 6, 3 and 16 harm respectively.
The moral choice in that particular situation is B. Because 3 < 6 < 16.

If you want to be pedantic. The absolute ideal is "no harm", but in practice it's more like "least harm".

But to insist that unless the principle can be strictly adhered to, else throw it away - that's an absolutist way of thinking.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof »

I agree with what Logik wrote in the last post with respect to doing the least harm possible; but want to emphasize that there is a lot more to Ethics - the useful body of knowledge and the discipline of research and implementation - than that one derived maxim: Do no harm.

As you can learn from the booklet, The Structure of Ethics, another maxim is: Make things better. Another is "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Etc. Then there are the 17 Moral Principles..... the guidelines for living a smooth life, a good life.
Age
Posts: 5024
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age »

prof wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:34 am I agree with what Logik wrote in the last post with respect to doing the least harm possible; but want to emphasize that there is a lot more to Ethics - the useful body of knowledge and the discipline of research and implementation - than that one derived maxim: Do no harm.

As you can learn from the booklet, The Structure of Ethics, another maxim is: Make things better. Another is "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Etc. Then there are the 17 Moral Principles..... the guidelines for living a smooth life, a good life.
But sometimes one has to do harm in order to fix or heal some things. Like, for example, cut open a body or break an arm to fix or heal it and make it better.

However, Do not abuse any thing, works all the time.

Making Life better for EVERYONE works on just the one lore and principle - Do not abuse any thing. How to make sense, of this really simple ethical construct, is to just understand what the purpose of a thing is first. Once that is known, then knowing how to not abuse is understood better, and from that understanding then the reason of why is revealed. From understanding WHY abuse continues to happen, then prevention can begin and from prevention things become much better, naturally.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof »

Wiki informs us that:
the "Silver Rule" as it is sometimes called: 'don't do to others what you don’t want them to do to you', appears in several works of Greek philosophy and also in earlier Jewish writings. It also appears in other traditions such as Buddhism and Confucianism.


I devote a whole chapter to this and to other ways to phrase it in the book I wrote earlier entitled How to live successfully. It's a book on many aspects of Ethics that I do not mention in my latest work on the logical structure pf ethical theory, a link to which was offered in the first post of this thread. If you have a Kindle, you may ant to read the earlier book, A LINK TO WHICH IS HERE:

https://www.amazon.com/HOW-LIVE-SUCCESS ... =1-1-fkmr0

See especially the chapter, "A rule that is Golden."
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof »

In my book and other writings I offer a clear and relatively-simple (in a good sense of "simple,") system of Ethics. It deals with the what and the how]. It may be immediately taught by educators and parents all over the planet. In that sense it is universal. It is inter-subjective; in that sense it is "objective." It is subjective and objective - both at once.

Those who are rigid in their mindset, as well as those who think in terms of black-or-white won't like it, for it is highly-tentative and is relative (in many ways.)

Readers: How about the rest of you? :?:
Do you have any views on the topics? :?: :?:
What did you think of the humble conclusions in the book :?: :?:
{They are described as "humble" because they are highly tentative and subject to revision and update as better ideas come along. In the next edition of the paper some of Logik's concepts may be included. I know he's in Canada, but I can't give him the credit since I don't know his real name.}
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof »

Age wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:48 am
prof wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:34 am I agree with doing the least harm possible; but want to emphasize that there is a lot more to Ethics - the useful body of knowledge and the discipline of research and implementation - than that one derived maxim: Do no harm.

As you can learn from the booklet, The Structure of Ethics, another maxim is: Make things better. Another is "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Etc. Then there are the 17 Moral Principles..... the guidelines for living a smooth life, a good life.
But sometimes one has to do harm in order to fix or heal some things. Like, for example, cut open a body or break an arm to fix or heal it and make it better.

Yes, but this is an exceptional case. It is still wise to do the least harm possible.
Age wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:48 amMaking Life better for EVERYONE works on just the one lore and principle - Do not abuse any thing. How to make sense, of this really simple ethical construct, is to just understand what the purpose of a thing is first.
What is your purpose, Age ?

Insights in the book teach us that when you make life better for anyone, you do make life better for the species of humans. We are all connected in that we are components of the same ecosystem, namely, the planet Earth.

Besides, we are all cousins - if you trace your heritage back far enough. We are kin. We are all family.

"Do not abuse anything is a concept that can be derived from "Do no harm."


If you, or anyone here, has read the book, either raise your hand - or let us know that you did read it in a post you write.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik »

prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:48 am But sometimes one has to do harm in order to fix or heal some things. Like, for example, cut open a body or break an arm to fix or heal it and make it better.

Yes, but this is an exceptional case. It is still wise to do the least harm possible.
Nothing exceptional to it. It's still a trolley problem.

Age makes the exact same error as -1-. He burdens himself with the agency of doing something, but ignores the consequences of doing nothing.
It's a psychological shortcoming geared towards minimising guilt by avoiding responsibility.

The problem goes away when you have a duty to minimise harm.

Prevention is better than cure, but amputation is better than death.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof »

Logik wrote:
Nothing exceptional to it. It's still a trolley problem.

Speaking of “The Trolley Problem,” on p. 24 of Katz – Basic Ethics - see http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz - this passage is found:

It is an empirical fact that people tend to hold any single one of their close relatives as more valuable than multiple strangers, when they were told to choose who to rescue in the Trolley Dilemma: “Assume your girlfriend, your daughter, or your granddaughter is tied to track in the train's path. And, say, if 5, 7, 11, or 15, or more people were tied to the other (sideline) track. A train is approaching rapidly. You hold the switch in your hands. You are asked who you will likely rescue: her or them.”The vast majority elect to rescue her. They regard her as highly precious. The social scientist, or the poll-taker, will ask them if there is an upper limit on the number of strangers on the sideline track that would be sacrificed. They can't name one. If this girl's preciousness has no upper limit, we say that the number is indefinitely high. It is, so to speak, a (practical) infinity. If one individual can be that precious, then - from the perspective of theirgrandfather, or parent - why not the next? And the next? Why not you, or I?

To the moral philosopher, why not anyone alive? This is theory, yet it has applications to actual life. Due to social networking, and the ease of travel, and for other reasons, it is becoming true that, in a sense, these days, there are no strangers. Here are some 'universal' principles for normal people all over the planet. They apply to every civilized individual: Know Yourself. Choose (to be) Yourself. Create (the talents and potentials within) Yourself. Give Yourself; (express your gifts, so as to: Minimizes suffering. Maximize well-being and Quality of life (for all you can)). And thereby create value.



Your views on these topics are most welcome!
Age
Posts: 5024
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age »

prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:48 am
prof wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:34 am I agree with doing the least harm possible; but want to emphasize that there is a lot more to Ethics - the useful body of knowledge and the discipline of research and implementation - than that one derived maxim: Do no harm.

As you can learn from the booklet, The Structure of Ethics, another maxim is: Make things better. Another is "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Etc. Then there are the 17 Moral Principles..... the guidelines for living a smooth life, a good life.
But sometimes one has to do harm in order to fix or heal some things. Like, for example, cut open a body or break an arm to fix or heal it and make it better.
Yes, but this is an exceptional case.
What will be found is this doing harm in order to fix or heal things is NOT an exceptional case at all.
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 amIt is still wise to do the least harm possible.
The very REASON WHY ALL adult human beings continue to keep doing harm to each other, without even thinking they are, is because they have their own belief and "justification" system, which very easily comes from sayings like "Do the least harm possible". The human brain is very good, to itself anyway, of reasoning out and "justifying" its own wrong doing. The human brain is so good at this that it can at times not even recognize when it is causing harm to other people. For example, WHY do you continue to keep harming those completely indefensible and absolutely innocent children?

You say, do the least harm possible but here you are as an adult doing the worst harm that could possibly be done. Why?
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:48 amMaking Life better for EVERYONE works on just the one lore and principle - Do not abuse any thing. How to make sense, of this really simple ethical construct, is to just understand what the purpose of a thing is first.
What is your purpose, Age ?
You would have define who/what 'age' is first, before I could give you the accurate answer for that.
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 amInsights in the book teach us that when you make life better for anyone, you do make life better for the species of humans. We are all connected in that we are components of the same ecosystem, namely, the planet Earth.
Were these obvious FACT not already KNOWN, by everyone?
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 amBesides, we are all cousins - if you trace your heritage back far enough. We are kin. We are all family.
ALL human beings are aboriginals is a very true fact. But is that not already KNOWN?
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 am"Do not abuse anything is a concept that can be derived from "Do no harm."
It can be. BUT, it was not.

I find "Do no harm" flawed for the very reasons given that harm has to be done some times in order to fix or heal.
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 amIf you, or anyone here, has read the book, either raise your hand - or let us know that you did read it in a post you write.[/color]
If i were to decide to raise a hand, instead of letting you know in a post i write, then how will you know i did that?

(By the way I changed your post by quoting it correctly.)
Age
Posts: 5024
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:00 am
prof wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:46 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:48 am But sometimes one has to do harm in order to fix or heal some things. Like, for example, cut open a body or break an arm to fix or heal it and make it better.

Yes, but this is an exceptional case. It is still wise to do the least harm possible.
Nothing exceptional to it. It's still a trolley problem.

Age makes the exact same error as -1-. He burdens himself with the agency of doing something, but ignores the consequences of doing nothing.
As usual, logik, you could not have got that MORE WRONG even if you tried to. There is NO "trolley problem".
Logik wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:00 amIt's a psychological shortcoming geared towards minimising guilt by avoiding responsibility.
This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have actually said.
Logik wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:00 amThe problem goes away when you have a duty to minimise harm.

Prevention is better than cure, but amputation is better than death.
I am the one who is saying that harm has to be done. In order to fix or heal some things some times harm has to be done.

By the way nothing I have said has any thing at all to do with the so called "trolley problem". Besides the fact that there is no problem at all here, all of these hypotheticals do not have much at all to do with reality anyway. To me there are just way to many variables to be looked at in those hypotheticals for them to be of any use to any one.

You really do need to start reading the actual words that I write BEFORE making these WRONG assumptions and conclusions that continually keep making.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:40 pm I am the one who is saying that harm has to be done. In order to fix or heal some things some times harm has to be done.
Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Do you think amputating a gangrenous leg is 'harm'?
Do you think NOT amputating a gangrenous leg is 'harm'?

Which of the above two CHOICES is worse?
If you amputate the leg the person lives.
If you don't amputate the leg the person dies.

So your choice is LITERALLY life or death. But your tiny brain is too focused on the act of amputation. Which is precisely what I meant by saying you are burdening yourself with the agency of your choice.

Harm is an outcome, not an action. You haven't made your way to consequentialism yet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism ).
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:40 pm By the way nothing I have said has any thing at all to do with the so called "trolley problem". Besides the fact that there is no problem at all here, all of these hypotheticals do not have much at all to do with reality anyway. To me there are just way to many variables to be looked at in those hypotheticals for them to be of any use to any one.

You really do need to start reading the actual words that I write BEFORE making these WRONG assumptions and conclusions that continually keep making.
It has everything to do with trolley problems.

Since there are 'too many variables' to look at I am going to reduce it down to one yes/no variable for you.

Do you amputate a gangrenous leg or not?

Stop worrying about the definition of 'harm' and pay attention to the consequences of your actions OR inactions.
Age
Posts: 5024
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:47 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:40 pm I am the one who is saying that harm has to be done. In order to fix or heal some things some times harm has to be done.
Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Do you think amputating a gangrenous leg is 'harm'?
Do you NOT amputating a gangrenous leg is 'harm'?

Which of the above two CHOICES is worse?
I am NOT talking about "worse". 'Harm', to me, is NOT about "worse" or "better".
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:47 pmIf you amputate the leg the person lives.
If you don't amputate the leg the person dies.

So your choice is LITERALLY life or death. But your tiny brain is too focused on the act of amputation.
I was NOT focused on the act of amputation. YOU ARE.

You are so far off track, AGAIN.

And, it is NOT my choice at all. You are the only one here thinking and talking about things like this, so you make the DECISION.

Also, I am NOT sure how it could LITERALLY be life or death, when it is only a hypothetical.
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:47 pm Which is precisely what I mean by taking the burden on yourself'.
Just remember that is what YOU mean. But is that what everyone else MEANS?

Remember if I was talking to you about what YOU wrote, then I would be talking about what you mean. But considering I was NOT talking to YOU about that, then I do NOT really care what you are talking about.

What you are talking about, by the way, has been talked about for centuries, with NO progress I might add.
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:47 pmHarm is an outcome, not an action.
That is what you are talking about. I was NOT. I was NOT talking to you. You just jumped into what I said to some one else and presumed you knew what I was talking about.
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:47 pmYou haven't made your way to consequentialism yet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism ).
You have NOT made your way to answer my simple little clarifying question I asked you before, but yet you have made your way to ASSUME that I was meaning some thing that I WAS NOT, and you have NEVER even made your way to considering to just ask me what I was meaning BEFORE replying and talking ABOUT ME in the way that you have here in this thread.

You used a reply some one else to infer that I have made an error, which is based solely upon an ASSUMPTION made up solely by YOU. That ASSUMPTION, which you made up by yourself, is TOTALLY WRONG by the way, if you are still UNAWARE.

It does NOT help you to ASSUME that the way you use words is the exact same way that others are using the same words. You will inevitable become unstuck, which can be witnessed many times with your discussions with, and about, me.
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:47 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:40 pm By the way nothing I have said has any thing at all to do with the so called "trolley problem". Besides the fact that there is no problem at all here, all of these hypotheticals do not have much at all to do with reality anyway. To me there are just way to many variables to be looked at in those hypotheticals for them to be of any use to any one.

You really do need to start reading the actual words that I write BEFORE making these WRONG assumptions and conclusions that continually keep making.
It has everything to do with trolley problems.

Do you amputate a gangrenous leg or not?
It all depends. Tell me ALL of the situation and I can give you an answer. But anyway, THIS has NOTHING to do with what I have been talking about when I use the word 'harm', which by the way you have NEVER clarified from what perspective I am coming from.

You have, once again, just made up your OWN assumption, jumped to your OWN conclusion, and just BELIEVED your OWN story, which you have made up all alone, and then continued on down that lonesome track.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm I am NOT talking about "worse". 'Harm', to me, is NOT about "worse" or "better".
Then you are wrong. In this universe 'harm' is a judgment call.

You subscribe to deontological ethics in a universe where consequences matter.
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm Also, I am NOT sure how it could LITERALLY be life or death, when it is only a hypothetical.
It's only hypothetical to you. Doctors make this decision hundreds of times a day.
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm It all depends. Tell me ALL of the situation and I can give you an answer.
How about no. Put yourself in the shoes of a doctor who has to make this decision 10 times a week without having ALL the details.

Then tell me a situation in which you WOULDN'T cut off a gangrenous leg. I imagine it's a much shorter list.
Age
Posts: 5024
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age »

Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm I am NOT talking about "worse". 'Harm', to me, is NOT about "worse" or "better".
Then you are wrong.
So, are you TRYING TO suggest that you KNOW what the right and wrong definitions and meanings are for ALL words, for everyone?

If so, then this would contradict your other view that you use your OWN language, with your OWN definitions and meanings for words.

However, if you are not trying to suggest that, then what are you trying to suggest by stating that I am wrong?

Also, TRY explaining how I could even be wrong in regards to what I am talking about. By definition I can NOT be wrong. The only one that can be wrong is YOU because only I can accurately KNOW what I am talking about.

If I am NOT talking about some thing, then, by definition, I am NOT talking about it. Therefore, how could even be even remotely wrong?
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pmIn this universe 'harm' is a judgment call.


Not that I really care but if that is what it means to you, then so what?

Do you really believe that what things mean to you MUST therefore also mean the exact same for EVERYONE on a universal scale?

Also, when you write "this universe" are you implying/inferring that there is more than one Universe or are you just TRYING TO show that you KNOW things universally and thus can speak for this also?
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pmYou subscribe to deontological ethics in a universe where consequences matter.
Are you SURE of this?

If I do NOT tell you, then how do you KNOW what I subscribe or not subscribe to?

Do you really KNOW or are you just ASSUMING you know?
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm Also, I am NOT sure how it could LITERALLY be life or death, when it is only a hypothetical.
It's only hypothetical to you. Doctors make this decision hundreds of times a day.
So what?

You were pointing out that it was MY choice and asking ME what I would do. So. I was pointing out to YOU that YOUR use of the LITERAL word here was WRONG.
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm It all depends. Tell me ALL of the situation and I can give you an answer.
How about no.
So just as I pointed out without not knowing all the variables it is a complete waste of time, as evidenced and witnessed here.

Put yourself in the shoes of a doctor who has to make this decision 10 times a week without having ALL the details.

Why would I do a completely unnecessary thing like this?

By the way where did you get the figure of 10 from? Did your statement here come from any thing factual or was this just another made up story or assumption of yours?
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pmThen tell me a situation in which you WOULDN'T cut off a gangrenous leg. I imagine it's a much shorter list.
I would suggest it is a much shorter list also, but that does NOT matter at all because A LIST still exists.

Expecting me to to make a list, especially after you flatly refuse to better define your OWN hypothetical situation with a list of variables seems somewhat unreasonable here.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik »

Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am
Logik wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:24 pm
Age wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm I am NOT talking about "worse". 'Harm', to me, is NOT about "worse" or "better".
Then you are wrong.
So, are you TRYING TO suggest that you KNOW what the right and wrong definitions and meanings are for ALL words, for everyone?
I am trying to suggest that ethics is not about the right definition of words. It's about the right decision and course of action.
Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am If so, then this would contradict your other view that you use your OWN language, with your OWN definitions and meanings for words.
You are being small-minded. Contradictions in language does not result in harm. Indecision does.

Would you amputate a gangrenous leg? Yes or no.

Choosing not to choose is the same as choosing "No".

Therefore not-choosing is harmful.
Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am However, if you are not trying to suggest that, then what are you trying to suggest by stating that I am wrong?

Also, TRY explaining how I could even be wrong in regards to what I am talking about. By definition I can NOT be wrong. The only one that can be wrong is YOU because only I can accurately KNOW what I am talking about.
Would you amputate a gangrenous leg? Yes or no.

Choosing not to choose is the same as choosing "No".

Therefore not-choosing is harmful.
Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am If I am NOT talking about some thing, then, by definition, I am NOT talking about it. Therefore, how could even be even remotely wrong?
Would you amputate a gangrenous leg? Yes or no.

Choosing not to choose is the same as choosing "No".

Therefore not-choosing is harmful.

Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am Not that I really care but if that is what it means to you, then so what?
That is what it means to us - society. If you don't like it exit the conversation.
I am not here to convince you - I am here to tell you how it is in the real world. Or force the definition down your throat.

By force if necessary. We are so certain on the meaning that we even made sure we put it in our laws so we literally imprison doctors for negligence that leads to a patient's death.
Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am Do you really believe that what things mean to you MUST therefore also mean the exact same for EVERYONE on a universal scale?
I am not here to tell you what words mean.
Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am Why would I do a completely unnecessary thing like this?
Because that's how trolley problems work. And if the patient dies due to your dereliction of duty - we will throw you in prison.
Age wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:05 am Expecting me to to make a list, especially after you flatly refuse to better define your OWN hypothetical situation with a list of variables seems somewhat unreasonable here.
Then don't make a list, and make a decision. The clock is ticking. The universe is never reasonable. This is all the information you have! Make a fucking choice!

Would you amputate a gangrenous leg? Yes or no.

Choosing not to choose is the same as choosing "No".
Post Reply