Hi guys,
I am really new to this. I honestly am very confused by my pl222 class ethics that I am currently in. I already completed my paper, yet I was curious to know what you guys think about this topic, let me throw it at you:
Say you are a EMT working one night when you get a call that dispatches you to a car in a body of water. Upon arriving you are able to do a mini autopsy that allows you to know that the man stuggled to live as water filled his lungs as his car went off a bridge and into the water. His wife comes up to you asking “did he struggle to live or did he die upon impact?” What would a Kantian say to this woman? Support your answer with reasons.
I decided based on the formula of Humanity that I would lie to her. Ends/means, all taht stuff. I find that composing a maxim would be difficult for this because every single maxim people in my class came up with, my professor shot down. What is your view on this subject, would a “kantian” lie or be truthful? THANKS!
i serously already wrote my paper, please don;t think i am tryin to get opinions that i could stuff into my paper and call my own, everything i did is already done thankS
A true kantian would firstly think like this: “For pure reason, practical in itself, is unmediately legislative in this case. Will is perceived as independent of any empirical constrictions, ergo as pure will, determined solely by the form of law and this determinative principle is considered as supreme condition for all maxims.”
Then he’d take a correct stance and say to the woman: “The impact proved decisive and the apodictical certainty of his death is unquestionable.”
I think Kant would tell the truth. His ethics is deontological, means based, and universal from duty, not consequentialist. He would not consider ends, like the impact of the news on the wife. He would determine that, as a universal law, people ought not lie. Kant would not lie to save Anne Frank. His ethics is not situational.
I am an EMT, and I’ve dealt with situations similar to this. I can tell you that honesty and sensitivity are the two best approaches.
I think there is a possible response within the Kantian perspective:
Tell her the truth. Although she suffers by hearing it, she is better off in the long run knowing how her husband died. She’d probably figure it out and question what you said anyways. I reckon its better to have her know the truth right from the start and begin healing from that rather than finding out later that you lied.
In the real situation, where we can’t do “mini-autopsies” the way I would answer this question would be something like:
“I honestly don’t know whether or not he died immediately, but I hope, just as you do that he didn’t suffer. I wish this hadn’t happened.”
Its sounds cheesy, I know, but these sort of things sometimes need to be said, and you’d be amazed at how saying that you think it sucks too can be a big comfort.
I don’t know what an EMT is, but I can only assume that it’s something in the medical branch of immediate intervention.
Regarding such eerie confrontations between humanity and medicine, I can recall something from Leon Daudet’s memories about the professor Potain, whose pupil he had been.
During visiting hours, Potain had come in ward where a man who’d suffered a toracic surgery was lying. Some time when the doctor was in the ward, a strong hemoragy occurred with this man, with blood spilling out the mouth, nose, and through the chest bandages. Terrified, the patient rose on top of his bones. Potain realised that there was nothing he could do medically, so he went up to the patient and clutched him in his arms and held him tight until it was clear that the poor old man had pased away.
Medics, students, nurses in the ward gathered around the incongruent pair and gaped at Potain firmly holding the wretched patient and how his white doctor’s coat covered in blood.
I don’t think that’s kantian in strict terms, though…
EMT is emergency medical technician, aka paramedic.
Sometimes the most you can do is provide some dignity and comfort.
Also, the original question is a bit ridiculous, not the poster but the prof. Kant is very clear about lying, so, if you’re a Kantian, you don’t lie, period.
That’s only one of the reasons that I don’t really like Kant.
Yes, thanks gem. I believe my prof. was a little…out there for even asking this of us. It is very hard because on ONE hand, he says NO MATTER WHAT, KANTIANS DON’T LIE. blah blah blah!! then he says, that as long as we defend ourselves with reason, then we could talk about lying to them as long as we have concrete stands against telling the truth.
I will probably get a freakin C on my paper, because I said the emt would lie. Yet in the same perspective I really hope that he sees where I was comming from by using the formula of humanity/veil of ignorance. Oh WHATEVER. I am so fed up!!! Glad this class is over.
anybody else have an opinion on this matter?-desiree’