What Sandel is trying to achieve in his analysis of the “elderly mother-nursing home case.” What is more important: respect or compassion?
Described case in a hospital is bringing the reader in a situation of ethical dilemma. I regard this situation as a very critical and emotionally hard. Probably this is why Sandel is using it, in order not to simplify the choice and make people understand that sometimes life can demand difficult decisions. Two beloved and close to a person people: mother and brother. It is clear that after losing a brother person will try to prevent probable complications with mother’s health and will hesitate either to tell the truth or not. Kant is regarding this situation as unquestionable, because he believes that person should tell the news. I agree that lying would have been disrespectful for mother’s rational being . It is unfair and should be regarded as a fraud.
On the other hand it is understandable that the state of mother’s health is not stable and can get worse. However, there is no guarantee that telling her this news later would not provoke the same reaction. Moreover, there is no even a chance to postpone it because in described situation she has already asked the question. I suggest that telling the truth is the only morally permissive option. We can imagine the following situation: the truth has been hidden and was revealed some time later. I believe that the reaction of mother would be negative. Firstly, she is a mother and she has a right to know the state of her child. Secondly, this lie is not only a false statement from a random person. When a lie comes from a member of the family it feels like a betrayal. From the point of view of a person who is in this dilemma, not telling the truth can also be a reason for the pangs of conscience. He or she in this case are not only dishonest with their mother, but with themselves personally as well.
The difference between the views of Kant and Constant on the “would be murderer” case. Which position is a right one?
Kantian position defends the necessity to always tell the truth, not regarding the consequences . In my opinion it is a radical and somehow dangerous behavior. Moreover, Kant applies to the concept of morality and honesty. However, we all know that not all the people are like that. So, I believe, that when we are using Kant’s philosophy, we are asking first of all ourselves: are we leading that honest life?
Constant, on the other hand, claims that the truth should be spoken out only for a person who deserves it . This position is about asking whereas other people deserve to know something or not? As we can see, both approaches are subjective in judgments. The difference is whom they are questioning: the actor who is in charge of saying or the recipient of information.
In order to solve this dilemma I believe that person needs to choose the side he or she is more comfortable with. I believe that Constant’s position is more daring because we are about to judge other people. On the contrary, if we are speaking about the case with the murder, this situation is once again a very complicated one. In my opinion under such conditions questions of morality are not on the first place, because this is a life threat. This is why I believe that Constant’s approach is more reasonable here, because there is less of subjective judgment. The murderer is usually a character which acts in dishonest way and in my opinion do not deserve the truth.
Sandel’s account of Bill Clinton’s position in the Monica Lewinsky case. Did President Clinton lie to the American people?
In the case of President Clinton we are looking on how our words are affecting our morality. Sandel states that there is a difference in between of completely false information and misleading truth . The main point here is what the main intensions are. I believe that in the scandal with Monica Lewinsky there was no goal to fool the society. However, there is this thick line of the word game. The script of the conversation shows that Clinton was using the concept of sexual relations as it is described in a dictionary. This is why for example for him it stands for saying the truth and not lying. However, I believe that this truth was misleading. Different people are having their personal opinions on the definition of sexual relationships and I regard this as quite personal. We can analyze here synonyms and similar words with the same root. For example, mentioned oral sex also has a meaning of sex, so why it cannot be regarded is a sexual relation? I believe that this is a complicated case and it can be interpreted from different sides.
Another thing is this actual word game which can be played in different ways. The exact question requires the exact answer and in this case Bill Clinton has won. On the other hand if we return to these personal interpretations we can see that probably for some people it was not true. In my opinion this case should be as well considered according to our personal perceptions and questioning. Relying only on description of a dictionary is leaving us with a limited choice for interpretation. There is also no guarantee that this option is the fairest one.
There is a big difference between a “lie” and a “misleading truth” because first of all, we are still speaking about real information and the false one. This difference is not questionable and quite clear. From the moral point of view, Sandel believes that there is a difference in motives of saying, more precisely, in their quantity. For example, in case with lying to a murderer it is obvious that the main motive is to rescue a friend in both cases. The difference is that when telling the misleading truth it is morally right and permissive according to Kant’s philosophy.
In my personal opinion, it is hard to predict people’s reaction in critical situations. I agree that misleading truth is morally more permissible than a bold lie. However, I regard this from two sides. The point for telling the misleading truth is that when people are saying truth there are also some inner changes. Telling the truth gives a person moral support and confidence. It can save not only friend’s life but also his own. There is a possibility that murderer will not believe the lie because it was unconvincing and it can cause negative results. On the other hand, there is a chance that this misleading truth will actually be a real one and in this case person’s friend can die. This is why I believe that even though we might assume some behavior as more moral than another, there are still personal factors and circumstances that are personal and should stay for the consideration of a person who is acting.
Reference
Sandel, M.J. “JUSTICE.” n.d. 124-125, 132-138.
