Ex GF and ethical dilemma

[JJsushi]

flyonzewall said:

>>>The very fact that he is mulling or even contemplates this as a moral dillema demonstrates that he has views on both sides and understands that there is a "right thing" to do or has some sense of responsibility in the matter. <<<

 

 

i wish you would read my posts properly.

i hate quoting myself, but i have already posted that this is a moral dilema and never an easy decision. and that after all considerations i believe not telling is the right decision.

 

 

>>>That is a cop out. I guess if you saw the bloke take out a bat and began to beat the women to death in the middle of the street it would be none of your business too, since you don't want to "measure the consequences" or "interfere"?<<<

 

 

I did read your post properly and your rationales are still a cop out in a situation in which you can make a positive difference. All that stuff and nonsense about not playing god or intervening is just that. What is the downside of informing the guy? He finds out the truth, if he already did not know? Either way what matters is that you did the "right" thing based off of the information you have. There is no selfish motive here or desire for maliciousness. The only motive is to inform someone of a situation that could cost them their lives. Need I remind you that HIV/AIDS is not curable and it is an epidemic, that has destroyed countless lives.

[Guest]

>>>>You are just avoiding a moral dilemma, cause its uncomfortable. <<<

 

 

not because it's comfortable, such a decision is never comfortable. but we can't be saints, we are not perfect by design, everybody has limits of what one can possibly do. the importance is to really and honestly think before taking rash actions which very possibly will change our and others life. can we carry the resulting consequences and responsibility?

 

 

 

>>>>So maybe I am the one full of shit. Quite possible, I often am. <<<

 

 

not really

everybody is different, not every solution is valid for everbody - the important thing is only to try to be aware of the consequences. because every interference (and non - interference) into other's personal life has serious consequences.

which is also one of the main topics in buddhism and the middle path - the interdependency of all life with the whole resulting mess and clusterfuck. ::

[bibblies]

flyonzewall said:

...farang men and the their acceptance of the brain moving into the small head...sigh... ::

Moving?

[Guest]

One of the ways that clarity can be lost in discussions as complex as moral ones is by buying inadvertantly into the wrong metaphor. In this case speaking of moral obligation in terms of per cent misleads because of the tacit assumption that the total percentage would then be 100. In real life moral choices I doubt that is often the case. In this case for instance it is not reasonable to hold New Guy 100% responsible. Clearly, although he is not entirely without responsibility, the woman would have considerable responsibility for infecting him because she has more information. The guy could reasonably believe that there is a 6% chance that she has HIV (making some assumptions about his knowledge of her background.) She however knows that this element of the risk is 100% and she has a moral obligation to tell him of the real risk. It is worthiwhile to keep in mind that there is no safe sex, only safer sex.

 

Mr Zenseless also has more knowledge than the newcomer and, in my opinion, a responsibility goes along with this knowledge since he can act upon it. But his responsibility is less than the woman's since she would actually spread the infection, not Zenseless himself. Without taking actual numbers too seriously I would estimate the score at:

 

Woman 90%

New Guy 20%

Zenseless 40%

 

total responsibility 150%

 

In short, responsibility correlates with knowledge and the freedom to act on it to someone else's benefit.

 

So, I think that Zenseless has an obligation to inform New Guy. There could be mitigating circumstances, but since the issue is life or death, these would NOT include:

 

the woman's subsequent feelings toward Zenseless

New Guy's wishes (but only because these are not known)

expected effect on New Guy's relationship with Woman

 

The only mitigating factor in this case seems to me to be Zenseless's safety. I don't think he has an obligation to put life or limb at risk in an effort (perhaps superfluous at that) to protect New Guy. So, if Zenseless is afraid of violent reprisals as a result of his intevention I think he would be off the hook.

 

If however the risk to Zenseless is low or non-existent, then he should inform. A better tactic might be to coerce her to inform, for instance, by threatening to inform if she doesn't. But tactics are secondary, in any case.

 

If Zenseless does go ahead and inform, then I think he incurs an obligation to help the Woman subsequently, although it seems unlikely that she would accept it.

 

The poles of moral choice are generally: intruding where we don't belong versus standing by, indifferent while others suffer whom we could help. Even if we recognize that the extreme moral options may always be unacceptable, the question remains where to situate this particular dilemma on the continuum. The fact that the participants may not welcome an intervention does not settle the moral issue in my mind since there is no outcome that all partiticipants are likely to welcome (except the unlikely one that New Guy simply lucks out and is not infected.)

 

I could imagine an equivalent moral dilemma in this way: a bystander observes the roundup of Jews by Nazis during WWII, knowing that the likely, if not certain, outcome is an undeserved death. If he could save a victim without risk to himself it seems to me that he is obliged to do so. If there is considerable risk to himself or others, I don't think he remains so obligated. If someone could save a life in such a situation with no risk to himself, but did not do so, that person would be culpable. I would shun such a person.

 

Khun Pad Thai

[Guest]

jjsushi said:

 

 

 

 

 

I did read your post properly and your rationales are still a cop out in a situation in which you can make a positive difference. All that stuff and nonsense about not playing god or intervening is just that. What is the downside of informing the guy? He finds out the truth, if he already did not know? Either way what matters is that you did the "right" thing based off of the information you have. There is no selfish motive here or desire for maliciousness. The only motive is to inform someone of a situation that could cost them their lives. Need I remind you that HIV/AIDS is not curable and it is an epidemic, that has destroyed countless lives.

 

 

 

 

well, according to grimmelshausen, simplicius simplicissimus also ended up in a south sea paradise after stumbling through life not really thinking of consequences

[Guest]

that's the first time i have seen moral dillema counted in percentages. are you a banker, by chance?

 

 

 

>>>There could be mitigating circumstances, but since the issue is life or death, <<<

 

 

 

an issue of "life and death" sound so dramatic, heroic... and here it's not even an issue of life and death, it's an issue of life, and possibly, of life on medication.

 

 

 

>>>I could imagine an equivalent moral dilemma in this way: a bystander observes the roundup of Jews by Nazis during WWII, knowing that the likely, if not certain, outcome is an undeserved death. If he could save a victim without risk to himself it seems to me that he is obliged to do so. If there is considerable risk to himself or others, I don't think he remains so obligated. If someone could save a life in such a situation with no risk to himself, but did not do so, that person would be culpable. I would shun such a person.<<<

 

 

and i don't think that you could imagine such a moral dillema, or even the situation unless you personally have been in comparable situations of extreme danger and fear.

secondly - your comparism is purely theoretic as you should know from history that there was no such thing as saving a group of rounded up jews, or just one, without highest risk to oneself.

and therefore this argument simply is not applicable to present PRACTICAL situation.

[Guest]

Hmm, there are so many more choices from the Holocaust. There was the case of Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese diplomat and spy in Lithuania in 1940, who, against orders from his governemnt issued visas to 6,000 Jews saving their lives. His career suffered for his actions, but he was never in danger of violence.

 

I don't think that you appreciate that, however impossible it is to imagine myself among the Nazis, I have a kind of obligation to try, not because I can determine how I would act, but to determine what is the right thing to do.

 

There was a very famous case here in New York 40 years ago which may be more apt. A young woman, Kitty Genovese, was stabbed to death in a middle class neighborhood during a summer night. Her screams were heard for the half hour of her killing by 18 people none of whom called the police. It seems impossible to defend such nonaction just because it was clearly a case of life and death and there would have been no risk to someone who picked up the phone.

 

This HIV case is different because the Woman presumably does not have the purpose of killing New Guy, unlike the Nazis or the murderer of Kitty Genovese. But the effect on the victim does not depend on the other person's purpose, just on his or her actions.

 

I don't think characterizing this issue as life and death is unfair. I would certainly view it that way if I were the victim. I don't think people are required to be heroes, but I do think they have an obligation to save others from suffering, particularly when the cost to themselves is very low.

[JJsushi]

flyonzewall said:

 

 

 

 

 

well, according to grimmelshausen, simplicius simplicissimus also ended up in a south sea paradise after stumbling through life not really thinking of consequences

 

 

I'll return you witticism. Maybe you should ponder the the philisophical meaning of the following nursery rhyme we tell our children and how it pertains to the scenario of the original poster.

 

 

One for Sorrow, Two for Joy

 

One for sorrow,

Two for joy,

Three for a girl,

Four for a boy,

Five for silver,

Six for gold,

Seven for a secret

Never to be told.

[Zaad]

Zenseless,

 

I have read through this thread and went back to your first and only post in this thread. Before I give my thoughts on this serious matter I'd like the (silent) poster to explain the following:

 

You wrote:

"All the time we were together, she and I always engaged in safe sex. In fact the doc did not think I needed a test after I told him we always wore a condom but I insisted. My test came back negative. "

 

The doctor didn't think it was necessary to test the partner of an HIV-infected woman, JUST because you say you wore condoms???

 

That I find extremely hard to believe. Doctors have huge responsibilities. They don't think about such matters, they follow procedures and DO. Doctors know perfectly well that there are a gazillion more ways to get infected other than in the bedroom.

 

Care to explain?

[pattaya127]

I don't see anything dogmatic and negative about forewarning someone he is in danger. If the damage is done, then yes, we can go on about the little brain and "he should have known" , but something may possibly be done to avoid that.

 

I also don't think we should minimize the weight of the decision by talking about aids being a manageable disease. So is losing one's leg in a Mbike accident. If we can prevent the ordeal, why not?

 

I also disagree that this RS, soon becoming more than was "bargained" for and not just 2 people mutually enjoying companionship, carries any outstanding privacy rights.

 

Soongmaak, we can't just approach this subject based on what the girl will do. It's like telling a woman to stick with the guys who beats her up, because anyway, he will beat up the next one. It is just not a question of hypthesis, but a very concrete danger now!

 

If Z wants, he can PM me, I will call whoever can put me in touch with this guy, pretned i am a friend who wants to talk to him if that's the girl herself, and tell him, then he can believe or do what he wants.

 

I hope no one believed me when i said i'd quit this thread? Yeah... I thought so too!