I was listening to a story on the BBC World Service this
morning about the recycling of used pacemakers for use in the developing
world. There are laws and regulations in
most developing countries that prevent the re-use of these devices. There is a charitable organization in the
U.K. which is working to facilitate this recylcing. It involves working with families of people
who have died and asking them to donate this small device. It is a great idea making this life-extending
technology available in places where the cost would make it prohibitive. The human interest in this story was a older
man in Mumbai, India who would likely have died some years ago had it not been
for this effort. At the end of the story
it is noted that this man is now playing with his 8-month old
granddaughter. It is wonderful.
But then the reporter makes a statement that sounds lovely
and heartwarming but disturbed me deeply.
Something like this: From the perspecitve of this man who had the joy
and privilege of enjoying his granddaughter, the reporter said, "the
complex logistics of ethics are unimportant." Loved the story until this point. Then I was disturbed.
First it is disturbing because I'm not sure it is true. I am not convinced that her research into his
history and convictions was enough to allow her to draw the conclusion that he
felt the "complex logistics of ethics" unimportant. What was clear, however, was that the
reporter certainly held this view. It
would have been more truthful and journalistically transparent for her to say
that, upon seeing this lovely family scene, to HER the "complex logistics
of ethics are unimortant." So
first, own your own convictions and don't project them onto someone else.
Second, it is distrubing because, for many, I am sure it IS
true. It is the cry "Don't confuse me with notions of right and wrong when
something makes me feel warm and comforted inside." As a grandfather myself I am delighted that
this man had the joy of knowing his granddaughter. However good and desirable a thing might
be, it does not give us license to avoid the hard work of considering the moral
and ethical implications of how we get to that good. We have become, I am afraid, Machiavellians.
But with a twist. No one would accuse
the author of "The Prince" of being sentimental. The end justifies the means he said, however
brutal or costly those means are.
We are Sentimental
Machiavellians. The end (feeling a cheering and warm sentiment about something)
justifies the means. The "complex
logistics" of right and wrong don't matter. But they do.
The pacemaker story is perhaps a bad example. There is nothing in the practice of
respectfully asking families if they are willing to donate a device that their
loved one needs no longer to help prolong lives in developing countries. And that's why the "complex
logistics" comment is even more disturbing. Slipped into a very good an reasonable story
of people finding ways to help others in need is a bald and dangerous
philosophical statement that encourages us to turn our attention from the
consideration of what is right and wrong to the experience of having our heart
warmed.
It is immaterial what altar we sacrifice the very real need
for ethical consideration, be it political expediency or sentimental heart-warming or
something else. Ethics - right and wrong
- matter and should not be so lightly dismissed. Machiavellians, whether hard-hearted or sentimental, have it wrong.
