mshidden Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Emotional labels and how they do harm. The Mary Problem. Very few people tried to solve the Mary problem, because I think they felt is was an artificial question or, that I was trying to prove a point about contextual ethics, and they didn't want to give any ground. I really didn't think the problem was all that hard, and it should be consistent with UPB, if you have a healthy understanding of ethics. But are biases always come back to haunt us don’t they? The reason I came up with the problem, was to see how members of the forum apply their understanding of ethics, and then work from their. What was suppose to be a starting point is looking more and more like an ending point. But I am getting ahead of myself. So here is what I would do as the social worker. “Mary I am glad you realize what you did is not healthy and you told me of your own free will, that is a very healthy response. So I will not violate your trust in me, yes, society views this as a serious crime, but most important we need to understand how John is dealing with it. I have a friend Nancy she is a private psychologist that works with this type of issue. What is in the past is in the past we can’t change that, the the only thing we can do is change what is in the future, that fact that you know you are on a bad path is what we need to be concern with. Laws are to protect and serve, and should never be used to punish for punishment’s sake, at least in my opinion. You are taking responsibility for your actions, and that’s what we need in society, Elinn needs you, and cares about you, and as far as I can tell you are doing a good job, in other aspects of your life, so lets build on what you are doing right, and fix what you're not doing right. Lets don’t let the tragedy in your life, prevent you and your son from leading healthy lives” You might say I am making an excuse for marry, but I am not, you might say that this story is statist propaganda, but how is that true, if that is true, I would turn her into the police causing devastating damage to Johns support network. So I would be punishing john, for what Mary did. In the case of surgery I do a momentary harm for a long lasting good. At least in theory, would that be true in this case? I don’t think so. This is Arkansas their family services blows chunks. You can only base an action on what you know, one thing I know is that I can not change the past, no matter how much I might want to. What does punishment accomplish? Ethics has nothing to do with punishing people, if your system of ethic requires it, then I would have to ask what god are you sacrificing too? Because the only effect of punishment that I am aware of is harm. A deterrent? that seems like a path to statism to me. The way I see it is you have two option kill, or Help. I am assuming killing is not a viable option right? So you have to help, and as such throwing Merry in Jail is not helping john. If you assume merry is evil, you are wrong, and no nothing about human psychology. Evil is to act for the sole purpose of doing harm, evil is when you enjoy the pain of others. When you want to see someone suffer, for something they did, that is where evil comes from. Don’t go there, it’s not a happy productive place. Nothing Good comes from punishment for punishment's sake. Thank you for those that tried to answer this question, I have no idea who understand my point, and why I believe it to be important starting point for talking about Ethics. Here is too new beginnings. Refer to for background: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39735-how-flexible-are-your-ethics-and-how-flexible-should-they-be-moral-scenario-exercise/#entry363963
KevinP Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Let me get this straight: On a forum about as dedicated to the eradication of child abuse in all forms as you can get, you propose a moral situation in which a social worker hears a confession of child abuse from an abuser. And your answer, "which should be consistent with UPB, if you have a healthy understanding of ethics," is to let the abused child remain in the care of the abuser? No.
RyanT Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 Yep, think it was Mike that said it, some people blatlenly come here to provoke their own ostracism...
mshidden Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 Let me get this straight: On a forum about as dedicated to the eradication of child abuse in all forms as you can get, you propose a moral situation in which a social worker hears a confession of child abuse from an abuser. And your answer, "which should be consistent with UPB, if you have a healthy understanding of ethics," is to let the abused child remain in the care of the abuser? No. Now Nancy May feel differently, but you job is not too punish. If you think you know better show me your data? I did run this by a retired clinical psychologist, and yes indeed this is the correct course of action. Yep, think it was Mike that said it,some people blatlenly come here to provoke their own ostracism... And we can also say, some people know what their talking about where as others do not. So what is your point? I can only win in this interaction, I enjoy trying to get people to think for themselves, if you don't your loss...
mshidden Posted April 29, 2014 Author Posted April 29, 2014 I reckon my point was quite clear.... Apparently we are speaking different languages... but thanks for the comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
Recommended Posts