Eugine_Nier comments on White Lies - Less Wrong

38 Post author: ChrisHallquist 08 February 2014 01:20AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (893)

Comments (893)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 12 February 2014 05:04:39AM -2 points [-]

Well, in the example he can decline, he will simply have to deal with the consequences.

Agree, but so what?

So the potential donor still has complete discretion and thus there is no reason for the doctor to lie.

Positive for what?

For compatibility as a donor.

What exactly is the flaw in your view?

Near as I follow your logic, the reason for lying is that the doctor is trying to protect the patient's right to over what -- if anything -- is done with his organs. However, as I pointed out that right is not under threat, what is under threat is the patient's "right" for his decision to have no consequences.

Comment author: brazil84 12 February 2014 10:13:14AM 1 point [-]

So the potential donor still has complete discretion and thus there is no reason for the doctor to lie.

I disagree. For example, the potential donor might want to lie to spare the feelings of his sibling. Or to forestall family members from getting annoyed at him.

In which case, what would he do if the tests came back positive?

Lie and say he was incompatible. That's kinda the point of this subthread.

Near as I follow your logic, the reason for lying is that the doctor is trying to protect the patient's right to over what -- if anything -- is done with his organs

Not exactly -- the reason for the doctor lying is to prevent hurt feelings and family discord.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 13 February 2014 02:18:49AM -2 points [-]

For example, the potential donor might want to lie to spare the feelings of his sibling. Or to forestall family members from getting annoyed at him.

Sparing somebody's feelings is a much worse reason for lying than protecting their right to bodily autonomy.

In which case, what would he do if the tests came back positive?

Lie and say he was incompatible. That's kinda the point of this subthread.

I meant what would the donor do if the person refused to lie.

Comment author: brazil84 13 February 2014 07:08:38AM *  1 point [-]

Sparing somebody's feelings is a much worse reason for lying than protecting their right to bodily autonomy.

I don't disagree with you . . . have I suggested otherwise?

I meant what would the donor do if the person refused to lie.

I don't know, it would be up to the potential donor. But either way he gets to make his decision and nobody in this discussion is disputing that. Agreed?

ETA: Now that I have explained why medical personnel might lie about compatibility, is there any other flaw in your view? At this point, is there anything I have said which you disagree with?

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 17 February 2014 06:46:41AM 0 points [-]

However, as I pointed out that right is not under threat, what is under threat is the patient's "right" for his decision to have no consequences.

For a consequentialist, having decisions have "consequences" should not be a terminal value. If decisions having consequences cause those decisions to not be made, that is good, but decisions having bad consequences is, in and of itself, bad.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 February 2014 09:04:40PM -1 points [-]

For a consequentialist, having decisions have "consequences" should not be a terminal value.

But it is instrumentally useful if people's decisions have consequences to the person doing the deciding that are correlated with the net affect of their decision.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit