Author; Kazuo Ishiguro
Introduction1. This book works at three levels
A. A Story about some kids growing up, their lives, loves, emotional entanglements, etc.
B. A sort of science fiction story about an ethically challenged society in which cloning occurs to create organ donors. Gets into ethics of cloning, of transplantation, of person being a means to an end.
C. A philosophic and social enquiry. eg Philosophic; “what is a life? what is a soul? Can a clone have a soul?. eg Social; eg how being “Pawns in a game” is the way things happen in the world. Other issues; mortality, memory
Ethical issues in the novel
1. Justice, fairness
2. Autonomy; are organ donors ever in a position to give consent?
(a) Issue of coercion
(b) Using persons as means to an end
For any organ donor, normally do have ability to consent. Consider someone contemplating donating to a relative. Issue of beneficence (help them) vs. individual autonomy. Is there really such a thing as fully informed consent?
Kant; 2nd categorical imperative. Do not use anyone as a means to an end. All persons must be treated as ends in themselves.
Ethics of Transplants
(A) Recipients of organs; Issues of Distributive Justice;
How do we choose recipients when there are a limited number of organs? Various criteria have been suggested or used. Why should these be used or not used? In the early days of chronic dialysis; God squads were set up at hospitals (eg Seattle) to determine who would be given a slot. Often social worth, mental health, family connections, support systems, age, used by these panels
Criteria
1. Age?
2. Social worth?
3. Money; whoever can pay for it
4. Individual merit, including education
5. Family status;
6. Lottery. Used in case of limited drugs available for Multiple Sclerosis
7. Clinical criteria
Three examples of likely abuse
1. Mickey Mantle; baseball player; He had terminal cancer with liver cirrhosis. Received a liver transplant 1-2 months before his death. Why? Money? Position?
2. Governor Casey of Pennsylvania; had amyloidosis; received two organs; went right to head of the line. Why? Social worth, position.
3. Deciding based on cause of organ failure. Livers given preferentially to those who got liver disease from hepatitis rather than cirrhosis. If have two persons and one liver, and one got their liver disease as result of hepatitis, other from alcohol abuse; Should preference for liver be given to those whose liver disease is result of hepatitis?
------------------------------------------------------------- Done re editing
Ethics re
Donors of organs
Autonomy For live donors, fully informed consent is mandatory; Hailsham is extreme example
Should consent be required if donor is dead? Or only for live donors?
For the dead donor, important to maintain respect for the dead and for their families. Cultures differ in their attitudes toward death.
Beneficence. All donors help someone. There is a trade-off.
Donor autonomy vs. recipient beneficence.
Our society gives preference to autonomy. But how far are we from a society that emphasizes beneficence?
Utilitarian ethics; greatest good for the greatest number; add up the benefits and the burdens. Problem here is that pure utility might be able to justify slavery, or even Hailsham. Will discriminate against the disabled. Why use resources to help those who are not contributing to society?
This book explores the very essence of ethics. What are the ethical obligations that we live under? In this book, children are taught their :duty. Lets look at duty.
Subject of Duty
In ethics, two types of ethical systems; (not always compatible)
Utiltarian; greatest good for the greatest number;; might justivy events in this book
Deontologic; moral obligation or duty to do certain things. Intent is what matters, not results.
Golden Rule
The Golden Rule is an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. It is also called the ethic of reciprocity. It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, A key element of the golden rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.
Ancient Greece;
"One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." - Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[11]
Judaism;
Torah or Bible; Leviticus; "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself":.
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God. ”
Talmud; Rabbi Hillel, asked to sum up the Torah while standing on one foot; " That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary (the explanation); go and learn. [
Christianity; Jesus reported to have preached the Golden Rule
Immanuel Kant
The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, as well as modern deontological ethics. Introduced in Kant's ("Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals"), it may be defined as the standard of rationality from which all moral requirements derive.
According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance: if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something. A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."[1]
On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.
• "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
John Rawls; Theory of Justice; Justice as fairness; Develped idea of orginal position.
The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted.
we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests.
Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice
Need to carefully examine many of the political fads that have come along, and make sure that they are not substituting one immoral system for another.
3. P4. Paragraph 2. Note on language and ownership. “You try and do your best; you don’t have unlimited patience and energy”
Why use the 2nd person instead of just saying “I try to do my best” Prior to this had been using 1st person, then suddenly switches. Why?
A common device people use to avoid ownership of a thought they are not proud of. Kathy is not proud of what she is saying, so makes it impersonal
4. There are hints right from the first page that this is no ordinary story. Carer, donor, agitated vs. calm, recovery times, fewer and fewer donors left.
5. P6. Kathy says she realizes “how lucky we have been” Why lucky? Organ donors die young. How is this lucky?
6. There is much interaction between Kathy and Tommy in the initial part of the book (P 6-26). The interaction itself is like any ordinary interaction in any novel. What makes it different here is that we now know about the perverse background; this creates a disproportionate tension.
There are other ordinary interactions in the novel that also highlight the tensions, e.g. the hiding places of the children, the anger of the various teachers, etc.
7. Is there any indication that Kathy might be aware that their so-called “duty” might not be a “duty”?
A: Little things get slipped in about increased awareness of their future
B. Miss Lucy; “We are not taught enough about donations” “She seemed angry” These
things are slipped in artfully.
8. What is being done to these children is an atrocity, and it is huge. Most novels with a similar theme have some element of resistance. Why is there no resistance here? We don’t hear about any kids running away. They may try to bargain for more time before starting donations, but no one seems to give any thought to simply running away.
How realistic is this?
Kids brought up from an early age believing in concept of duty. No framework for believing this is anything out of the ordinary.
9. Discuss the concept of the “gallery”. Why does Madam take the best pictures made by the children for her collection (?gallery) We learn later it is to prove that these children have souls. This is an important feature of this fable. Do cloned beings have souls? Does anyone? Are we all just a bunch of chemicals?
10. What do you think of Madame’s reaction to the kids? She is apparently repulsed; like a fear of spiders (p32-36) “of how you were brought into this world and why”
11. Smoking; another example of foreshadowing. Of what is to come. Miss Lucy lectures kids about smoking “you are special; you need to be kept healthy”. No one is willing to question why this is so. Even at this early age (age 10), they have some inkling of what is to come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. P 81. How did children first learn of donations? “Told and not told” Miss Lucy on P 81; she hears them plan a future, egg to go to America to be movie stars, and tells them what their lives will entail. They are 15 years old. Raised for one purpose; toe donate vital organs. But “we already knew that” We’d been “told and not told.”
Recollection of what Lucy said is different for each student (like Rashomon)
13. P83. Students gradually learn that their health (e.g. sexually transmitted diseases) are more important than they would be to students in the outside world. They also learn that they can’t have babies. Tension builds as the students learn of things that are dark compared to the bright lives at Hailsham.
14. Chapter 8, P90-100. Entire chapter is filled with obsessions about sex. Why does author do this? Shows that these kids are normal; also it is a way to deflect the more expected concern about donations.
15. Chapter 9. The plot thickens. Tommy tells Kathy about Miss Lucy’s talk with him, that his art does matter. Why does she tell him this? If his art is good, may prove he has a soul and ? might this spare him? We learn here that Miss Lucy has left Hailsham and won’t be returning. Tommy says that “it’s not like a game anymore …. We’ve got to think carefully
16, P 138-158; Norwood trip. Why was this so important; takes up over 20 pages. There is speculation that Hailsham students could get a deferral of becoming donors if they could prove they were in love. i.e. qualified. Love as a magic quality to delay death.
17. Hailsham is presented as if it were a private school in America, with bonding experiences for students, a sense of alma mater, etc.
18. P 256. Miss Emily comments that Tommy has a big heart, and that Kathy has done very well. Madame then says “What good has it done them?” Universal message here. What good does it do anyone to do well, to have a big heart, when what awaits is death, suffering, etc.
19. P 258. Hailsham is referred to as “a shining beacon, an example of how we might move to a more humane and better way of doing things” . What is wrong with this statement? Confuses morality of means and ends. If the end is rotten, don’t make it OK by a humane means.
20 These two women (Miss Emily and Madame) were reformers within a larger movement, that of using clones for transplants. They wanted to reform the system when nothing less than getting rid of the system would be right. Eg There is no such thing as a humane system of slavery. If one puts in better treatment of slaves, they are still slaves.
21. P266. Students were “pawns in a game” “Sometimes that’s how things happen in this world” This is a statement that pertains to the universal themes explored in this book.
Q. We all know that mortality cannot be avoided. It is not negotiable. So how is this fundamentally different here?
A. Ethical issue of dignity of individual. Person being used as means to someone elses end.
B. Mortality that is man made is somehow different than that which is part of a normal life progression. Murder is a crime. Capital punishment is a subject of much debate
C. Life is shorter
D. End of life is known, predictable.
Q. How did this system come about? Who oversees it?
Q. How far-fetched is this story? Could this happen here? Other atrocities in human experimentation, slavery, using humans as means to an end.
Q. Why do the graduates of these various schools continue to “do their duty”? Why don’t they simply run away? Who will stop them? This is never discussed in the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment