paper3-option6-case of al and bob

8/12/2019 Paper3-Option6-Case of Al and Bob

1/5

Case of Al and Bob

Here we have to deal with a case of two brothers Al and Bob. The case is

somewhat related to bio ethics and is a very interesting one. To be specific, the

case comes under the subject of situational ethics.

Situational ethics is that branch of the ethics which takes the specific context of an

act into the account, when that act is to be analyzed on the ethical and moral

grounds. Situational ethics makes use of relative context and situations rather than

judging the events and scenarios on absolute standards of ethics.

Situational ethics is based on four primary principles:

Pragmatism

Personalism

Positivism

Realism

These four principles of situational ethics are known as working principles. If any

situation is to be judged, these four principles serve as a litmus test for the course

of action adopted to face the situation.

Pragmatism means that the strategy and course of action taken by an individual in

a particular situation must be a practical one and not like a castle in the air.


2/5

In our case, it would not be feasible nor a reality based decision for Al to inform

Bob straightaway. Keeping the information available to us in view, it is quite easy

to judge that the chances are that Al is the one who has the grudge for Bob and

that for Al, it is difficult to patch-up with Bob to give him such an advice.

Since, the first principle of situational ethics says that the course of action taken

should be feasible and practicable; Al is not to be blamed if he doesnt give Bob

an advice to undergo the concerned test. Moreover, in a scenario where the

probability of the outcome of Bobs test being positive or negative are equal, Als

moral binding seems further diluted.

Situational Ethics principle of personalism states that interest of a person m ust be

above than anything else in certain situations. Here we have a situation, where Al

is neither legally bound to share the results and reports of his tests with his

younger brother Bob, nor it is a moral obligation upon him as I have mentioned

above.

Keeping this very fact in the view, the principle of personalism seems to be

favoring Al since Al is not on friendly terms with Bob, and they have a

personality incompatibility in the views of others. There is quite a chance that if

Al calls Bob or requests him to meet in person, Bob may start abusing him or may

say hard words to him.

On the other hand any patient in Als place would desire to live the rest of his life

with mental peace, happily. No one would like to ruin his peace by being insulted


3/5

by someone, though he may be his younger brother. So in order to enjoy the

mental peace, Al may choose not to discuss anything with his younger brother nor

give him any advice.

The principle of positivism is in favor of Bob however. Principle of positivism of

situational ethics teaches us that a person chooses to believe in agape love. Agape

love is that type of love in which there is no lust involved, specially the sexual

lust. Hence Al should gather some courage and talk to Bob.

Other concepts of ethics and religion also support the same view. For example,

every religion emphasizes the merits of forgiving those who have wronged you at

some stage of life. Not only ethics and religion, but philosophy and psychology

also emphasize the importance of giving pardon to those who have wronged you.

Moreover, if we look from the view point of positivism, Al should forgive Bob

because although Bob had done a fraud worth ten thousand dollars to Al, he had

paid back the amount to Al at some later stage (at least this is what the data

available to us says). So, in such circumstances there is very little or no roam for

Al to keep the grudges in his heart at this stage of life.

Al should pardon Bob, according to the principle of positivism. In doing so, he

should apologize from Bob as well if the bi-conditional pardon is necessary.

Considering that Al is at the last stage of his life (keeping the information

available to us in view), Al should widen his heart an forgive his brother because


4/5

blood relatives are the ones who care the most and that the love for blood relatives

isnt based on eros, rather it is based on agape. Religions have been preaching the

value of a single human life since long.

In fact, in some religions the value of saving a human life is as much as saving the

whole mankind and since religion and morality are connected with each other, Al

should forgive and inform Bob from a religious point of view.

From the above discussion, it is evident that although morally or religiously it is

not a serious binding on Al to inform Bob about the result of his tests and reports,

yet it would be preferable for Al to inform Bob and to advise him to undergo a

similar test for the diagnosis. Such an act done by Al will be highly appreciable,

keeping in view the personality incompatibility of both.

Physicians have to face such cases, more than often. How a physician deals with

such cases depends upon him. As a matter of fact, such cases test the non-medical

skills of a physician. For example, in the case under discussion even if a physician

doesnt bother for whether Al informs Bob or not, he is not to be blamed.

But if Als physician feels the risk s and hazard of it, and tries to convince Al to

talk to Bob as well as other family members to undergo a test for diagnosis, this

will be appreciable on the physicians part. The physician may convince Al by

explaining the medical, ethical and social aspects of doing so.


5/5

References

Fletcher, J. (1966). Situational ethics: The new morality.

Fulford, K. W. M. (1989). Moral theory and medical practice (pp. 101-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Beecher, H. K. (1976). Ethics and clinical research (pp. 193-205). Springer US.

paper3-option6-case of al and bob

Documents