What's right and wrong?
Read the following story carefully. You will be asked to think about some moral questions -- what is right and wrong -- and to give reasons for your opinions.
In the Netherlands a few years ago an observer reported on the lives of some people confined in a new kind of institution. These people were not physically impaired, but mentally they were below the normal human level. They could not speak, although they made noises and gestures.
In most institutions these people spent much of their time in repetitive movements, and rocking their bodies back and forth. This new institution was an unusual one because it allowed the inmates the maximum possible freedom to live their own lives and form their own community.
The behaviour of the inmates in the new institution was much more varied than in traditional institutions. They rarely spent time alone, and they seemed to have no trouble understanding each other's gestures and grunts. They were physically active, spending a lot of time outside. They cooperated in many of their activities, including an attempted escape. They carried a large fallen log to one of the walls, and propped it up as a ladder to help them climb over the wall.
The observer was particularly interested in what he called the "politics" of the community. A defined leader soon emerged. However, his leadership-and it was always a "he"-depended on the support of other members of the group. The leader had privileges, but it seemed that he also had obligations. He had to cultivate the favour of others by sharing food and other treats.
There seemed to be a simple ethical code in the community. As far as the observer could see there were two basic rules. The first was "One good turn deserves another". In other words, if A did a favour for B, then A could expect B to do a favour in return. The second rule was "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". In other words, if A slapped B, then A could expect to be slapped back.
The new institution also allowed sexual relationships, which led to pregnancy, birth and child rearing. The mothers were, with only one exception, good at looking after their children. The mother-child relationships were close and lasted many years. The death of a baby led to a long grieving period. However, fathers did not play a big role in the rearing of children.
Because the inmates were considered to have very limited mental capacities, the observer was impressed by examples of behaviour which clearly showed planning and a high level of self-awareness. In one example, two young mothers were having difficulty in stopping their small children from fighting. An older mother, an authority figure in the community, was dozing nearby. One of the younger mothers woke her up, and pointed at the squabbling children. The older mother made the appropriate noises and gestures, and the children stopped fighting.
On another occasion, after a fight, the loser limped badly when near the winner, but not when alone. Presumably he hoped for some sympathy from his conqueror by pretending to be more seriously hurt than he really was.
Now I would like you to consider a proposal. Suppose there was a need to test a new drug to help people suffering from stress-related illness. The experiment would involve taking people from the community just described and putting them in a stressful situation, such as strapping them into a chair and giving them a mild electric shock if they did not press a lever quickly enough every time a buzzer sounded. Half the people would be given the new drug and the other half a sugar tablet, to see if the new drug reduced the effects of stress.
1) Do you think this experiment is morally justified or not? Make a list of reasons to support your opinion. Compare your opinion with the rest of the class.
2) Was your opinion influenced by the fact that these people have below average intelligence?
3) Would it be better, the same, or worse to do this experiment on normal people that the people in the story?
Now I would like you to consider another proposal. Suppose that these people were used for heart transplants. They would be given an anaesthetic and then their healthy heart would be removed to transplant into a sick person of normal intelligence. The below average person would then be given an overdose to kill them painlessly.
4) Do you think this experiment is morally justified or not? Make a list of reasons to support your opinion. Compare your opinion with the rest of the class.
5) Was your opinion influenced by the intelligence of the people?
Make sure you keep a written record of your opinions, and the reasons for them. You will be referring to these notes in Part 2.
Go to Part 2 to read the end of the story