Every Second Counts: The Race to Transplant the First Human Heart, Donald McRae, New York: Putnam, 2006, page 189:


“ . . . The doctors had sedated him [Edward Darvall, father of requested heart donor] earlier that evening. He was still in a daze when Coert Venter knocked gently and opened the office door. Venter was accompanied by another doctor on the transplant team, Bertie Bosman, who, before speaking, made him rest on the couch. Bosman revealed gently that there was nothing more they could do for Denise. The father stared at the doctor, his eyes wide and unblinking. Bosman, a sensitive man, found his task almost unbearable. But he kept talking, choosing his words with great care as he explained that while Denise could never be brought back to even the most remote semblance of consciousness, her heart continued to beat. But it pumped inside an empty shell--his daughter had already taken leave of her body.

“Bosman paused, allowing the terrible impact of his words to be absorbed. Darvall shook his head. First his wife, and now his daughter. ‘That’s pretty hard luck,’ he said softly.

“Darvall saw the kindness in Bosman’s eyes. That helped him focus on the next series of shattering words. There was a man in the hospital, Bosman said, whom they could still save. He was desperately ill and in need of a heart transplant. Bosman’s voice shook as he suggested that Darvall could do a great favor to the man, and to all humanity, if he would allow them to transplant Denise’s heart. Darvall remained quiet. Bosman and Venter withdrew, stressing that he should take as long as he needed to consider their request. They would understand if he declined to give his consent. . . ” [Emphasis added.]

Hi, Snowleopard. For completeness, here's your Part 1.

Your Part 2 is an interesting true story. Here's my understanding of your point: we want to help people. So, even when we're reading fiction, reading about medical drama will be more helpful than reading murder mystery. Because it will help us to think about, and imagine ourselves being helpful. Is that the point that you're driving at?

Nice point, Snow Leopard. Yes, it's great to be able to find activities that serve multiple purposes -- e.g., leisure reading that's also informs us about important topics, as you suggest. For me, that often comes in the form of reading about cognitive/brain science.

It also helps to hang out with people who care about topics related to reducing suffering, because I find that things become more interesting when I'm with others who also find them interesting. Hopefully the forums here serve that purpose to some extent!

RyanCarey wrote: . . . even when we're reading fiction, reading about medical drama will be more helpful . . .

No, not really. I don't want us to endeavor to be saints or utility machines. In fact, I even want us to be more relaxed and comfortable about our "sinning."

For example, the writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky apparently found the roulette wheel at times absolutely intoxicating but at other times struggled with serious losses. His new wife said to him, well, why don't you set a certain amount of money, really enjoy it, but if you happen to loss that much, quit. I'm sure he had received this advice before. But this time, perhaps because his new wife had confidence in him, it worked.

Or, let's suppose someone has an interest in erotic spanking. Okay, not the most unusual thing in the world, and up to the person of course, but maybe learn about "sub space," role playing, ping-ponging communication, and perhaps that delicious stage where one considers the possibility with the attitude, maybe I'll try it, maybe I won't?

That is, I'm rather in favor of a person making friends with "The Tyger," or what Jung called "The Shadow." A young lawyer once made a passing comment that a person needs to waste time. Perhaps it provides well-needed downtime---precisely because it is a waste of time. And although there might be indirect benefits, I want a person to feel okay with an activity merely because he or she enjoys it.

Here's kind of what I'm trying to wind up to: Motive utilitarianism is one of our better versions, and I think we can take it even further. For example, in one of the Democratic debates leading up to the '08 election, one of the journalists was asking the candidates about Iran and nuclear weapons. And he asked a follow-up question, well, what if diplomacy doesn't work, what are you then prepared to do? And then of course it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that diplomacy is not going to work, it probably won't. So, what's a leader to do if he or she sincerely believes it won't? Send an emissary who thinks that it will. And thereby give it a real chance. In his book THE POLITICS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION (1973), Gene Sharp says that when violence fails, we in the modern world tend to think that it was the particular tactics that failed, whereas when nonviolence fails, we tend to think the overall approach is mistaken. And it's not just diplomacy. Sharp also talks about nonviolent coercion (as medium tactic), and if necessary, replacing current institutions with alternate institutions. And he gives all kinds of examples of nonviolence working against pretty awful dictators (although not every time, and neither does violence). Examples we generally have not heard of, because it's not our language. It's like we're at the bottom of the sea where violence is our primary metaphor, our primary understanding of large components of the world, etc, etc.

I still don't feel I'm doing a real good job of explaining all this. Okay, indirect costs, bad example effect, presence of better alternatives provide reasons why in response to the all-too frequent "dilemmas," we can say, no, utilitarianism does not propose doing that afterall. And so would a (moderate) form of negative utilitarianism that gives some additional weight to avoiding suffering. And I think motive utilitarianism/repertoire utilitarianism provides yet another reason.

Since we're not going to slam-dunk the man, we might as well do a good job asking him. We might as well ask in a way that is both real and respectful.

. . . Darvall remained quiet. Bosman and Venter withdrew, stressing that he should take as long as he needed to consider their request. They would understand if he declined to give his consent. . . ” [Emphasis added.]

And I particularly like that part at the end. By giving the man permission to say no, you are also, in a way, giving him permission to say yes.

Alan Dawrst wrote: . . . It also helps to hang out with people who care about topics related to reducing suffering, because I find that things become more interesting when I'm with others who also find them interesting. Hopefully the forums here serve that purpose to some extent!

I think we can do a great deal working in partnership with others. The days of Jeremy Bentham, the "Philosophical Radicals," and practical projects. Of course, we can't just follow what they did. We have to find our own open vistas, our own open fields.

The way utilitarianism has been constrained since it merely became one thread of academic philosophy. J.J.C. Smart came up with the example, okay, what if a man breaks water rationing to grow flowers and gives them secretly to a senior center, are you that sure he acted wrongly? And, I see, the point of the simplified examples is to "elucidate" principles. I get that.

But there is an amazing lone wolf quality to modern utilitarianism. So much focus on definitions, and how close to certainty we can get, and wanting to reformulate the whole thing all over again (I myself do this). What is lost is a branching out and an interplay between theory and practice.

Short-cycle feedback, I think we can move the world.

And someone who is a professor or grad student can also set up and run an art center, an indy media center, a community bicycle exchange, etc, etc. Nothing is more boring and dryer than a sense of self-imposed obligation, so these are merely possibilities. A person needs to kind of hold back until something moves him or her, or dip one's feet in and try out the water, and sometimes one, sometimes the other. As philosophers, we don't have any particular qualifications for any of this, but then we don't have any particular disqualifications either. Actually, we do. Similar to an older academic taking on administrative responsibilities, not so much the time, but so much of one's mental energies keeping all these balls juggling in air. It's hard to take an afternoon off, just to read or walk and think.

So, maybe one solution is more of a loosey-goosey leadership, where sometimes you take the lead and during a different season, maybe you let someone else take the lead.

We're a little bit like Mormans, or socialists, or libertarians. We're smarter than other people. We have the received truth, and they don't. So, during a conversation, a significant aspect that we're merely waiting for them to be finished so we can talk again (and I do this, too).

Well, as people participating in a philosophy board, we might well be smarter than average. Then we could get to, some psychologist wrote that there are 7 (or 9) types of intelligence and the question is not, are you smart, but how are you smart? So, yes, we know our area pretty well, just like other people know their area pretty well.

So, a little bit of humbleness that the other person's area might have some value, too. At least one of us is in medical school (Ryan?), and I think in many actual real-world cases the details of, say, how to initially treat suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (work with me here), might be more important than the terminology of utilitarianism. Or, my post about H&R Block, yes, it is professional employment (sure not paid that way). And it's not so much a matter of jousting with the company as simply ignoring the company and trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation. And being decent and matter-of-fact with co-workers, and maybe finding a soul on the same wavelength. (Again, really need to disclose cross-collection to the client.)
“H&R Block, unethical, face-to-face w/client, med. school”
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=405

Humanitarian work needn't be boring, dry, and low-status.

And again, interplay between theory and practice. Can absolutely move the world.