Sam's angst about saving the women in Prague

Total Posts:  16
Joined  21-01-2005
08 February 2005 01:08

IN the book Sam seems to be upset about his clever saving of a woman from molestation because he did not confront the attackers directly or see to it that they were put away… in fact his whole discussion of morality lacks some of the simple rational clarity that is possible.  He tries to define morality in regards to happiness production, etc….this misses the point of questions of right and wrong.

Right and wrong are not NOUNS-they are adjectives…asking what is right- is to ask what is the right behaviour.  Asking what is the right behaviour is an incomplete question—one could just as well ask what is the right temperature of water?  It all depends on what you hope to achieve.  THis is the scientific way to approach any question—what action will cause which effect…

In Sam's example in Prague- he wanted to achieve the rescue of the woman-he did it—and did so effectively, efficiently with no harm coming to himself—if he wanted to he could have called the police and reported the men and their location after the fact- if his goal was to see the whole thing completely through to some "just" conclusion…but as for what was the right thing to do?  it all depends on what the desired outcome is….