2. Suppose a man has been missing for many years, and you have just learned that he is dead. Should you tell the man’s father, even if it will crush his hopes and send him into despair? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?
Yes. A parent has a right to know if a child has died. By sheltering the father from the truth, I would be imposing my version of the right thing to do to protect someone from pain. Truth can be painful, but the father is already in pain if he has a missing son. Making the decision to withhold information puts me in power and takes power away from the parent. It prevents the father from knowing his son’s fate and finding some peace. I don’t have the right to make this decision for someone self. What I can do is support the father while he grieves.
2.Yes he should know. Dad may be upset at first but once the grieving process is over he will be able to live his life without a cloud hanging over his head. If he truly loves his son he would want to know.
I also am not sure how this question fits in the discussion of utilitarianism. This seems to me to be a personal issue that can be cast in so many scenarios. What is the parent's health? What are the particulars of the child's death - was he involved in a wicked crime the father would be better for not knowing? Would the knowledge shatter his respect for his son?
It would be right to tell the father about the death of his son. Even with pain, this truth would provide closure to a question that has probably been gnawing at the father for a long time, and perhaps the reason for his tendency for despair. This would have to be handled in the right way, and by the right person, but I think he has the right to know.
I think utilitarianism has the right answer here. Although the man will hurt by the news, his longterm happiness will be increased by knowing the truth, recieving closure, and being able to move on with his life. Bentham argued that most of our unhappiness and pain was caused by mistaking short term goods (having hope in this case) with long term goods (knowing the truth) and he created his moral system to help his correct that.
I struggled with this one. While part of me says, "The truth will set you free," another part knows if the father was crushed and spent the rest of his life in despair, I'd spend the rest of my life riddled with guilt for adding pain to his misery. In the end, it goes back to the volunteer question. My one act could allow him and his family to be at peace knowing thr truth about the son. If it's only simply a desire to know dead or alive then tell him. If this doesn't open a Pandor's Box -- a mystery about the death that could lead to even more pain and suffering -- tell him. It takes a bit to get past the idea that this is isolated to only 2 people. This is a stone in a pond.
I also agree that the father should be told and supported in his grief. Personally I would prefer the closure, but I'm not sure there is enough other information to answer for another person.
I believe the father should be told. It may be painful at first, but eventually he will find peace in his knowledge. I agree with Jay; score one for utility.
I do agree that the father should be told of his son's death to receive some sort of closure. Who am I in this scenario? I do not feel that I have any right to tell the father. Maybe I should notify the police and they should tell him?
During the many years that the man has been missing, his father, and countless others, have known endless questions without answers. Time would not ease the hopeless, helpless feeling of not knowing. Yes, tell the father, and allow him and others to honor his son and to grieve their loss. Utilitarianism does not seem to have the answer here, because the teller may be affecting only the father, or the teller may be affecting many - not enough info.
I would tell the father. Although he may be holding on to hope, he is probably already living a life of despair. Finding out about the death of his son would crush his hope, but it would also be a way for him to move in a different direction and start looking for closure and peace. I’m not sure about utilitarianism in this instance. At first it would seem as if his happiness would be crushed so telling him may not have been for the greater good. However, it may change as the man finds new happiness.
I would also tell the father. One would think that the man would at least have a chance at happiness and peace if he were to know the truth. But it does put us in a difficult place, because we can never truly know what effects another person's happiness. I would like to think that knowing the truth would benefit the man, but it could have the opposite effect.
I would just have to hope that Bentham is correct, as Jay pointed out above, and thinking in the long term would be the best option.
Yes. A parent has a right to know if a child has died. By sheltering the father from the truth, I would be imposing my version of the right thing to do to protect someone from pain. Truth can be painful, but the father is already in pain if he has a missing son. Making the decision to withhold information puts me in power and takes power away from the parent. It prevents the father from knowing his son’s fate and finding some peace. I don’t have the right to make this decision for someone self. What I can do is support the father while he grieves.
ReplyDelete2.Yes he should know. Dad may be upset at first but once the grieving process is over he will be able to live his life without a cloud hanging over his head. If he truly loves his son he would want to know.
ReplyDeleteWow Ellen that was a beautiful response. Your counselor experience serves us well. I defer to your wisdom and agree with your assessment.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how utilitarianism can know the numerical outcome of this choice. It is therefore not a good tool for this decision.
I also am not sure how this question fits in the discussion of utilitarianism. This seems to me to be a personal issue that can be cast in so many scenarios. What is the parent's health? What are the particulars of the child's death - was he involved in a wicked crime the father would be better for not knowing? Would the knowledge shatter his respect for his son?
ReplyDeleteTher are too many unanswered questions here.
It would be right to tell the father about the death of his son. Even with pain, this truth would provide closure to a question that has probably been gnawing at the father for a long time, and perhaps the reason for his tendency for despair. This would have to be handled in the right way, and by the right person, but I think he has the right to know.
ReplyDeleteI think utilitarianism has the right answer here. Although the man will hurt by the news, his longterm happiness will be increased by knowing the truth, recieving closure, and being able to move on with his life. Bentham argued that most of our unhappiness and pain was caused by mistaking short term goods (having hope in this case) with long term goods (knowing the truth) and he created his moral system to help his correct that.
ReplyDeleteI struggled with this one. While part of me says, "The truth will set you free," another part knows if the father was crushed and spent the rest of his life in despair, I'd spend the rest of my life riddled with guilt for adding pain to his misery. In the end, it goes back to the volunteer question. My one act could allow him and his family to be at peace knowing thr truth about the son. If it's only simply a desire to know dead or alive then tell him. If this doesn't open a Pandor's Box -- a mystery about the death that could lead to even more pain and suffering -- tell him. It takes a bit to get past the idea that this is isolated to only 2 people. This is a stone in a pond.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the father should be told and supported in his grief. Personally I would prefer the closure, but I'm not sure there is enough other information to answer for another person.
ReplyDeleteI believe the father should be told. It may be painful at first, but eventually he will find peace in his knowledge. I agree with Jay; score one for utility.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the father should be told of his son's death to receive some sort of closure. Who am I in this scenario? I do not feel that I have any right to tell the father. Maybe I should notify the police and they should tell him?
ReplyDeleteDuring the many years that the man has been missing, his father, and countless others, have known endless questions without answers. Time would not ease the hopeless, helpless feeling of not knowing. Yes, tell the father, and allow him and others to honor his son and to grieve their loss. Utilitarianism does not seem to have the answer here, because the teller may be affecting only the father, or the teller may be affecting many - not enough info.
ReplyDeleteI would tell the father. Although he may be holding on to hope, he is probably already living a life of despair. Finding out about the death of his son would crush his hope, but it would also be a way for him to move in a different direction and start looking for closure and peace. I’m not sure about utilitarianism in this instance. At first it would seem as if his happiness would be crushed so telling him may not have been for the greater good. However, it may change as the man finds new happiness.
ReplyDeleteI would also tell the father. One would think that the man would at least have a chance at happiness and peace if he were to know the truth. But it does put us in a difficult place, because we can never truly know what effects another person's happiness. I would like to think that knowing the truth would benefit the man, but it could have the opposite effect.
ReplyDeleteI would just have to hope that Bentham is correct, as Jay pointed out above, and thinking in the long term would be the best option.