A different approach

Instead of the concept of ethics (right and wrong), DocBrain is experimenting (in his head) with a different paradigm: checks and balances.

The concept of ethics is based upon a belief that there are definite rights and wrongs. While this may indeed be true, it tends to polarize people into camps, creating victims and victimizers (villains). It requires empathy with each position to find the clear way to rightness. On the other hand, the concept of checks and balances admits to no right or wrong, just a golden mean, a point of balance that is where we want to be.

Here is an example. A man, addicted to drugs, murders a woman in cold blood while robbing a bank.

Ethics:

• Empathy with the woman: It is wrong for her life to have ended this way.
• Empathy with the man: He was a victim of drug abuse, probably due to a genetic abnormality in his brain that led him to being addictable. In addition, he probably had a genetic abnormality in his brain that made him violent, and another that made him less caring of laws. He was just unlucky that she was in the bank. How could her choice to be in the bank be his fault? Perhaps a look or a word from her was the trigger that set him over the top? Don't blame the vessel for the contents.
• So, while the death was wrong, the man is not entirely to blame, for we, as a society, could have been more attuned to his special problems and needs.

Checks and Balances:

• A woman was killed in a bank robbery. Do we want more events like this to happen? No. OK. We need to understand what caused this man to do his act and to find ways to identify people who are like him and keep them from doing such acts in the future.
• Can we guarantee that the man who killed her won't do it again? No. OK. He cannot be let out in open society ever again.
• Can the man who killed her do anything to bring her back? No. OK
• Can the man who killed her do anything to restore balance in society? Yes. He can submit to human experimentation, work to create wealth to pay off his debt to the woman's family, or just commit suicide and reduce the burden on society for his life and needs.

Does checks and balances represent a practical solution for complex problems? Lets try one more.

Young woman in a persistent vegetative state for years:

• Do we want to prevent the husband from getting on with his life? No. OK. Go and get on with your life. No reason not to.
• Do we want the pvs woman to die? No. OK. Lets all chip in and pay for her care, and take turns visiting her.

Comments welcome!