When I was positive that I wanted to go into the medical field, the idea of doing good or being a benefactor to the general state of health wasn't the first thing I had in mind. I really thought along the lines of I love learning science about the body, how it works, what affects it and I just liked talking to people- especially strangers. My inhibitions with complete strangers tend to disappear; mostly because I have the feeling that 1.) I'll never speak or see them ever again; 2.) I was really shy as a kid and I use this as an overcompensating mechanism to push that characteristic away and 3.) Even if I did see them on a regular basis, who would really care about someone you're very-mildly acquainted with. With those three factors in mind, I thought I'd be good at it and it'd be definitely be something I'd enjoy.
Growing older though has gotten me thinking about the idea of good. Hearing others' reasons for leaping into this profession sometimes makes me feel a little selfish at times. Selflessness and sacrifice to improve other people's lives is certainly different than doing something because you love it and want to be the best at it. This had me thinking about what really makes an action moralistically "good". Do we actually do something for bettering the condition of other people's lives because it's the right thing to do, or because it fulfills us? If it is with the intent of fulfilling us, then doesn't that make it an action spurred by selfishness- the want of feeling good about yourself because you did something good? Wouldn't that inherently make the action no longer good, because of its subconscious intent?
Perhaps the solution is to stop thinking from the persepctive of intent and look at it in terms of consequences. If I'm doing something I enjoy, and work hard at it to make myself the best at it, and in return, this improves things for everyone else, that would be fulfilling two moral imperatives. But looking at it purely through consequence discounts the work that millions have put throughout time and history to better the world; those people who spent their lives with the intent to make things better for society who for some reason could not succeed in their lifetimes. How can we reconcile these views?
Deciding on one or the other is probably a course in futility. Since I subscribe to the idea that from a consequence-basis, humanity is from a net-prespective, generally good (the idea that if we sum all the good and bad actions together, we'd come up slightly positive, i.e. good); I think I can rest easier keeping that in mind than to worry about intent. It may seem unfair to ignore intentions in the actions we have, but that makes me feel better and lets me see that others are better. And isn't that what it's all about in the end?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)