With every action we take, we’re rolling the dice…
Jacintha Saldanha, a nurse at the King Edward VII hospital in Great Britain, happened to be the staffer on duty when two Australian disc jockeys made a prank call to the hospital ward where the Duchess of Cambridge was staying for treatment of the symptoms of her recently disclosed pregnancy. The DJs, Mel Greig and Michael Christian, pretended to be the Queen and Prince Charles, and the gullible nurse discussed the royal patient’s condition with them, violating protocol and security. Three days later, Saldanha, the 46-year-old mother of two, was found dead of an apparent suicide.
Now the disc jockeys are off the air indefinitely, and being pilloried as virtual murderers in some local media as if Saldanha’s death was a predictable and reasonable outcome of their admittedly irresponsible gag. It wasn’t. Presumably the same people screaming for Gaig’s and Christian’s heads would also be doing so if the nurse had been asked, in the fashion of a gentler, dumber era of phone pranks, if she had Prince Albert (tobacco) in a can (“You do? Then for God’s sake, let him out!”) and killed herself in humiliation. This was not a natural outcome of their juvenile routine. This was an unhinged over-reaction that had to have underlying causes far deeper than a practical joke phone call. The shock jocks were the victims of moral luck, the same phenomenon that leaves a tipsy partier who drives home without incident a respected citizen, but turns a driver who is no more intoxicated and attended the same party into a community pariah because a careless child ran in front of his car. The two drunk drivers were identical in their conduct. One was lucky. The other was not.
Moral luck is simultaneously fair and unfair. It is fair that we should be held responsible for the consequences of our actions, but unfair that two individuals who engage in exactly the same conduct should be judged differently based on consequences entirely beyond their control. The conduct ought to be regarded as the same in ethical terms regardless of the consequences, if the results couldn’t have been anticipated. In tort law, a defendant is liable for the damages that are a direct consequence of his wrongful action, no matter how unlikely. That does not hold for the ethical assessment of those actions, however. Deciding on the ethical nature of conduct based on results is consequentialism, the same fallacy at the root of “the ends justifies the means.” Grieg and Christian engaged in a deceptive trick designed to induce a professional to violate the privacy of a patient and the rules of her employer, with the risk that this would cause her personal embarrassment and perhaps even place her job at risk. That was certainly unethical, unfair and wrong, but it doesn’t make them killers or monsters. They are no worse than any other jerks who play such pranks.
They were just unluckier. And whether we realize it or not, every one of us are rolling the same dice they were, every day of our lives.
Scary? You bet.
_______________________________
Facts: CNN
Ethics Alarms 
Even Charles joked about it. Motive: purely fun. Result: Unanticipated.
If Howard Stern were to answer to every evil deed he assaulted upon his audience, he would be hung from the highest tree.. This was an accident waiting to happen.
I disagree. If you have a few drinks and you drive home and you kill someone there are serious consequences – even though you didnt mean to kill someone. I think that impersonating the Queen is ethically wrong because she is a person of authority – like if I pretended to be a General and phoned an army base, or pretended to be a police officer etc… that is why it is more serious than other silly pranks. The DJ’s didn’t intend to kill someone, they may have thought someone might get fired though. I think they just didn’t have the moral conscience to think their actions through to one of the likely conclusions – very similar to a guy in a bar who dosent think his few drinks will kill anyone.
You misunderstand. Completely. It has nothing to do with what you intend, and that isn’t the point of the post. Nor are the actions of shock jocks in any way comparable to a drunk driver.The drunk driver is dangerous, whether he actually kills anyone or not, and whether he understands or not. A shock jock is NOT dangerous.
Read it again. There’s nothing to “disagree” with. Moral luck isn’t a theory, it’s part of life, and this was a classic example of hwo it works.
drunk driver’s impaired actions cause death. DJ’s actions only cause death if someone else is completely ridiculous. There’s no reasonable connection between “pranked by DJs to put a call through” and “killed self.”
It is an interesting and complex scenario.
Two problems here-
1) The prank call. Yes all in harmless fun, but nonetheless, boiled down to it it IS at its bare bones impersonation of someone you are not, therefore a lie. Especially, when done as someone who is the leader of a nation in a convincing scenario in which another has reason to believe the leader of the nation would call.
2) The nurse divulging information to an unconfirmed requester. My wife is a nurse and if anyone calls asking about the condition of a patient, their procedure is to either forward the call to the patient’s room or to tell the caller to come to the hospital and talk to the patient.
Aren’t these people a little too old to play practical jokes? Didn’t they think of the consequences? Now a wife, mother of two, a devoted caregiver, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, a human being, has lost her life. For goodness sake, think about the consequences of what you are doing. Now, all Australians (of which I am one) are going to be judged as thoughtless, uncaring pranksters because of these two idiotic fool DJ’s.
Not to be callous, but she didn’t lose her life. She took it. After essentially ruining her own life by violating patient privacy (a very serious ethical violation in the nursing realm)
She is greatly (but not fully) alleviated of this because she was confronted with who she thought was the leader of her country seeking information about a relative.
I can only imagine the immediate and possibly un-clearing clouding of one’s judgment when confronted with that scenario.
Not gently put, perhaps, but no really callous. No prank phone call kills anyone, and people are never driven to suicide—there were and always are other options, like NOT killing oneself.
And “aren’t you too old to be making prank calls” is not a helpful or rational response either. Shock jocks are paid to do things like this, because people listen to them and enjoy it. Isn’t Jim Carrey too old to making funny faces? Isn’t Joan Rivers too old to be faking snarky comments? Isn’t David Letterman too old to be a smug, lazy, arrogant jerk? For that matter, isn’t R.L. Dickey too old to be playing baseball? We call these things occupations. Nobody really grows up, anyway, in my observations.
people are never driven to suicide—there were and always are other options
You went to far here. By your logic, nobody is ever blackmailed and no one is ever made to cry. There are other options.
Two weird comparisons: the fact of blackmail is in the complete control of the blackmailer. Nobody has to submit to blackmail, however. As for crying, it is often an involuntary physiological response. But suicide is 100% voluntary, unless it is coerced, in which case it is murder. There are always other options. There may not be other good options.
My point was that if you can’t be driven to commit suicide, then you can’t be driven to do anything. You always have a choice, and if you don’t actually have a choice, then you weren’t driven to do it, someone else did it to you.
You aren’t divorcing the involuntary emotional responses to stress from the actual decisions made by people.
A person can be driven to humiliation by a blackmailer, but they still have several options to choose from to react to that potential humiliation – but if they go the route of paying the blackmailer they have still chosen.
A person can be driven to such anger, or humiliation, or sadness that they cry, but they still have several options to choose from for ways to react to that stress. You didn’t list an actual action taken to complete that analogy (so your analogy in this case is incomplete).
A person can be driven to such despair that suicide becomes a seemingly more plausible action to take to alleviate that stress. However, they still CHOOSE that option from among many.
I don’t disagree with where you are going with this as long as you recognize that there are 2 things to be discussed in this — involuntary emotion responses to stress vs the choices made to alleviate said stress.
I don’t disagree with where you are going with this as long as you recognize that there are 2 things to be discussed in this — involuntary emotion responses to stress vs the choices made to alleviate said stress.
I generally agree that there are normally 2 components (reactions we don’t think we control and reactions we do think we control), but, under enough stress, I think the latter may go away.
please stick with this illustration, it gets tedious but I feel it is valuable:
Envision a circle.
Within that circle resides points- thousands if not millions of points. Each point represents an action one person can do.
The circle encompassing these points represents your ability then. The bigger the circle, the more ability, therefore more possible actions you CAN take. Imagine this circle does not change except conditions in your life change such as new knowledge or training expands the circle or a disability reduces the circle.
Now, envision another circle, this one is dynamic and rapidly changes depending on the stress or information introduced in an individual’s life. This circle represents a person’s perception of what actions and individual feels is RIGHT in a given situation (this circle is influenced by values, fears, etc). You could say that the circle of a narrow minded individual reduces to only a few available actions when particular stresses hit. And vice versa for individuals who can remain calm and rational during stress events: their circle does not decrease so narrowly, but remains broad. You could say this dynamic circle is very much a function of the individual’s disposition on life.
Now, using that model for illustration:
You are asserting that some individual’s “outlook circle” immediately reduces to but one available action of the thousands available in the Circle representing ‘non stressed life’. I would describe such people as hysterical, panickers, rash people.
I could admit that, but only for a small percentage of individuals who never developed coping mechanisms (things that help keep the circle big, despite stress).
I think it more accurate to describe individuals who feel they have but one action available (in this case, suicide) as the result of having their dynamic circle from the illustration slowly reduced over time by stressor after stressor after stressor.
I’m still refining and expanding on the circle illustration. My terminology is not fully refined for it.
And I’m sure some other academic type has a better illustration.
Ack. Typing on my iphone has led me to miss my primary comment:
However an individual reaches the point that they take a singular action, they reached that decision after a series of value judgments between MANY available options or they reached only a single available action due to their own inability to cope or due to their own internal restrictions, they reach that action in their own responsibility.
You are asserting that some individual’s “outlook circle” immediately reduces to but one available action of the thousands available in the Circle representing ‘non stressed life’. I would describe such people as hysterical, panickers, rash people.
I asserted no such thing. First, your usage of the word “immediately” completely changes the situation. Second, your description misses my comment completely..Your circle description still has the user in control of their actions. I was talking about how the brain thinks its handling input. It’s a quality change, not a quantity change.
We disagree there. Some individuals under complete duress may not see other options available and their mental state is reduced to catatonic and they are ‘forced’ physiologically into only one action.
I still submit that the life experiences they have had and how they CHOSE to compartmentalize those experiences into their worldview and disposition are still their responsibility. Regardless of if a current event forces their brain to react in only one way, they are still responsible.
You don’t show a place we disagree. I absolutely agree with this statement: “Some individuals under complete duress may not see other options available and their mental state is reduced to catatonic and they are ‘forced’ physiologically into only one action.”
Again, though, that is not the situation I’ve been talking about. Here, the brain still thinks it’s choosing…just choosing from only one option. That’s distinguishable from actions a person makes without thinking they are choosing…even choosing the only option they see.
Your second paragraph is a completely new tack. You’re saying that anyone who is forced into an action is at fault because they made bad prior choices. If I kidnap and mercilessly torture someone for a dozen years so they are in agony every second of their life, and then, when I give them an opportunity to kill themselves, they do it, the blame lies on them, not me.
“Again, though, that is not the situation I’ve been talking about. Here, the brain still thinks it’s choosing…just choosing from only one option. That’s distinguishable from actions a person makes without thinking they are choosing…even choosing the only option they see.”
This needs clarification.
“If I kidnap and mercilessly torture someone for a dozen years so they are in agony every second of their life, and then, when I give them an opportunity to kill themselves, they do it, the blame lies on them, not me.”
Reductio ad absurdum. If not, it is still arguing exceptions, not rules.
Michael/tex,
I’m not sure how I can clarify any more. Of all of our actions, for some of them we have apparent free will, but others we feel are automatic. While writing this post, I believe I am exercising personal control over what I’m writing. If someone throws a ball at me, I catch it. I don’t consciously think about it, I just do it.
I’ve been suggesting that under stress, the actions we believe we are in control of lessen in favor of automatic responses. It’s a qualitative difference in how we act.
You were ignoring this, and talking about our actions as if we always have apparent free will.
Reductio ad absurdum
I don’t think you understand that term. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of logic.
Also, you’re the one that set a general rule. If that rule fails in the extreme case, then the rule is wrong. It doesn’t say that my position is necessarily right, but in this case, you pretty much have to admit that people are not always responsible for negative actions.
“the actions we believe we are in control of lessen in favor of automatic responses”/i>
Which I’ve already addressed. Your ‘automatic’ decisions and ‘automatic’ actions, are all trained into you from internalization of your life experiences. Which, again, I’ve addressed. Feel free to re-read.
“You were ignoring this, and talking about our actions as if we always have apparent free will.”/i>
No, I wasn’t. You chose a few of my comments out of the larger explanation and extrapolated from those for your own needs, as per a typical practice of yours.
“Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of logic. “
Typically found in mathematical proofs and other logic. When used for discussing human behavior, you’ll find it lends itself mostly for discussing exceptions to rules instead of rules themselves. Humans aren’t programs.
Let’s stipulate that your objective IS actually valid (which it is not). The burden of proof is now on you to equate the nurse’s life experiences to your hypothetical life-long kidnapping and torture victim’s life.
Go for it.
Automatic responses
Here’s the closest you came to writing that you understood what I was saying:
Me: “It’s a quality change, not a quantity change.”
You: “We disagree there. Some individuals under complete duress may not see other options available and their mental state is reduced to catatonic and they are ‘forced’ physiologically into only one action. ”
This though still says that the person is seeing the options. At best, it’s ambiguous.
Whatever, now that we’re on the same page, right?
Address of automatic responses
“Your ‘automatic’ decisions and ‘automatic’ actions, are all trained into you from internalization of your life experiences.”
Before, you were saying that people still had choices in any given moment (so they were responsible). Now that we’re in the same frame that sometimes actions are not the result of conscious choice, you are saying the people could have behaved differently before, so their actions are still their responsibility. I agree, but only to a point.
In any case, I think we’ve gotten to the point where we can agree that someone can be driven to a specific action, right?
Reductio ad absurdum
It isn’t just used in math. It can be validly used anytime someone creates a general rule. It’s valid logic. In this case, it showed that your statement that people are always responsible for their actions was false, and that’s all I was trying to do there.
Let’s stipulate that your objective IS actually valid (which it is not). The burden of proof is now on you to equate the nurse’s life experiences to your hypothetical life-long kidnapping and torture victim’s life.
What now? I haven’t said anywhere that the nurse was driven to suicide. This subthread was spun off Jack’s comment: “people are never driven to suicide—there were and always are other options, like NOT killing oneself.”
Do we agree that the statement isn’t true, now?
“Whatever, now that we’re on the same page, right?”
No.
“In any case, I think we’ve gotten to the point where we can agree that someone can be driven to a specific action, right? ”
No. I’m going to pull on you what you pull on Jack all the time. Attributing connotation to words used. Only this time, it is very likely justified. Saying someone is ‘driven’ to a specific action IMPLIES something is doing the ‘driving’. When a particular something is doing the ‘driving’ then that particular something becomes responsible for the results. Except, that is not the case.
Since you understand reduction ad absurdum, we’ll use the following example:
You are extremely sensitive about your hair color. Throughout your childhood, teenage years, and other formative ages, you have reacted very internally negatively about comments made about your hair color, compliments OR insults, all because of one initial comment that was slightly negative when you were 4 years old. So much so that those comments have been building in you natural reactions towards people of negativity. Then one day I come along and say “Hey, have you ever considered changing your hair color to such-and-such?” Then you go and off yourself.
Did I drive you to suicide? Like I should have known about your own irrational internalizations of life’s experiences?
The answer is no. Therefore, in the spirit of TGT, you need a better word than “driven”.
”Do we agree that the statement isn’t true, now? ”
No.
“Driven” is the right word. You made the mistake of thinking “the driver” has to be a single external actor. In your example, I’d say the person drove themself to suicide. In other situations, it would be a number of people and situations that are collectively the driver.
Also, reductio ad absurdum won’t work here. I said it’s possible to be driven to do something. Finding a case where someone isn’t driven to do something wouldn’t make a dent in my argument.
“Driven” is the right word. You made the mistake of thinking “the driver” has to be a single external actor. In your example, I’d say the person drove themself to suicide. In other situations, it would be a number of people and situations that are collectively the driver.
If your point has nothing to do with responsibility then this entire discussion is a waste.
“Dear universe and laws of chemistry that govern neurological processes, you sure are mean!!” -TGT
tex,
I don’t see where I suggested that my point had nothing to do with responsibility. You created a case which you claim disproves my statement that people can be driven to do something (where driven implies an external responsibility). I pointed out that this was a case where the driving factors aren’t external (responsibility is internal). I also pointed out that your case doesn’t counter my argument, as my argument is just a “sometimes”. There’s nothing there where I imply in the slightest that responsibility doesn’t factor it.
As for the quote you attributed to me… sure, I’ll take the idea. The natural world sure is a brutal place.
“I don’t see where I suggested that my point had nothing to do with responsibility.” –TGT
From Missy’s original post discussing consequences through the opening back and forth’s leading to your comment on 10 December at 8:05 pm are all discussing who is the source of the nurse’s actions, who is to blame….who is responsible. At which point it abstracted to actions taken under duress in general, but all still geared towards responsibility towards those actions.
“as my argument is just a “sometimes”. There’s nothing there where I imply in the slightest that responsibility doesn’t factor it.” -TGT
You’ve identified that you are arguing what you consider to be an exception to a rule. Stipulating that you are right (which you have yet to prove), you then admit this is just a ‘sometimes’. With the stipulation that this ‘sometimes’ is even right (again, yet to be proven), then congrats on one of your usual tactics of muddying the waters by finding a self-admittedly minor instance to the contrary.
no responsibility
Your summary doesn’t help anything. There was no question that responsibility was part of the discussion the entire time. I never suggested otherwise. In this subthread, I haven’t been talking about the Nurse’s responsibility for her suicide, but I have also never pretended to be. I took issue with one of Jack’s premises. I agree with his conclusion, but I couldn’t agree with that piece of his argument.
sometimes
The framing you’re trying to do with rules and exceptions is just weird. Jack made a definitive statement that something never exists. I pointed out that I didn’t agree. I’m not arguing that there’s an exception to the rule; I’m arguing that the rule is wrong.
There’s no negative connotation to point out counterexamples to a claim that something “never” happens. Rarely happens would have been fine for me. Hell, you’ve implied agreement that the something can occur. Remember when I said this: “If I kidnap and mercilessly torture someone for a dozen years so they are in agony every second of their life, and then, when I give them an opportunity to kill themselves, they do it, the blame lies on them, not me.”
By calling it reductio ad absurdum, you implied that you agreed this was a case where the outside actor was responsible and drove the person to their death.
So long as you agree that this can occur, we’re done.
Your beef is with the word ‘driven’. Jack says no one can be driven to suicide.
Driven implies driver. Driver implies knowing where one is going. No one drives another person to suicide, because no one knows what makes an individual tick enough to know how to drive them towards the despair needed for suicide.
Invent an extreme case, invent a hypothetical, invent what you must. A person committing suicide CHOOSES to do so of their own accord. Whether or not they see other options available does not mean those options are not available. They still CHOOSE suicide.
They may allow themselves to be driven to it, by virtue that they do not cope with life’s stresses or by putting on blinders to other options.
Jack’s comment stands. Your obfuscation fails, repeatedly. Case closed.
You dropped off all the just mentioned points. Do you admit you were wrong about them?
As for your post itself. “Driven” does not imply a knowing driver, and your repeat of your belief is highly entertaining, as it shows yet another logical error: “A person committing suicide CHOOSES to do so of their own accord. Whether or not they see other options available does not mean those options are not available. They still CHOOSE suicide.” You redefined “choose” from actually choosing an action, to just acting. If someone’s playing monopoly and they roll doubles 3 times in a row, they are “choosing” to go to jail.
“You dropped off all the just mentioned points. Do you admit you were wrong about them?” -TGT
No, because I am right. I grow weary of repeating myself to a word smith.
“You redefined “choose” from actually choosing an action, to just acting. If someone’s playing monopoly and they roll doubles 3 times in a row, they are “choosing” to go to jail.” -TGT
No, you are making up a horribly flawed conclusion and attributing it to me. Tsk tsk.
Also, your monopoly analogy is amusing. Take that discussion up with a Calvinist.
Silently dropping an argument is evidence that you can’t respond. If you could, you would. In this last response, you silently dropped the driven argument.
For my analogy, I thought I summed up your argument. If I didn’t sum it up, what did I get wrong? The person, seeing no other options, did the only thing they saw available to them.
Since you didn’t point out any actual problems, I’m left to only guess. Maybe the problem you see is that there were no other choices for them to know about. If that was your issue, say there’s a house rule that you can pay $100 to skip going to jail on three straight doubles, but the player doesn’t know about that rule. If they go to jail, doing the only thing they think they can do, did they choose to go to jail?
No, I’ve silently dropped nothing. I have been forced to repeat myself to the equivalent of a stone wall. I’ll repeat latest again: I grow weary of it.
This has gone on long enough, we know your position on it, shaky as it is. We know mine, solid at it is. I’ll go on about it no more.
Again, you’re refusing to engage. You can leave the discussion at any time, but it sure looks like you’re running out to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
I won’t call you an arrogant ass, I’ll let your behavior reveal that.
I am disengaging after 2 solid weeks (14 days, go back and review the timestamps if you doubt my math) of *engaging* on this topic with you, within the larger 19 days of taking part in this discussion.
Nothing new is coming of this. You tap dance around and run circles and are a master at circumlocution. You have worn down my patience and endurance on this; you have not worn down the rectitude of my stance. Spin it as you will.
I have been forced to repeat myself to the equivalent of a stone wall. I’ll repeat latest again: I grow weary of it. (x3)
This has gone on long enough, we know your position on it, shaky as it is. We know mine, solid at it is. I’ll go on about it no more. (x2)
Good day.
Additional consideration on the topic of those particular suicide.
We are judging this suicide through a lens that has been tinted by the prank call and her violation of patient privacy.
We haven’t considered what else in her life was potentially piling up and pushing her further and further to despair. The publicization of her patient privacy violation may have just been the straw that broke the camel’s back (a very large straw)
Jack, this is exactly why I enjoy your comments so much. Your observations of famous people are hilarious. Especially if one is in agreement, which of course makes it even funnier. There is nothing funny about this tragedy, but still when I hear these two DJ goofballs with their goofy English accents, I still have the urge to chuckle, even thought I know now that I shouldn’t.. It’s just too ….silly. The pure fact that someone took this prank so seriously, to actually kill herself, well that’s not funny. So the consequences to this prank was a tragedy for one person, but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that this was a silly prank,. Perhaps one might wonder what sort of consequences did this poor nurse think she might face? I think a loss of a job does not equate with killing oneself… or else a good portion of our unemployed population would be dead.