Ethics Thought #1

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

Robert is an army doctor stationed in a combat zone with Steve, an infantryman. Robert and Steve are on friendly terms, but there is some tension between them due to Robert's religious beliefs. Robert belongs to a religious sect that believes that all people who do not believe in the sect's theological doctrines are tormented in the afterlife for eternity. Steve belongs to the ethnic religion he was born into, and has been unresponsive to Robert's attempts to convert him. When Steve is severely wounded, Robert has three choices: try to rescue Steve, even though he knows wounds this severe have only a 5 percent survival rate, try to make Steve comfortable as he passes away, or try to convert Steve yet again. Which of Robert's choices are ethical?

Most medical ethicists would only accept the first option, though some may make a case for the middle choice if Steve consents to it. The third option is deplorable to most ethical philosophers, doctors, and people in general. Even people who belong to a proselytizing religion generally understand that “witnessing” to people is inappropriate in many circumstances. Denying medical care to someone so that you can try to convert them away from their religion, especially when their religion is important to them because it is tied to their ethnic identity, is certainly deplorable, and I'm not defending it in any way.

What's interesting about this example isn't the answer itself, which is uncontroversial, but what the answer assumes. What's not immediately obvious is that determining an ethical course of action in this scenario forces us to make a truth judgment about Robert's religious beliefs. Too many ethicists try to gloss over religious disagreements and say that people, no matter what their differences, can reason together and agree on ethical guidelines regardless of religious differences. In a pluralistic society no one wants to say that anyone's religious beliefs are wrong, but we have to decide where religious expression is appropriate. It is all too common for people to be told that they can believe whatever they want, but they have to set their beliefs aside at work, or when voting, or in other social situations. It is a conceit of modern society that complete freedom of thought can be maintained alongside a prescribed set of ethics.

Because of this many people will deny that their condemnation of option three (“try to convert Steve yet again”) is in fact a condemnation of Robert's religious beliefs. We want to respect Robert's freedom of religion while also respecting Steve's right to life, but I do not believe this is possible. If Robert's religious beliefs are correct, and if Robert is ethically obligated to help Steve, then Robert must do all he can to save Steve from an eternity of suffering, and so Robert must try to convert Steve. Given that Robert believes that his beliefs are correct, option three is the most ethical choice. If, on the other hand, Robert's beliefs are incorrect, and if Robert is ethically obligated to help Steve, then Robert must do all he can to save Steve's life, and so Robert must treat Steve medically. Given that we do not share Robert's peculiar beliefs, option one is the most ethical choice for us.

My point is that the ethical decision hinges entirely on what we believe. Asking Robert to “set aside” his religious beliefs is asking him to act in an unethical manner according to his beliefs. If he is correct it would be monstrously unethical not to try to convert Steve. Scenarios like this force us to make a choice between the right to freedom of religion and thought and the right to life and welfare. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. I grow weary reading mealy-mouthed attempts to reconcile these conflicting rights when it is apparent that we must choose. A multicultural society can try to achieve a balance between freedom of thought and ethical responsibilities in general, but specific circumstances will force us to choose.

I believe that option three is wildly unethical, and anyone reading this will likely agree, but let us have the courage to not shy away from the logical implications of our beliefs. We reject the action because we reject the beliefs behind the action, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.