It'll cost you an arm or a leg

Section three deals with harm, the concept of constraint, and the differences between doing and allowing. Kagan discusses the ethical dilemma of whether it is permissible to cut off George's leg in an attempt to save his life. (see bottom of pg 86) The consequentialist will permit this act only if the end result is the ideal outcome. The absolutist would disagree. Do you consider the final outcome to weigh more heavily than the intent of the act itself?

In further reading, section four widens the scope of constraint, and begins by dealing with the act of lying. Sure, most can agree that lying is "bad" or "wrong." We were taught this at very young ages. But upon reading Kagan, I was enlightened. (1st para top of pg 114) He specifies a very different point of view than the standard opinion of lying. He says, "...the constraint against lying should not be confused with a requirement to tell the truth." In other words, we are not entitled to say something one way or the other and therefore (by virtue of this argument) the act of saying nothing is not in itself lying. So, does 'withholding the truth' still constitute lying in your opinion? If you pretend to do something is this just as bad as having committed the act itself?

What if the act happens to be a faked suicide?? Has this just broken your threshold because it is only directly affecting one person? Getting back to good 'ol George of Chapter 3, if cutting off his leg only saved him then the die hard deontologist would balk. If it saved a thousand - now that's acceptable. Kagan continues after George to use yet another example: Harold & Maude. Cut off his leg to make a serum to save her life! Is Kagan possibly using a rare, and grossly underrated, 1971 movie reference? Unlikely, but nonetheless, I encourage you to seek out this film. In the meantime, I've provided the original trailer. Oh yeah - and you were warned!