Minua ihmetyttää tuo, onko hoitoalojen ammattilaisille, poliisille ym ihmisille selvä tuo, että mitä moraali sanoo siitä, kuka saa hoitaa ketä ja että mitä saa määrätä ja mitä ei. Yleensä kai hoitoalan ihminen haluaisi mielellään hoitaa jotakin presidentin tapaista esim. henkilöä, jolla on jokin virka, taito tai vaikutusvalta, ja ajattelisi siitä saavansa etua itselleen, lähinnä vaikutusvaltaa ja rahallista hyötyä kai ja pelottelumahdollisuuden. Mutta moraalin näkövinkkelistä on niin, että kullakin ihmisellä on vastuuntuntonsa määrä, miten laajalti kantaa asioista ja ihmisistä vastuuta, ja mikä taas jää tuon yksilön vastuuntuntoisuuden ulkopuolelle, huolehtimatta, sekä lisäksi on taitojen määrä, esim. ymmärrys ja taidot kullakin elämänalueella sekä havaintokyky ja havaintovarmuus sen osana. Hoitohenkilökunta ei saisi päättää mistään laajemmasta kuin mistä kantaa vastuuta, siis esim. vain hoitotyöstä vastuuta kantava ei saisi päättää presidentin tai muunkaan itseään laajemmalti vastuuta kantavan asioista mitään, vaan vastuuntuntoisen olisi itse saatav päättää kaikki, jottei vaikutuksia mihinkään laajempiin kysymyksiin tulisi ties miten pahaatekeviltä tai huolehdittavat asiat hunningolle jättäviltä. Yleensä se, joka ei ole kiinnostunut jostakin aiheesta, teloo sen kuin tökerö pahoipitelijä, jos siihen puuttuu, kuin mikä lie huonontyyppinen diktaattori, jonka käsissä maan asiat menevät huonosti. Sen sijaan henkilö, joka huolehtii jostakin alueesta hyvin, yleensä antaa sen ihmisten olla ihan vapaasti, järjestääpähän vain jonkin tervehenkisesti toiumivan kätevän avun johonkin yleisesti toivottuun hyväätekevään.
Se, että joku on hierargiassa korkealla ei merkitse, ettei hänen kanssaan noudatettaisi mitään pelisääntöjä, vaan heidänkin kanssaan on oltava moraalinen ja tervejärkinen sekä tervehenkinen.
Esim. jos joku on moraalisempi kuin mitä laki edellyttäisi ja hyvällä ymmärryksellä varustettu, niin ehkä joku sanoo hänen olevan lain yläpuolella mutta se siis merkitsee, että hänen kanssaan noudatetaan lakia täydesti paitsi ehkä joustetaan siitä moraalisempaan suuntaan.
* * *
engl. translation
I am puzzled about whether people working in medicine or in nursing kidn of work, and whether police and other peoole have been made clear what moral says about who is allowed to nurse whom and what one is allowed to command and what not. Usually people in nursing type of work would like to nurse someone like a president, who has some job position, skill or influence, and they would think taht nursing such would give them benefit, mainly influence and money benefit and propably also the ability to scare people, threaten them. But moral says that each individual has one's own amount of carrying responsibility about people and things, and what is left outside that area, not taken care of, and in addition an amount of skills, for example understanding and skills on each area of life and perception ability and how sure it is. Those in nursing type of professions should not be allowed to decide anything larger, anything more important or wider than what they themselves carry responsibility over, so for example a person caring only about nursing should not decide anything about a president or anyone else carrying wider responsibility than she herself / he himself, instead those who carry responsibility should be allowed to decide everything so as to avoid influences from evil people and from irresponsible people. Usually a person who is not interested in some subject, breaks it like as if in a fight, if one interferes with it, like a poor dictator that ruins one's country. Instead a person who cares well for some area, usually lets those people live freely and just arranges some needed generally wanted moral thing in healthy well working ways.
Someone being high in a hierargy does not mean that one should not follow any rules of game with him /her, instead with him/her one needs to behave morally and according to common sense with a picture of the whole and with healthy spirit. For example if someone is more moral than what law requires and with a good understanding, maybe someone says that he/she is above the law, but it means that with him/her one should also follow law fully but maybe be inclined to even more moral behaviour than the law is.
When there is some common sense lacking in the laws or some big problem needing correcting, correcting those may in common sense like ways like is fair go above the laws.
In Finland there is the saying "Emergency does not read the law." meaning that you can for example steal something not so important in order to help someone in an emergency.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
"Live and let others live" also if there are lots of murders
The Finnish rule "Live and let others live!" means roughly that "it is ok to be selfish (in ways positive for happy life) but not to disturb the lives of others, not to cause unfairly harm to others".
So if there for example is a meadow full of insects and they eat lots of other insects and birds too eat them, one could still use this rule:
Just avoid things like torture and ruining the society and instead preferably make murders, possibly with cannibalism but with the consequences of each murder and especially of many murders and decisions to not to murder someone, taken into account morally, wishing for the good of the society and of the world in the long run..
That is just why we have armies and police, even education: to prevent worse, even if it means killing many. That is just how societies work well, protect good life by common effort. If some insect eats the corpse, I do not see how it would somehow be wrong in essence, it sounds like natural, but of course if one makes it a habit to kill without regard on whom one kills and why, just kill somebody when one is hungry, does one then kill the friendly morally ok society members while enemies of the society keep distance and that is wrong, just against the idea, against the right to kill someone, namely the enemies of good life should be killed and those creating good life in the society and in the world should be given well room to live in and safety & fair support.
So if there for example is a meadow full of insects and they eat lots of other insects and birds too eat them, one could still use this rule:
Just avoid things like torture and ruining the society and instead preferably make murders, possibly with cannibalism but with the consequences of each murder and especially of many murders and decisions to not to murder someone, taken into account morally, wishing for the good of the society and of the world in the long run..
That is just why we have armies and police, even education: to prevent worse, even if it means killing many. That is just how societies work well, protect good life by common effort. If some insect eats the corpse, I do not see how it would somehow be wrong in essence, it sounds like natural, but of course if one makes it a habit to kill without regard on whom one kills and why, just kill somebody when one is hungry, does one then kill the friendly morally ok society members while enemies of the society keep distance and that is wrong, just against the idea, against the right to kill someone, namely the enemies of good life should be killed and those creating good life in the society and in the world should be given well room to live in and safety & fair support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)