This Sunday’s The Ethicist column in the New York Times contains two questions and answers which, to me, each dealt with the same theme.
The first question involved whether a doctor should be reported for unethical behavior when the motivation was revenge, and the second question involved an individual wanting to pay somebody else’s debt where the existence of that debt could potentially have a negative financial effect on the questioner.
So I saw each question as dealing with the question of action versus motivation.
This is a question I have thought of many times over the years.
In the column, there is a difference between the motivation in the two questions. The motivation of revenge is basically to hurt another person, as opposed to the motivation of avoiding a potential negative financial effect which is more self-serving (although I have to admit that the idea of taking revenge on someone else can be viewed as self-serving).
Many years ago I believed that the motivation was more important. That led to some feelings of guilt when I hoped that my volunteering in some organization would somehow come back and benefit me financially. It was in a seminar on volunteering that the speaker said that it was perfectly natural to hope for a benefit and that the only requirement in volunteering was to do what you said you would do.
After that I “switched sides” and now believe that action is more important than the motivation.
So my bottom line is to do what one is supposed to do, to do the right thing. Well I guess it would be better with a proper motivation, whatever that might be, that in itself is less important.
For the record, in the column each answer told the questioner that they could proceed with their proposed action.
