Reply #10: yes, that's possible

[gottaB]

It would reasonable to expect as much if (a) the good is completely relative, or (b) the good is absolute, but whether or not a particular action or thing should be viewed as good would depend upon situational variables, more or less.

It also seems reasonable to hold the notion, as I am exploring here, that although one doesn't know, and indeed can't know whether something is good before the fact, one nevertheless can orient oneself towards the good, which may be understood as an absolute.

An example. Morphine. Is morphine good? Is it a good thing to give morphine to a child? On most days that would presumably be a bad thing, but after a terrible scooter accident, for example, it might indeed be a good thing. Medical ethicists of course recognize many finer points regarding the use of morphine, such as the probablity that a patient will survive a painful injury or affliction, or the effectiveness of other analgesics, the known side-effects of those, and like considerations.

In many cases I think it would be wise to admit some doubt as to whether morphine would be a good thing. I have a hunch that many physicians who prescribe morphine for their terminally ill patients do not do so lightly, and may never be absolutely certain that it's the best thing to do. Yet they are guided by certain principles, "first do no wrong," or "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous," (that's from the Adams translation of the hippocratic oath, but any will serve.) In fact the AMA's Institute for Ethics has developed a large corpus of guidelines on the administration of medicine in cases of "medical fultility," and I would expect these to inform the judgement of physicians who would consider whether to give morphine to a terminally ill patient.

Even with such a large body of institutional knowledge and guidance, a certain moral authority (or lattitude) is left to the judgement of the physician. Does that mean that the AMA or its members necessarily subscribe to a relativist view of the good? Not at all. They simply hold that in their profession the good of the patient is paramount, and that what that means for the physician will depend upon a number of circumstances which he must evaluate to the best of his judgement and abilities. A physician who loses sight of the goal of providing beneficial care for the patient may be found guilty of malpractice, stripped of his license, or face other criminal charges. (Actually, I think most malpractice cases focus on the quality of the physician's judgement, and cite as evidence his adherance to established guidelines and procedures, but there are of course notorious cases of evil doctors, serial killer nurses and such.)