Blindness - Part Two

In the second section of the novel, we experience a little more of what it is like in the asylum with all of the seemingly connected blind folks together.

As far as my comprehension serves me, I see a few moral issues that have been risen in this section.

The first is the dilemma of the Doctor's Wife and how she wants to help her husband, but cannot do anything to compromise the fact that she can still see. Others are suspicious of her including some of the blind and the guards. It book notes how she feels like she is part of a moral dilemma since she can see and she feels guilty to the fact that she shouldn't be able to see others if they can't see her. There is no telling with the outcome may be if she acknowledges that she can see. I don't think that they would remove her and it is possible that she might even represent some truth that you can interact with these people and not become blind yourself. However, it could cause harm and distress to her by forcing to perform chores for the others in need. This is perhaps negligent of her command of reason or duty in the situation by helping those who do not have the means to help themselves. This may perhaps lead to blindness for her.

Another moral issue surrounds the injured blind man who stole the car and the soldiers. This is where the first issue of rules against humanity arises. The injured man asks for help after his leg was injured - however - the solider said that we would not help the man. At one point somehow exclaims that by not providing the man with the proper medical support, it was against of the rules of humanity. The solider implied that the man would be left to die. Therefore, the injured man tries to escape and was shot in the process, thus providing a precedent for the rest of the group as more individuals are shot. By analyzing this moral issue, I can't help but think about how Kant and Mill would view this situation. Mill would suggest that by allowing the blind to die, it would be necessary for the greater happiness of the rest of society because they would not be "infected" by the epidemic. However, Kant would say that this could not be universalized because certainly no one would want to be left for dead if the situation was reversed. It would not be reasonable for everyone to act in this manner and thus, immoral.