Blindness - Finale

The ending pages of "Blindness" provide little by way of moral dilemma, or it has just been too long since I last read the book.

However, one of the key issues that we discussed in class was the sence of duty and "responsibility" that the government proclaimed in the quarantine just before their departure. Is it justified? Was it their moral duty to take these people out of society? Was it their duty to comply? Like any other moral issue, it depends greatly upon who moral theorist you want to follow. Mill would find that all of these actions are completely justified in that separating these these people would do the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant would argue that the maxim that the government and blind people would be operating upon would be rather difficult to universalize. If you simply discard every person that could cause harm to society or may increase the chances of an epidemic, then you would have more individuals in prison or quarantine than not. Couldn't the mentally ill be considered a threat, what about the elderly with disease, surely every cancer patient would fall under these same rules. Finally, Aristotle would attempt to find the golden mean in conduct. I would believe this mean to be a self-contained quarantine. They simply would not be allowed to leave the house until further research was done. Regardless, it is the government's duty (perhaps Prima Facie duty) to protect it's people. In a situation like this something had to be done. However, the manner in which it was done is not acceptable.

Secondly, the Doctor's Wife's food gathering brought about another moral dilemma. As she realized after discovering the dead bodies, by collecting food for herself and the others, she was taking food away from everyone else. She called herself a murderer for this act. Is she? I think that this is a special situation because of the epidemic of blindness has taken over the majority of society and there was little of any moral or legal structure at the time. It almost reverts back to a survival of the fittest type of mentality. The eyes of the statues and paintings in the church were blinded with white cloth and paint. Clearly moral standard were lessened as they were in the asylum. Still, were her actions immoral? I would say that her actions were immoral but entirely necessary. Much like our unit on war, it is hard to classify which is of a greater good, but there are times when something can be immoral, but necessary. Of course taking food or anything that may result in another's death is immoral, but it is what must be done to survive. It would be unreasonable to allow oneself to die when it could be easily avoided.