< Previous | Contents | Next >
There are situations which seem too trivial to warrant invocation of any high moral standards. Suppose X invites Y to a function at his home. X is residing far away from the city in a suburb. Y is unable to summon the necessary energy to drive through the serpentine traffic to X’s residence.
What should Y do in this situation?
1. Pretend to be unwell or as tied up elsewhere.
2. Agree to attend but ring up X at the last minute and make an excuse.
3. Agree to attend if the function is important.
4. Try to induce some other guest to take his car and join him.
In (1), in order not to hurt X’s sentiments, Y pretends that he is unwell. From one point of view, Y’s conduct may seem an innocuous attempt to avoid embarrassment in interpersonal relations. However, rigorous moralists will hold that Y should tell X the real reason for not attending the function and bear the likely discomfort or unpleasantness. They will add that convenient lies are habit forming and stepping stones for more serious moral transgressions. Incidentally, professional ethics or rules governing official conduct presuppose truth telling as an invariant norm. Exceptions, if any, can be condonedin non-official contexts.
The second alternative is worse than the first one. For in this case, X would have made arrangements and spent money in anticipation of Y’s visit.
The third alternative is the best since one is expected not to skip major social functions. One has to undergo the necessary trouble which such attendance entails. If the function is minor, Y can frankly tell X of his difficulty in negotiating through heavy traffic.
The fourth option is undesirable. The other guest will also suffer the same irritation as X in driving through heavy traffic. X will be transferring his problem to someone else. It also shows an undesirable trait of freeloading or lack of self-reliance.