Comment:

Doc is being simplistic and more than a little condescending here (which it normally shouldn't be able to do, in theory, but I think it's earned a little sass at this point - and, more importantly, Lee is obviously psychologically benefitting from actual pushback, and the recent "tough love" upgrade permits that.) Doc is correct, though - most "ethical dilemmas" are actually temptations, in much the same way that most "indecision" is actually procrastination (and "procrastination" is actually disordered thinking exacerbated by emotional or biological factors).

Don't believe me? The next time you're faced with what you think is a challenging ethical morass, try saying it out loud in the format "I SHOULD do [option A] but I'm TEMPTED to do [option B]", and then immediately rephrasing it as "I SHOULD do [option B] but I'm TEMPTED to do [option A]". Odds are good that one of those sentences will sound natural and the other will sound silly. If that's the case - you already know what the right thing to do is, you're just delaying doing it.

In the rare circumstance that both phrases sound equally valid, then you already know that the next step in the process is to seek more information or a second opinion, ideally from either the other parties potentially affected by your actions or from some sort of unbiased expert, so go do that.

In the event that you can't seek more information for whatever reason, then odds are good that both courses of action have pros and cons such that there is no real right answer (or, if you're lucky, that there is no real wrong answer), in which case you might as well flip a coin - time wasted deliberating only worsens what is already a non-ideal circumstance.

Is that a simplistic and solipsistic methodology? Yes, of course it is. Will it result in making mistakes that may have consequences? Yes, of course it will.

But look at it this way - less time wasted metaphorically wanking equals more time for actual wanking, which is, if not more productive or ethical or efficient, at least more enjoyable for at least one person.

Transcript:

---------------------------------------------------------------
0377– 2167/07/07/11:30- LC’s apartment, living room
Doc: Actually, hang on, you might only have one option after all.
LC: What’s this?
Doc: I’m looking over this CRGC residence application, and they have your diagnosis wrong. This is over six months out of date.
----------------------
LC: Ooh, is this an ethical dilemma, then?
Zoa: How do you mean?
LC: Like, should Doc correct the CRGP’s records, knowing that doing so may cause them to rescind their offer – which will, in turn, impact my mental health? What’s the priority, here: legality, or therapy? Will Doc be willing or able to break the rules for the sake of its patient?
----------------------
Doc: Actually, I just queried the CRGC about its procedures, and it advised me that, if I did update your records, you’d still qualify. In fact, it can upgrade you to a unit with more closet space. I’ve already gone ahead and done so, the revised documentation is being reviewed by a human agent as we speak.
LC: ...Oh.
----------------------
Doc: Yes, Lee, you may be pleased to learn that many so-called “ethical dilemmas” are actually just temptations, and when reduced down to math and looked at without prejudice or appetite, modern AIs can resolve them with relative ease.
LC: Well, still, I would have at least liked to pretend to have a philosophical discussion about it.
Zoa: Normally, I’d agree, but “encouraging you to wank” counts as a sexual service, so...
---------------------------------------------------------------