I spent a few hours arguing with one of the brightest people I know about philosophy.
The question was simple - if you could save 1,000 lives by taking one innocent one, would you, and if you would, why is it ethical?
The question arises from the question I was asked by Divad, specifically, are there EVER any circumstances where, effectively, the ends justifies the means - is Khant ever in error?
To me, there are two answers, I'll give you mine and his.
My answer was this, if there will be a loss of life regardless, better that it be one, than 999 more. The concept is essentially that you must do the least amount of harm - the least harm is saving 999 lives. This is not Benthamite philosophy, i.e. put the points on a scale, but rather, as harm is unavoidable, do the least possible.
My friend's argument, which I am hard-pressed to rebut is that even then, you cannot take an inoocent life, to do so, is to effectively say that you can act dishonorably to achieve an honorable end. Further, that it leads to value judgements which are the root of things like torture, Abu Ghraib, Mai Lai, etc.. Effectively, his point is, every bad act - with the exception of those taken by psychopaths, is done 'for the greater good.' Finally, if the situation is random (meaning, if I could save 1000 people from a flood, but to do so one person would have to die because I had to blow up a bridge to create a dam, and had not time to get that person off of the bridge), well, that's one thing - no coercion, but if I was instead being coerced - then my action is my choice only to decide whether to be party to a murder - as the person who would otherwise kill 1000 people if I didn't kill 1 - THEY were at fault, they were the chooser of life or death for 1000, not me. I was only choosing to be party to the death or life of one person.
The question's answer I feel lies in part in the situation - is it a force majeur event for which I'm choosing to save the most possible and also it lies in the idea of liberty over life - I don't know the answer, but would be intrigued to hear your theories.
It would be intersting to have you elaborate on your introduction into this discussion of the term force majeure, as it has so many connotations: from simple superior force, coercion, act of god, to a legal clause releasing parties in a contract.
ReplyDeleteBentham's concept of ethicl utilitarianism, sometimes condensed to the greatest good for the greatest number is an interesting addition to the discussion. I would have loved to have been in on that philosophical discussion you had. It is an intellectual breath of fresh air to see a blog that understands the difference between religion, morality, ethics and legality in concept - and can apply it.
I think that you are perhaps falling into a bad framing of the choices here, the one that Cheney and company would have you use to define the choices. This improperly defines the situation.
I agree with Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, that the Bush administration panicked, that they felt the need to appear tough and harsh, but that they actually acted in a consistent pattern of fearful reaction instead of steady proactive measures. The frantic attempts at justification are simply revisionist history - re-writing events (or attempting to) to make them look better than they really were.
Bush relied on the CIA to do his dirty work for him, he let CIA director Tenet take the blame for the failures to find any kind of weapons of mass destruction, and then turned around and gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There are numerous sources which indicate that the rank and file in the CIA never affirmed the existence of WMD, and that it was only the upper echelon - Tenet and his immediate subordinates - that agreed reluctantly, under great pressure, to give credibility to Bush's position.
If the Bush administration would twist the available facts provided by our own intelligence community, how hard is it to believe they would use every force available to try to get the same POV from helpless detainees?
I find it quite plausible that the ranking democrats are right alongside the influential republicans in trying to prevent a public investigation and prosecution. Bush couldn't have pulled off the torture without their compliance.
Thanks DG.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I think you are exactly right that Bush wanted to 'appear tough' to satisfy a meme' of the right, namely that we aren't tough enough with our advesaries, and so they leapt to torture first, rather than as a last resort in a desparate situation (which we might all agree would at least have been a reasonable last course).
That said, the answer to your first question is that the context really is pretty simple, can you take an action to save more lives, if the ethical comprimise is of an equal ethical law/paralell (must sacrifice a life). The idea of 'higher order ethics' says that I may violate a lower order ethic to support a higher order one, but does not necessarily speak to violating the same one in order to prevent a further violation.
I've spent several moments considering this since writing it, and I believe, in the end, my friend is right, the pure ethical stance is that you can't take a life to save a life, for how can you pass a value judgement of one innocent life over another (or others), yet, I'm struck by the paradox that clearly many innocent lives outweigh the consideration of just one.
In the purest sense, I believe I cannot take an innocent life (or a life effectively) regardless of the perceived result, unless that life is my own, in which case I am giving up my life willingly, rather than placing a judgement on the value of another life. That said, clearly there are ethical dillemas created.
As far as the discussion goes, perhaps I'll send you an invite the next time we get together - if you have an interest.
I'd enjoy being included in one of those discussions. It's been a good fifteen years since I last had a class in bioethics, longer since I had a class in philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI might need to read up to hold up my end of the conversation. It's the kind of discussion that a few more people would benefit from joining.
You don't have to read up, it's a logical discussion, even if we get angry at each other :), rather than one referring to specific ethics scholars. If you bring your logical hat, as I'm sure you would, you'll fit in well, and be a welcome voice - because the other folks we talk to (at times) are neo-cons, and once you pin them into a corner, they admit what they're saying isn't grounded in ethics, but rather self-preservation or vengence.
ReplyDelete