In one of our very first classes, and then again yesterday, the question of how you define a moral act in a situation was raised. I believe that a moral wrong is always a moral wrong; however, there are times when the moral wrong is the right choice.
When we were discussing Aristotle's views on the excess of virtues, Dr Johnson used the Anne Frank example to highlight the excess of honesty. She pointed out that while telling the truth is certainly a correct moral action, it is not necessarily the correct moral action. Saving Anne Frank's life - and your own - ranks higher on the moral scale than telling the truth, therefore you must lie and protect an innocent young girl against the Nazis. Everyone seemed to be in agreement, which is hardly surprising given the options. Then another student asked if it would be morally acceptable to shoot the Nazi as he began to search your house. This question was quickly dismissed as it did not pertain to an excess of a virtue, but I think it deserves attention. If a small moral wrong (lying) was permitted to save Anne, shouldn't a large moral wrong (killing) be allowed as well? After all, you are saving the life of a young girl, and this Nazi is hardly an innocent bystander. If you do not kill him, he will kill Anne and, most likely, imprison or kill you. Rationally speaking, it seems like the correct course of action, but, understandably, many have a hard time justifying a "life for a life" mentality.
Now think back to the very first day of class. Dr. Johnson threw a curveball and gave us a moral dilemma in which Blair had planted a bomb in Clough and 100 students were trapped inside. She knew the code to deactivate the bomb but was refusing to tell us. Do we resort to torture? Does the "life for life" mentality work now when it is one hundred lives? Anyone who answered that lying was permissible to save Anne's life should also answer that torture is permissible to save our fellow students' lives, but very few spoke up in favor of torture. Although torture is quite obviously a moral wrong, is it not more wrong to sit by idly and let our friends die? Does one evil life outweigh one hundred innocent lives? I take a utilitarian position and believe that torture is a moral wrong that becomes the right choice -- not the moral right, of course -- in this situation. I realize that this position is extreme, yet I am curious to how others who refuse to act rationalize their passive role in the deaths of the one hundred other students.
While I would like to think that in the situation mentioned above I would be able to step up for the lives of one hundred other students, I am aware that it is not always as easy a decision as it seems. While one thing is to pull your brother’s hair until he gives you your phone back, it is a whole other level to inflict serious injury or death on another life. Again I cannot say I wouldn’t cross that boundary or can even try and dispute the claim that it is a right choice, but I can understand how the moral burden and guilt of seeing someone go lifeless at your hands could have detrimental effects on some individuals. Take for instance soldiers, whose job is to protect, defend, and kill if necessary without hesitation. Many people, who cannot bear to lose their innocence in that way, take for granted the moral dilemma these soldiers take on as protectors each day. I believe humans have an inherent nature to be compassionate individuals and soldiers are no different. The emotional and spiritual responsibility as well as reconciliation with themselves they must endure after actions such as killing is one that many could not face. In fact, it is in the realization that a lifeless body is by your gun through which soldiers often claim to feel the most morally shaken, often describing it as a moment in which you “lose a piece of yourself.” So, depending on how you define the excess or deficiencies in this moral dilemma, I would say that the vices would be cowardice (to not act at all-deficiency) and torture without thought to be the excess.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/themes/prep.html
I really struggled with this question. I do not support torture under normal circumstances whatsoever. However, in dire times where a bomb is to go off and in order to save one hundred lives, I feel like I would be more inclined to torture that person in order to save the rest in Clough. This is obviously a very extreme example, and only this type of example would justify torture for me. The thing that's so bothersome to me is that these two things can't both be truths.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the other comment that torture without thought would be completely excessive, and not saving the lives when having the ability to would be cowardice. As much as I agree with this statement, they simply cannot coexist as two truths. Because of this, I am having a rough time going back and forth between the acceptance of torture which is pretty inhumane and the idea of innocent lives being lost when it could be prevented through extreme (but necessary) measures.