I am currently in week seven of my Philosophy class at Liberty University. This class....it's unbelievable. My head aches most days when I try to understand and grasp concepts in a class where there are really no wrong or right answers. I am a thinker and an examiner my nature so this class has me thinking and examining way beyond what I have time for. Every assignment has been challenging. This week was no exception. We were given the scenario that we were an agent for the CTT (Counter-Terrorist Team) and we have been given the task of extracting information from a know terrorist as to the location of a bomb. Torture will not work on this terrorist but you come to the conclusion that torturing his daughter would be effective. You cannot fake the torture because he will not believe it unless he hears the screams of his child. I bring the girl into the room and strap her into a chair. I light a cigarette light and prepare to hold the flame against her skin.
That is where I have to explain what I would do. I found myself asking the question, "Is it ever right to do wrong?" I posed this to my children yesterday and also to my Facebook friends. I was amazed at the diversity of the answers. My children believe that it is never right to lie unless it is to keep from hurting feelings or to save a life. Some of my Facebook friends said that it was OK to lie when it involves spreading the gospel and taking the Bible into countries where it is illegal to do so. It is also apparently ok to lie about your weight. Regardless, I found this assignment intriguing and challenging. I pasted my response below.
I believe that the Bible supports our actions of war when it comes to defending ourselves and others from the abuses of tyranny. I hold to the Deontology theory of ethics because I feel that it adheres closer to the Biblical example that it is never right to do wrong. If the intentions of our actions are to always glorify God and the standard by which we make moral decisions is the same as modeled by Christ, then we have no moral dilemma.
In the movie “Unthinkable” a similar scenario is played out when the character played by Samuel L. Jackson interrogates a terror suspect using unthinkable tactics. The suspect is tortured to no avail until his family is brought in. His wife is murdered before his eyes and the threat of the torture and death of his children is imminent. The suspect finally divulges the location of three nuclear weapons that have been placed at various locations around the US and millions of lives are saved.
In a Season 2 episode of “Criminal Minds” a similar scenario was posed. After enduring torture from his captors, a terrorist refuses to give up information about an explosive device that could potentially kill hundreds, possibly thousands of people. It is only through the kindness shown by Agent Jason Gideon that the location of the device is discovered and lives are saved. Posing as sympathetic, Gideon allows the prisoner to practice his religious beliefs even though the allowance of the prisoner to pray and meditate was used to deceive him and make him believe that more time had passed than actually had. Even though ridiculed by others in his unit, Gideon held fast to his convictions that physical torture would not succeed and that the only way to extract information was to befriend him and gain his trust. The prisoner was deceived into thinking that his mission had been a success and that many lives had been lost in the process. Even though he used deceit as his method of extracting information, he still held to his standards that torture was ineffective in such cases.
In our scenario, the decision to torture the child would, in most people’s opinion, be justified because it served the “greater good” and millions of lives would be saved if the information was forced from this terrorist. “Whatever means necessary” seems to be the mantra of our government when it comes to the battle against terror. Parents know that children constantly test the limits. When one limit is reached and they are allowed to stretch beyond it, the next step is to extend past the next limit that has been set. It becomes a game of “how far can I go before I get in trouble?” Are we not judged as a nation by the extent and the extremes to which we are willing to go to obtain information? If I, as a CTT team member, am allowed to use all methods at my disposal, and choose to torture a child, what will be the next limit to be reached? Next time will I torture an aged person or a baby? We are now battling an enemy that seems to have no boundaries or conscience and will stoop to any level to battle their enemy. Since we have now encountered the unthinkable in our enemy, do we now have the moral obligation or permission to stoop to their level of terrorism? Has the standard of morality changed with the events of the times and the actions of others? I believe that the Bible is clear and that the standards of ethics and morality have not changed.
I can only use the example of Christ and hope that love and compassion are more powerful weapons than hostility, abuse and fear.
The Bible teaches us that it is never right to do wrong and that when we know the right thing to do and choose not to do it, we sin. “Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it.” James 4:17. We are taught that the intentions of our hearts are more important than our actions regardless of how noble or honorable they may seem. “…For the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts...” 1 Chronicles 28:9. It is never right to lie even when lying may save our life. The example we have is Christ who, when he was beaten and crucified cried out for the forgiveness of his torturers. How can torturing an innocent child ever be justified? I don’t think that the argument that this child will only grow up to be as much an American hater as her father is void and unfounded. I believe that good outweighs bad and that, in the end, love is a more powerful weapon.
As a Deontologist, I believe that the standards for morality and what is right was set long ago and is unchanging. Murder is still wrong, lying is still wrong, adultery is still wrong, and the Ten Commandments are still to be considered our code of ethics. Many today in secular and religious circles, have shifted their once dogmatic ethical codes from Deontology to Pragmatic ethics. Their ethical code has “evolved” because of recent events and the actions of others. When we lower our ethical standards to match or surpass that of our enemies we lose something important; our integrity. It is never right to do wrong.
Blessings
Allen
No comments:
Post a Comment