Last night 24 ended season 7 begging the question – do the ends justify the means? Jack Bauer's edged closer to death not regretting any specific action he had taken to save lives, yet somehow still regretting the path he had chosen. Tony Almeida justified virtually any action in order to enact personal revenge for a tragic loss. While Renee Walker saw the toil engaging in (and being the victim of) torture and dehumanizing tactics had taken on Jack, but still chose to continue her own descent down the same road.
The questions the characters wrestled with are the same ones that our culture and us as individuals face on numerous instances. As a general rule do the ends justify the means? Is there any end that justifies any means?
Can torture be justified if it saves millions of innocent lives? What about thousands? Dozens? One? Is there a line that has to be crossed to make torture acceptable? (A better question may be, how do you define torture?)
Is the destruction of human life acceptable if it can save or enhance the life of others? Is it justifiable to destroy human embryos to try to cure diseases of fully developed human beings? Is it acceptable to abort the unborn because there presence may inconvenience or "harm" their mother or father? Should we be able to euthanize the elderly and sick in order to concentrate resources on the young and healthy?
Can any questions be solved using the idea of ends justifying the means?
Postscript: Sorry for the extended absence. Exams and papers tend to occupy all of my time when it comes to the end of the semester. I finish up this semester tomorrow.
Hi Aaron:
My two cents:
1. It is not OK to destroy human lives to improve the lives of those who remain. Doing so is inconsistent with loving the person you destroyed, it is using that person solely as a pawn. we Christians are commanded to love even our enemies, so that doesn't leave anyone left to kill.
2. It IS OK to use human embryos even if you have to destroy them. This is because they are not persons (so says me), they are just biological product.
your friend
keith
Does the end justify the means? The Jack Bauer, ticking time bomb scenario that's always trotted out by the defenders of torture is malarkey, IMO. I mean, if that's the situation, a dirty bomb is about to go off, why stop with water boarding? Hey, to save lives why not peel the skin off the person with a rusty blade, dip their hands in molten lead or even better, slay their family in front of their eyes. Those seem to be quicker techniques than simply water boarding. The end justifies the means right? I think if you torture someone, they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear anyway, so it's not even effective. Also, if the United States tortures, then that makes it kind of tough to condemn other countries who torture. Too much hypocrisy there.
You are right about the ticking time bomb scenario. It is hard to imagine a situation where it is could apply. The scenario proposes an urgency–we need to know right away where the bomb is so we can protect ourselves. But since what torture produces is talk, not necessarily ACCURATE talk, we'd be more likely to be led down a blind alley than to the truth, and the disaster would happen anyway.
Although as a Christian, I hate for the discussion to presuppose that IF torture gave accurate info THEN it'd be OK. I can understand how a non-theist MIGHT decide that as tragic as it might be, sometimes we have to use a horrific method to prevent an even more horrific result. But we Christians are supposed to believe that God works in the world to make things come out so that we humans don't have to choose between greater and lesser evils–all we have to do is be faithful to the Lord's instructions to love God and love our neighbors–even love our enemies.
your friend
Keith
I find it hard to believe that xians would condemn torture that "saves millions of innocent lives? What about thousands? Dozens? One? Is there a line that has to be crossed to make torture acceptable? (A better question may be, how do you define torture?)." Doesn't that describe the central assertion of the religion itself, that Christ was tortured to death in order that all mankind would be spared a similar fate, post-death? Surely a Christian would have to accept that, sometimes, the ends justifies the means? Apparently, God thinks so.
Btw: Why doesn't italics, bold, and hotlinks work?
>>> "I can understand how a non-theist MIGHT decide that as tragic as it might be, sometimes we have to use a horrific method to prevent an even more horrific result."
I can't. I think that has more to do with Utilitarianism than theism or the lack thereof.
>>> "Christians are supposed to believe that God works in the world to make things come out so that we humans don't have to choose between greater and lesser evils"
Very naive, IMO.
Hi Cin:
I think I wasn't clear. My point was that I can understand a utilitarian argument for torture (I think the argument is wrong, and I think utilitarianism is wrong but I understand the position). But Christians ought not be persuaded by the utilitarianist argument because we (naively in your mind) believe that we don't HAVE to choose evil means because of the God-factor. I don't assume that atheism equates in any way to utilitarianism.
your friend
Keith
Keith >> Although as a Christian, I hate for the discussion to presuppose that IF torture gave accurate info THEN it'd be OK.
That's the point. I don't think Christians can or should accept an ends justify the means rationale. If something is morally wrong, it should stay morally wrong even if the circumstances around the situation change. If it is immoral to torture (and I believe it is), it is immoral to torture in a ticking time bomb situation.
Can immoral actions result in a "good" result? Obviously. You can lie to someone in order to save a life. People are forced to chose between bad and worse or good and better all the time. Those are the difficult choices.
The real area where this question leaps from black and white to gray is the question of what defines torture.
What about crucifixion? Does that qualify as torture?
Quite obviously. What you fail to consider is the situation with Jesus is the exact opposite of what we are discussing.
The issue with Christ is not one of God engaging in torture to save humanity, it is the fact of God undergoing torture to save humanity.
Is the person (or Person) being tortured the one who commits the wrong?
You should thank the Romans for torturing. Your religion depends upon that. Without the romans, ho hum, Jesus doesn't get sacrificed. Ironically, if the Romans acted morally, then humanity would have been doomed. Hooray for torture. :)
Do you thank Bush and CIA for waterboarding terrorists and not having another attack on US soil?
As I said earlier, immoral actions can bring about positive results. That does not justify or release those who acted immorally from responsibility, but it does allow us to be grateful to a God who can bring all things together for our good and His glory.
>>> "…it does allow us to be grateful to a God who can bring all things together for our good and His glory."
Zeus?
>>> "Do you thank Bush and CIA for waterboarding terrorists and not having another attack on US soil?"
Non sequitur. Also, BS. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch because they ignored Richard Clark's warnings. Torture make us less safe since it's used as a recruiting tool for terrorists and, as I established below, it's ineffective anyway.
This is an red herring though. You have to admit that without torture (crucifixion) you'd have no religion. Can you admit that?
Surely Jesus knew he was going to be tortured and he knew he wasn't going to stay dead. You know what would have been more interesting? If Jesus was a Roman and he was given a choice, torture someone to death to save humanity or don't torture and let sin continue. Does the end justify the means now? You Christians don't think of these things. You are so set in your ways. Luckily you have Cineaste here to ask the questions you can't even imagine, let alone ask. :)
On a side note, I'm disappointed that Obama didn't nominate a true liberal to the Supreme Court.
I knew I'd eventually find things to be disappointed with Obama about. The problem, I think, is that he isn't as liberal as most people think (or as the Republicans screeched). Look at his policies on Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the torture photos – not exactly what we expected. He's also slow on gay issues (not a word on DADT, for example). He's more center-left. I wish he had appointed a real, fire-breathing liberal to the court and incited a full-scale fight and crushing defeat of the wingnut right. But that just isn't the man.
We'll ignore the political stuff about torture and 9/11 because that will get us nowhere. I will say this though, if we are able to make it through Obama's administration without a terrorist attack. I will be grateful to him for whatever he did for keeping us safe. You should be able to give Bush that as well.
>>> You have to admit that without torture (crucifixion) you'd have no religion. Can you admit that?
As I would have no faith unless Judas betrayed Jesus, but none of that makes the actions right unless you are suddenly trying to argue for ends justifying the means. Judas' betrayal and the Roman's cruelty were immoral actions that God used to fulfill His purposes.
>>> If Jesus was a Roman and he was given a choice, torture someone to death to save humanity or don't torture and let sin continue. Does the end justify the means now? You Christians don't think of these things. You are so set in your ways. Luckily you have Cineaste here to ask the questions you can't even imagine, let alone ask.
You are right about one thing that is a question I would never imagine because it is a complete non sequitur. It's like saying, "What if Jesus had to commit adultery to save humanity – would it be right?"
The whole Christian theology rests on the fact that Jesus was the sinless Son of God who died as the acceptable sacrifice. Him engaging in torture would do nothing except demonstrate that He was not who He said He was.
That's like asking silly questions like "Can God make a rock too big for Him to move?" or along the same lines though ever popular among atheists "Who made God?"
>>> "if we are able to make it through Obama's administration without a terrorist attack. I will be grateful to him for whatever he did for keeping us safe. You should be able to give Bush that as well."
We were not able to make it through the Bush administration without the biggest terrorist attack in history. I do give Bush that. Thanks a lot for making the world a more dangerous place.
>>> "What if Jesus had to commit adultery to save humanity – would it be right?"
Would it? Wouldn't it be wrong of Jesus not to commit adultery in that case? Wouldn't the right thing be to swallow your pride, commit a sin, and save humanity? Wouldn't you? Or, would you let the rest of humanity go to hell? I've short circuited your Christian brain. You can't give a straight answer. I can though.
I said to Keith that not choosing the lesser of 2 evils is very naive. We are forced to make the choice every day. In such a scenario, what would Jesus have done?
>>> "Who made God?"
Man made God in his own image.
One thing Obama is very good at is making Conservatives look like right wing extremists. He is so clearly a moderate that when Republicans attack him as a liberal they overreach and end up looking stupid. He plays political jujitsu. He turns all their attacks against them. I really like what he's done for science and how he mentions it's importance so often.
I'm hoping he is picking his fights, like when he started wearing a flag pin. In his heart of hearts, he knows that patriotism is not something you wear on your lapel. But to shut those people up, he wears it so it's a non-issue now. Unless something comes to light, his nominee looks to be above reproach. She finishes 1st in her class at Princeton, which I heard has an even more prestigious law school than Harvard. So, what line of attack to the republicans take? They question her intelligence. Ya have to love that. In my view, he lets the republicans crucify themselves on the cross of their own stupidity and that might actually do more damage to republican credibility than if he took them head on by nominating a true liberal. He makes Cheany, Gingrich and Limbaugh the defacto leaders of the republican party which diminishes them. Why take those guys head on? It's not as if they have any respect around the country like Colin Powell and Patreus. Obama made the one republican who showed competence the ambassador to China. I do have some nitpicks with Obama but overall, I have a tough time finding things to complain about. maybe I'm more toward the center left than I thought.
Yes, I tend to agree on the political jujitsu analogy: he allows the republicans to dig their own holes and just remains cool and confident and goes his own way. The de facto leaders of the republican party now seem to be Cheney, Limbaugh, Gingrinch, and other out-dated right-wingers who have already been repudiated twice at the polls. Of course, what's left of their party is a rump made up of christianist and other right-wingers, and the politicians left in Congress have to bow to them or else. What's their poll rating? 25-30% I mean, look at Limbaugh's reaction to Sotomayer: "She's a racist! Obama's a racist!" Good! I keep thinking that this is Souter's seat she's taking, and we know what happened there.
My complaints about Obama are minor. I understand his reasoning re: Gitmo and Afghanistan, they just make me uneasy. I also understand that he has a lot on his plate right now, and gay people just have to be patient. However, if he doesn't act according to his promises there by the end of his first term I doubt I'll be able to support him (I'll just abstain). As Dr. King pointed out, "wait" tends to mean "never."
The issue with Christ is not one of God engaging in torture to save humanity, it is the fact of God undergoing torture to save humanity.
Yes, I know that. I was just making the point that, according to orthodox Christian dogma, sometimes torture is justified: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Of course, that theology also maintains that this was an event which makes all subsequent torture and sacrifice moot.
>>> I do give Bush that. Thanks a lot for making the world a more dangerous place.
Thanks for demonstrating total partisanship with no possibility to praise someone you disagree with.
>>> Wouldn't you? Or, would you let the rest of humanity go to hell? I've short circuited your Christian brain. You can't give a straight answer. I can though.
No, you haven't short circuited my brain, Christian or otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that your hypothetical is not a possibility.
If Jesus committed a sin in order to save humanity, he would then be, by definition, not qualified to save humanity. It is an impossibility.
>>> I said to Keith that not choosing the lesser of 2 evils is very naive. We are forced to make the choice every day. In such a scenario, what would Jesus have done?
Are you now arguing for ends justify the means?
>>> Man made God in his own image.
That's odd since the Christian God has numerous paradoxes that exceed human understanding and there remains much that we cannot know or understand about him.
>>> … according to orthodox Christian dogma, sometimes torture is justified.
No, the torture of Jesus is not justified. It was morally wrong for the Romans to treat criminals (and Jesus) that way. However, God took their bad intentions and immoral acts and used it for the good of humanity.
One more thing Cin, do you not find it a bit arrogant to assume that you have asked questions that no one in the 2,000 year history of Christianity have ever thought about or wrestled with?
Christians are often accused of arrogance, but it seems ironic that atheists and other critics believe that on the weight of their own intelligence and supposed logic they can bring down a 2,000 year old faith.
Because I constantly mull over our discussions in here and I can't help myself … Cin, if, God forbid, a terrorist attack happened during the Obama Administration particularly in the first few months, would it be Bush's fault or Obama's.
If you are consistent it would have to be Obama's, but I'm pretty certain that your politics will force you to blame it all on Bush and not allow you to pin any of it on Obama. I'd love for you to prove me wrong on that (thankfully) hypothetical situation.
>>> "If Jesus committed a sin in order to save humanity, he would then be, by definition, not qualified to save humanity. It is an impossibility."
I don't know exactly what process Jesus uses to "save" someone. Seems like a bunch of hocus pocus / mumbo jumbo to me so I'll use a tangible analogy. Put Jesus in the ticking time-bomb scenario conservatives love so much. Would Jesus torture to save lives or would he let people die? See? I've just short circuited your brain because, as a Christian, you can't even imagine Jesus having to deal with a moral dilemma like that. You have this concept of Jesus as sinless saint that can't ever be changed. In this conservative Jack Bauer scenario he's "damned" if he does or damned if he doesn't. A normal person would have to make that choice so I guess in a way that's a normal human experience people have to deal with, choosing the lesser of 2 evils, that Jesus can't. If you think I'm arrogant for bringing that up, that just supports my point that Christians can't think like that. They have this concept of what their God is that is immune to other interpretations.
>>> That's odd since the Christian God has numerous paradoxes that exceed human understanding and there remains much that we cannot know or understand about him.
If I placed a picture of a divine looking bearded man in front of you and asked if this was Zeus or Jehovah, how would you tell the difference? You see? God's, including yours, are created in our image.
>>> One more thing Cin, do you not find it a bit arrogant to assume that you have asked questions that no one in the 2,000 year history of Christianity have ever thought about or wrestled with?
Oh that is very arrogant! It's a good thing that I am NOT assuming that I've asked questions that no one in the 2,000 year history of Christianity have ever thought about or wrestled with. My actual words were, "You Christians don't think of these things. You are so set in your ways." So, if you do think of these things then show me where you have. Show me where Christians have posited this, "You know what would have been more interesting? If Jesus was a Roman and he was given a choice, torture someone to death to save humanity or don't torture and let sin continue."
>>> it seems ironic that atheists and other critics believe that on the weight of their own intelligence and supposed logic they can bring down a 2,000 year old faith.
First of all the age of a superstition does not matter. Zoroastrianism is much older than Christianity. It was the first monotheism. You you Aaron have no problem saying that's a false religion. How arrogant of you! Second, atheists are equal opportunity skeptics. It's all gods that we don't believe in not just yours. Your god belief is no different from the others. So, it's actually arrogant of you to think that atheists are targeting your own religion. I could, if I wanted to, place Allah in the ticking time bomb scenario. However, since it's you Aaron, I am having this discussion with, how much of an impression would that make on you? None. So I use Christian examples instead. Don't make the mistake that I'm only questioning your religion. It's others as well.
Louis,
I wanted to ask what you thought about the Olson Boies case that will probably go to the Supreme Court and force a decision on gay marriage. These are legal heavy weights. One is Bush's solicitor general. He represented Bush in Bush Vs. Gore and represented Reagan during Iran Contra. The other represented Gore in Bush vs. Gore. hehe. They've agrgued tons of cases before the supreme court before. But, is it too soon? Is this the court, with Scalia, Alito, etc. that you want to argue this case in from of? Or, is the time right considering who the lawyers are.
Here they are on Chris Mathews…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUlDZLZ1Gls
No, the torture of Jesus is not justified. It was morally wrong for the Romans to treat criminals (and Jesus) that way. However, God took their bad intentions and immoral acts and used it for the good of humanity.
But this ignores the whole point of the Christ event (at least according to orthodoxy) doesn't it? He was tortured and killed in our place; the Romans merely were the instruments of this purpose. What if the Romans had let him go? Or sentenced him to a few years in prison? And then he had lived out his life? Where would orthodox Christianity be then? Throughout the story of Jesus, we constantly read how he is destined for this death: it is part of God's purpose. How can one argue that God didn't want him executed?
Hi Aaron:
You said this: I will say this though, if we are able to make it through Obama's administration without a terrorist attack. I will be grateful to him for whatever he did for keeping us safe. You should be able to give Bush that as well.
I would say it's possible that some means for our protection would be immoral even if they did improve OUR safety. When our government uses immoral means to protect US then I oppose that regardless of who is President. My problem with the Cheney Doctrine is that his self-avowed embrace of the dark side places us on the side of the devils. I don't want that for my country.
your friend
Keith
>>> Would Jesus torture to save lives or would he let people die? See? I've just short circuited your brain because, as a Christian, you can't even imagine Jesus having to deal with a moral dilemma like that.
This is what I meant when I spoke of the arrogance. You assume that somehow you short circuited my brain by asking me a nonsensical, absurd hypothetical question. It hasn't short circuited anything, I'm just not sure why it is even a question.
No, Jesus would not (and could not in some sense) sin in order to save humanity. As I have already said, it is an impossibility (in terms of orthodox Christianity, which is the perspective I come from and you specifically asked me).
>>> You have this concept of Jesus as sinless saint that can't ever be changed.
That's kinda what it means to be a Christian, to recognize that Jesus was the sinless Son of God. That's part of the deal. I'm not sure how that is supposed to be changed or even challenged by an off the wall hypothetical.
>>> You know what would have been more interesting? If Jesus was a Roman and he was given a choice, torture someone to death to save humanity or don't torture and let sin continue.
Perhaps more "interesting" if you view it as some Michael Bay special effects driven action movie. But more interesting as far as an absurd hypothetical situation, doesn't mean much.
I'm not sure why you think Christians' brains should be considered short circuited if they have not given thought to situation that makes absolutely no sense in terms of Christianity on a whole host of reasons – The Messiah somehow not being Jewish, God's plan to save from sin involving sin itself, Jesus sinning in order to stop sin.
Some of those broader issues have been considered in the history of the faith, but I'm certain you can find numerous off-the-wall hypotheticals that Christians have no specifically addressed.
>>> First of all the age of a superstition does not matter. Zoroastrianism is much older than Christianity. It was the first monotheism. You you Aaron have no problem saying that's a false religion. How arrogant of you!
I didn't say the age of a faith made it true or not true, what I said was that it was arrogant to assume that asking about an absurd hypothetical situation could bring down a 2,000 year old faith.
We could quibble about the dating of monotheisms, but that's not the point.
Is it arrogant of me to assume other religions are false? Partly, but everyone falls under that category. What I do not assume is that I can dismiss a historic faith with a glib, dismissive hypothetical situation.
>>> Don't make the mistake that I'm only questioning your religion. It's others as well.
I'm well aware that atheism encompasses other faiths besides Christianity, but it is telling to me that atheism spends so much of its time attempting to rebuff Christianity and little time on others.
So in essence, you are, as he said, unable to conceive of Jesus having to deal with the moral dilemma. That was a lot of rationalizing to deal with a simple sentence.
And your characterization of atheism spending so much time attempting to rebuff Christianity is profoundly racist and ethnocentric, not to mention willfully blind to the realities of your own culture. Atheists, presumably, do not see the point of arguing over the existence of Zeus, because that is a battle they have already won.
>>> So in essence, you are, as he said, unable to conceive of Jesus having to deal with the moral dilemma. That was a lot of rationalizing to deal with a simple sentence.
There is a difference between rationalization and explanation. I thought a simple, "No" needed a bit of explanation behind it.
Jesus did wrestle with moral dilemmas, that is not the question. What was proposed was a hypothetical situation in which a Roman Jesus had to torture in order to save humanity.
Because I had not already taken time to mentally deal with such an off-the-wall hypothetical that requires ignoring historical facts, Cin said my Christian brain had short circuited. So I gave some explanation as to why that specific hypothetical was not plausible enough to be considered seriously.
>>> And your characterization of atheism spending so much time attempting to rebuff Christianity is profoundly racist and ethnocentric, not to mention willfully blind to the realities of your own culture.
Lots of charges there, any evidence for them.
First of all, how is it racist and ethnocentric? That's just hilarious. Is it racist against the Jews who were the first converts. The Asians and Africans who carried the faith to their continents. The Europeans who were the last to find out about Jesus.
Or in our own time, is it against the millions of African-American believers? How about the millions of Chinese Christians who meet underground? Maybe the African churches that have stood up to the European Christians slide into liberalism? What about the growing church in Latin America?
>>> Atheists, presumably, do not see the point of arguing over the existence of Zeus, because that is a battle they have already won.
Care to show the historical evidence of atheism bringing about the demise of Zeus worship. Atheism was not much of a cultural force at that time. You could say that someone else won that battle and you didn't mind.
But also, you may think twice about saying that battle is won. Better stop worrying about Christianity, Zeus is coming for you now. ;)
I forgot to answer this one.
>>> If I placed a picture of a divine looking bearded man in front of you and asked if this was Zeus or Jehovah, how would you tell the difference? You see?
I would say obviously it is Zeus because Jehovah is not a "divine bearded man."
If the question is do humans use human imagery to describe and picture and unimaginable God, sure. How else would humans describe and picture a being that they have not seen? We do the same with aliens. Most look humanoid.