24 Dilemna - SPOILER INCLUDED

[dizzle]

I ask for non-pacifist response

24 Dilemma

Okay, here's the situation - supposedly a no-win dilemma in a world without Jack Bauer. In the program, we know, of course, that Jack will save all. Silly President Daniels thinking he has to solve it.

The Russians are about to attack U.S. military outposts because we allowed the Chinese to get a Russian nuclear circuit board Jack's megalomaniac dad has the device and will trade it to the U.S. for his grandson, Jack's nephew, the vessel of his grand legacy, thus averting the Russian attack. So Daniels has Josh snatched to make the trade.

Is it ethical to sacrifice the one for the many? I've argued that way here consistently about the dilemmas on "24." I think that in all of those cases it was an option of a few civilians dead or many civilians dead. Does it change the ethical calculation when one alternative involves military personnel, who can arguably be said to be a "fair" military target as opposed to a civilian? So the thing to be weighted is not just the number of people that will be lost, but also a possibly relevant status of some of those people. I'm not suggesting that we should willingly sacrifice our military people, but does it introduce a different calculation since their business is military action. Or should only one boy be sacrificed to avert many more military deaths?

We actually have a disagreement on the staff. I'm leaning toward the the idea that the military introduces a new calculation rather than just the numbers of people, but I could easily be persuaded by an argument the other way.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/05/24_dilemma.html

[Rusty T]

Firstly, you do know that Jack's nephew is really his half-brother, right? Secondly, if it were my child, I would not 'offer' him. If my son was in the military, though, he has made a choice to possibly sacrifice himself.

[dizzle]

First, it is his son. Come on. Second, Jack isn't offering him. Doyle allegedly is.

[Rusty T]

First, it is his son. Come on. Second, Jack isn't offering him. Doyle allegedly is.

I didn't consider that the kid is Jack's. Hrmmm. They have kinda set that up. I didn't say, though, that Jack was offering up the child. I'm simply saying that if it were my son, to hell with 'the many'.

rusty

[Ryokan]

Like Shatner, I do not believe in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. i would venture to guess Jack Bauer feels the same way.

[dizzle]

Ry, this isn't Jack's decision, it is the President's.

[dizzle]

I didn't consider that the kid is Jack's.

It is totally Jack's kid. He certainly doesn't look like Graem. And sister-in-law definitely has something up her sleeve.



I didn't say, though, that Jack was offering up the child. I'm simply saying that if it were my son, to hell with 'the many'.

rusty

Of course, we are not God - but in the scenario I am asking, it is not your son, you are the President - and offering up one kid will save potentially millions. And it isn't like the kid is being offered to be killed - just taken away from his mother and given to his grandpa to live in China (at least that is all that has been said)

[Ryokan]

Ry, this isn't Jack's decision, it is the President's.

Yes, but the President needs to have faith that Jack will save us, just like Starfleet command needs to have faith in Kirk. Or something.

[dizzle]

I am wanting this thread to be serious Ry - really. I am interested in the question. I am only using 24 to make it not so dry, but to use pop culture as a way to stimulate discussion.

[Ryokan]

I am wanting this thread to be serious Ry - really. I am interested in the question. I am only using 24 to make it not so dry, but to use pop culture as a way to stimulate discussion.

Sorry Dee Dee. in all serious, no, I wouldn't trade the kid for the soldiers. You hand over that kid you've lost all your bargaining chips with Jack's dad. We don't know he has not copied information enough to keep Russia angry. Not only that, but if Russia is this quick to jump to war over a fairly easily correctable intelligence matter, maybe we should throw down alongside China and deal with the threat now before they behave more unstably and while we have the codes and an advantage.
As a hypothetical, I don't think you surrender the kid. You are responsible for what happens to a kid you surrender, but not for what evil men decide to do to soldiers. As far as public policy, do not negotiate with terrorists. A threat of a military strike by Russia on would lead me to fire cruise missiles into the siberian forests as a warning, not surrender a child.

[Teallaura]

So, when China decides it needs Filipino slaves - and dang it, Taiwan - for its economy and that its willing to kill a few million more than it is asking for we should blithely turn over both the Philippines and Taiwan? The Philippines are American territory but we could withdraw support from Taiwan and effectively hand them over, too.

In point of fact, if you surrender the kid you are guaranteeing that you will be surrendering one heck of a lot more people in the future since China now knows what to do to get its way. Threaten to bomb Thailand and it gets the Philippines. Japan for Taiwan.

As painful as it is it's extremely bad foreign policy to capitulate on that even if we know Jack will fail. As to why that has bearing on your ethical question U.S. foreign policy affects millions more around the world than your talking about saving and this action has consequences far outreaching the immediate situation. Giving up one for the many - when you aren't that one - will very, very likely result in a lot more suffering in the long run for far more people than you saved.

[Alien]

All the previous responses have been somewhat pragmatic (and I particularly agree with Archena's answer), but I don't think that is what Xena (and whoever wrote this originally) is asking. Remember too that this is supposed to be in a "world without Jack Bauer", which I take to mean that there will be no last minute (and highly improbable) rescue. The choices really are as set out ... to sacrifice one person to save many, or not.

It's an age-old dilemma, and we don't need "24" to illustrate it (though it is indeed topical). If a medical experiment will result in the certain death of the subject, but result in finding a cure for all forms of cancer, should the subject be forced to participate if she is unwilling? And many other examples.

It's difficult, isn't it? The case where the subject volunteers is easy. She has the right to do so and we erect a huge monument to her memory. Getting back to "24", it's not just soldiers (who may be assumed to have agreed to whatever may follow from their chosen profession) who will die but many civilians too. No war kills only soldiers. So truly, it's one unwilling innocent versus many.

Another scenario that does not apply is one where I am steering a truck with failed brakes and have the choice to kill one pedestrian or a many (and no other choices. In that case I am OK with choosing the lesser evil, as both are my choices. In the example given though, it is not I who choose to kill the many, but the Russian leaders. (Yes I know that no one is going to kill the boy in the example scenario, and that does make a difference. In fact it confuses the issue too much, imo, and I'm going to assume he will die).

I'm inclined to say we should stick to our principles and not sacrifice the boy. I'm far from happy with it, but it's the best I can do.

[Afterthought: It may be easier from a Christian point of view. We are commanded to be righteous in our own lives. I can't recall a Biblical example where we are told to choose evil for the greater good, though I'm open to correction.]

[dizzle]

I am inclined to agree that one does not give up the boy. If it were a military person, perhaps I would have a different answer. In fact, remember in a past season, they gave up Jack, and Jack went absolutely willingly knowing that he was in fact committed to giving his life for his duty.

Afterthought: It may be easier from a Christian point of view. We are commanded to be righteous in our own lives. I can't recall a Biblical example where we are told to choose evil for the greater good, though I'm open to correction.

This is quite debatable IMHO. But then again, what I am thinking about is not truly choosing evil - that some things are determined or evil depending upon their context. For instance, I would argue that the Egyptian midwives did good when they lied to the Pharaoh and that was the right thing to do. Not the lesser evil. Not evil at all. Many would disagree with my position on that. But in that case, I would say that Pharaoh forfeited his right to the truth - in this case, the victim, the boy, hasn't done anything or given assent to his rights.

[Timothy Leary]

Kobayashi Maru

Trekkie!

[Gromit45]

Trekkie!

Ahem, noob. That's: Trekker!

[Spinyn00bman]

Dang it.

I just plain old miss Michelle.

:sad:

[dizzle]

Crispy.

[Alien]

This is quite debatable IMHO. But then again, what I am thinking about is not truly choosing evil - that some things are determined or evil depending upon their context. For instance, I would argue that the Egyptian midwives did good when they lied to the Pharaoh and that was the right thing to do. Not the lesser evil. Not evil at all. Many would disagree with my position on that. But in that case, I would say that Pharaoh forfeited his right to the truth - in this case, the victim, the boy, hasn't done anything or given assent to his rights.

Exactly.