It's not often you hear me disagree with something that Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, has written or said. Indeed, I heartily agree with his series on Decision Making and the Will of God. However, on his 27 September 2009 radio show, he made a commentary regarding utilitarian decision making and how it is applied to a specific moral dilemma scenario. His commentary was lengthy, and I recommend you listen to it in its entirety (begins at approx. 1:01:20 into the radio show). He presented a scenario, which was presented to him, as follows:
Consider the complications that arise when one envisions how the proposed scenario might actually play out. I realize that the scenario is carefully set up to invoke a moral dilemma, and that life is more complicated than the illustrations in our pre-packaged philosophical scenarios. However, a little tweaking of the scenario can also help illustrate some of the complications that may arise.
In Greg's commentary he noted that the mother of the infant may not want to have the infant silenced (murdered). Yes, I think that would be a safe bet. Let's run with that and suppose that not only does the mother not want her child killed, but she herself begins screaming when the majority of the group decide that is exactly what must be done. Not to worry, though, because while one of the larger males in the group rips the child out of the mother's arms, a couple of other males wrestle her to the ground to stifle her screams. After the child is killed the mother, understandably so, cannot keep from crying... essentially the same problem faced earlier with her infant. Despite their pleas, and subsequent threats, the woman will not relent from her incessant mourning.
Snap!
That would be the sound of her neck being broken so as to silence her. All, for the good of the group.
A moment later, in walks her husband who had been away from the group on reconnaissance. After seeing that both his wife and child have been summarily executed he begins a wild, and loud, fight with several of the males in the group.
Slice!
That would be the sound of his throat being slit so as to silence him. All, for the good of the group.
Unreasonable? Well, consider a scenario where we have a group with 6 adults and 5 infants, in which all the infants are crying. Since 6 is greater than 5, are we justified in silencing the infants?
How about if the group has 5 adults and 6 infants, and all the infants are crying? Tough luck for the adults, I guess, because 5 is less than 6.
A group of the French Resistance, including families with infants, are hiding from Nazi occupiers. One of the infants wails inconsolably and will, more than likely, alert the approaching Nazis. The infant's life is terminated - probably by smothering the child so it's not making noise... to improve the group's chances of survival. But a moral imperative: Murder is wrong, has been violated. A case for utilitarianism could be made. However, is this not a case of moral relativism and, even though it's horrific, something that's necessary?In responding to the scenario, he concluded that it would be expedient for the group to murder the infant. Take note that I am summarizing his statements here and, to reiterate, one should listen to his commentary in full for a complete understanding of what he stated. His reasoning included (my summary),
Utilitarianism as a standard model of moral action is relativistic (the end always justifies the means, but the end isn't always a moral good). However, this does not mean that considering the means to an end does not entail legitimate considerations.It seems to me that, while Greg's decision is based on an objectivist methodology, he has placed too much weight on the concept of the "greater good". Is the greater good truly good when it encompasses betraying our commitment to certain moral truths? Despite any attempts at circumventing the rationale for the action, smothering the crying infant is still murder.
Facing the scenario as an objectivist: a decision has to be made, taking into consideration relative circumstances and utilitarian aspects.
This is a moral dilemma in that there are only two choices and each of the two choices, in isolation, would be wrong to do. Note: taking circumstances into consideration, in your moral decision making, is not relativism. If it were, there would be no moral dilemma in this scenario.
In the case of this moral dilemma, the guiding principle is that human life has transcendent value and should be protected. In this situation the obligation to protect one innocent life (the baby's) is in conflict to protect the lives of all the other people in the group.
Which decision does the greater good? The morally obligatory action would be to silence the baby, although difficult and tragic. The only other choice would be much worse (and the crying child's life seems to be forfeit anyway).
Consider the complications that arise when one envisions how the proposed scenario might actually play out. I realize that the scenario is carefully set up to invoke a moral dilemma, and that life is more complicated than the illustrations in our pre-packaged philosophical scenarios. However, a little tweaking of the scenario can also help illustrate some of the complications that may arise.
In Greg's commentary he noted that the mother of the infant may not want to have the infant silenced (murdered). Yes, I think that would be a safe bet. Let's run with that and suppose that not only does the mother not want her child killed, but she herself begins screaming when the majority of the group decide that is exactly what must be done. Not to worry, though, because while one of the larger males in the group rips the child out of the mother's arms, a couple of other males wrestle her to the ground to stifle her screams. After the child is killed the mother, understandably so, cannot keep from crying... essentially the same problem faced earlier with her infant. Despite their pleas, and subsequent threats, the woman will not relent from her incessant mourning.
Snap!
That would be the sound of her neck being broken so as to silence her. All, for the good of the group.
A moment later, in walks her husband who had been away from the group on reconnaissance. After seeing that both his wife and child have been summarily executed he begins a wild, and loud, fight with several of the males in the group.
Slice!
That would be the sound of his throat being slit so as to silence him. All, for the good of the group.
Unreasonable? Well, consider a scenario where we have a group with 6 adults and 5 infants, in which all the infants are crying. Since 6 is greater than 5, are we justified in silencing the infants?
How about if the group has 5 adults and 6 infants, and all the infants are crying? Tough luck for the adults, I guess, because 5 is less than 6.
What would happen if the group consisted entirely of adults, yet one of them has a severe case of hay fever (anyone been in Oregon in the Spring? Ugh!). There the poor sap sits, sneezing and honking, obviously having forgotten to take his Claritin.
"Aaaa-choo! Aaaa-choo! Honnnk! Honnnk!"
Snap!And pity his poor neighbor suffering from a cold.
"Cough! Cough! Hack! Hack!"
Slice!At a certain point, I think, the greater good argument begins to crumble in on itself. It's one thing to offer one's self in sacrifice, and quite another to force an ultimate cost upon someone else. Is the good gained truly worthy of the act committed?
Stumble It!
Rahab lied to shelter the spies, and was called "righteous" for it. "Thou shalt not lie" is a moral command from God Himself, but when the underlying value of truth was superseded by a more important value, lying became not merely acceptable, but actually the RIGHTEOUS path. It should come as no surprise that "thou shalt not murder", too, could possibly be superseded such that murder becomes the righteous choice. The "moral truths" in the ten commandments are not to be discarded lightly, but sometimes the values those truths are based upon are less important than others, and violating them becomes righteous.
In a circumstance wherein some lives may be sacrificed to save others, what is the most righteous choice? In the case of the French Resistance, smothering the infant may be the most righteous choice, though one would need to know much more about the case at hand to say for sure. In your expanded variants, there are almost certainly better ways; one need not snap a neck to get even the most heavily grieving mother to shut up.
Making decisions about conflicting values is often a subtle thing wrought with difficult tradeoffs and judgment calls. (As a result, reductio ad absurdium fails, as it intentionally ignores those tradeoffs in favor of a cartoonish portrayal of a series of bad tradeoffs.) An infant's life is of great value, as are the lives of the other group members. What's the most righteous way to protect those lives? The question deserves a more serious answer than "the argument crumbles when you make a series of bad enough decisions."
Posted by: LotharBot | October 20, 2009 at 05:49 PM
Well, I did say that "at a certain point" the argument begins to crumble, to which I believe it does. And I'm intentionally taking the plausible (grieving mother) to the absurd (angry father) into the cartoonish (6 > 5) to emphasize my point. Besides, one could certainly imagine the remaining resistance fighters being captured, *anyway*, the next day. And any use of the absurd reduction runs the risk of being considered inappropriate - but I take that risk every so often.
Of course, we can't know what *would* or even *will* happen, so we must make decisions at the moment for what we rationally conclude to be the best outcome. Hence my closing question comparing the "good" gained with the act committed.
As to whether or not this scenario, as portrayed, justifies taking the life of the infant, I'm not so sure. It's certainly not the same as one choosing to sacrifice their own life, much less that of telling a lie to save human life.
I wonder, too, what to make of acts that appear to be in opposition to the justification offered by Koukl. E.g., what of the stories of comrades returning into a firefight to save or retrieve a fallen comrade - all at the potential loss of the entire group?
Have you ever read Fail Safe? It's set during the Cold War and a group of US bombers is accidentally sent to drop nuclear warheads on Moscow. The President is on the hot line to the Premier of the USSR trying to convince him that it's all an accident and not to retaliate (thereby starting WW III). The Premier is wary and, eventually, the President decides to drop a nuclear warhead on New York, because the bombers will certainly get through to Moscow... it's portrayed as an "even" trade. A parody of the scenario came out in which the Russian premier wasn't satisfied with the proposition and the President had to throw in Boise to even out the deal... absurd, cartoonish, and to the point (imo).
Interestingly enough, the last episode of MASH had this very infant scenario played out, with the mother of the infant smothering the child. In the story, the event caused Hawkeye to have a nervous breakdown. Despite his understanding that they had done the act for the "right" reason, he still understood the act as wrong.
I agree that such decision are wrought with difficult tradeoffs. I simply see the rationalizations given by Greg Koukl as unsatisfactory in justifying the decision, so much so that taking the thinking to the absurd seems valid.
Thanks for your comments. I haven't seen you around here for a while. (of course, I haven't been posting for a while, either!)
Posted by: Rusty | October 20, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I agree with Koukl's basic position, but by the time you make it "crumble", it's long since ceased to be my position. The problem with absurd reduction is that it so easily becomes a straw man, which is an impediment to honest discussion and an insult to those who hold the position.
We all have to make our decisions based on imperfect information, within the amount of time we have, and using guesses as to probable outcomes. Sometimes we turn out to be wrong. Sometimes our best intentions and our best judgments lead us to utterly tragic results, even when we do the "right thing". That problem isn't unique to "greater good" based philosophy; every philosophy can lead to tragic results.
Returning to a firefight to save a friend is not necessarily "in opposition to" the justification above. It can be a case where our best judgments and intentions lead to tragic results. Or it can be a heroic success story. Or it can be a clearly foolish, suicidal move that really WAS the wrong choice. It's a judgment call, and not just in Koukl's philosophy. (Dropping a nuke on New York as an "even" trade is almost definitely the wrong choice, though. There have to be better solutions that even Khrushchev would've accepted.)
I'm not convinced that outright, purposely murdering an infant in the original scenario is the right choice, nor does it sound like that's what being argued (but then, I only read your summary.) But trying to muffle the infant's cries may result in suffocation (involuntary manslaughter), and keeping the child quiet may be exactly the right thing to do. It may lead to tragic results or cause Hawkeye to have a nervous breakdown, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Posted by: LotharBot | October 21, 2009 at 01:08 AM
I agree that the scenarios and repsonse are, indeed, very complex, requiring analysis at each step and with each context. I don't think that I've portrayed, as I've gone to the absurd, that you or Greg's decision is equivalent to the absurd. Rather, I am asserting that the absurd is attached to the methodology, not unlike a ball and chain clamped around your ankle. Wherever the methodology goes, the ball and chain goes with it. And care should be taken, on the other side of the fence, to not so easily dismiss the existence of the ball and chain as if it's not part of the equation.
If it might make it less complex, perhaps the scenario could be tweaked on one point - the critical point, as it were - namely, that of the crying infant. Suppose all other things were equal, but scenario # 2 has two crying infants? Would the decision still be justified? Scenario # 3 has three crying infants. Still justified? At what point does the so-called "greater good" become not the greater good? I don't see that as a strawman, but as a valid concern.
Yes, the trading of New York for Moscow is absurd (not to mention throwing in Boise), but I wonder if the fictional account was not simply another method for equity balancing (i.e., fairness - which seems to be in vogue)?
To clarify my comrades in arms returning for their fellow comrade scenario, I understand that whenever such decisions are made, those making the decision consider it to be the morally correct choice regardless of the outcome. They are well aware that they may fail but, and this is my point, they are not using that as the basis for their decision. They are doing it because it is the right thing to do.
Conversely, I think that smothering the infant is not the course of action to take precisely because it is wrong.
Posted by: Rusty | October 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM
One can create a scenario for ANY moral philosophy in which a great tragedy would be brought about by following that philosophy. The absurd can be attached to ANY moral philosophy, not just this particular one. One could, for example, create a scenario in which smothering an infant would save all of humanity from Hell, and then complain that your methodology is attached to that ball-and-chain. That doesn't make it fair grounds for dismissing your philosophy, it just demonstrates that any philosophy can have absurdness attached to it by a sufficiently clever individual.
I don't consider my philosophy "equity balancing" or "fairness", and I think both philosophies generally fall far short of ideal. I consider my position an attempt to (1) value the right things, and (2) uphold those values, as a whole, as well as I can. It's an attempt to do the most righteous thing given the information at hand, not merely a passably decent thing. I consider it generally best to try to save as many lives as possible, to the highest probability possible, with the least damage to the character/psyche of the people involved possible; at times, this may require risking the lives of one or many infants (I'm also of the mind that intentional violence is bad for you; murdering an infant is far different from covering one's mouth and hoping it doesn't suffocate but taking the risk.) Where you draw the line between "greater good" and "not worth it" is a matter of how you weigh those probabilities in a real scenario -- a matter of your best judgment. I can't give you an answer, in a vacuum, as to how many infants would have to be at risk before some other strategy becomes a better choice.
Your argument that "those making the decision consider it to be the morally correct one" is not in any way at odds with what I've said. When they make the decision, based on the information they have, it may very well be the correct one even if it turns out badly. Conversely, it may very well be the wrong one even if it turns out well. It being the "right thing to do" isn't a matter of how well it turns out, but (this being the point) it IS a matter of whether it's the best choice you can think of in order to best uphold your set of values, including the life of your downed comrade as well as the lives, dignity, and valor of those fighting alongside you.
I disagree with your statement that "it's the right thing to do" simply because it is, or "it's the wrong thing to do" simply because it is. Those things are not right and wrong because of some unreachable absolute ideal; they are right and wrong because they are based on valuing life, valor, friendship, and so on. But there are circumstances in which those things switch from right to wrong, not because life, valor, and friendship are not worth valuing, but because something else may supersede them.
Posted by: LotharBot | October 21, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Well, I guess we're going to disagree on some aspects of this one. I do think that regardless of the differences, Christian thinkers, in attempting to resolve this dilemma, are attempting to work from the foundation of objective morality that is from the God of the Bible.
Posted by: Rusty | October 21, 2009 at 06:15 PM
In my view, Koukl's justification for the baby's murder is strictly utilitarian. Otherwise, he could not say that many lives are more valuable than one, and therefore the baby's murder is not only "okay," but obligatory. He defines the "greater good" in terms of numbers, not absolute morality. Sounds like a typical pro-abortion argument, actually.
I think Koukl is confusing his terms. Rather than set relativism against objectivism, it would be more accurate to define (moral) relativism vs. moral absolutism. In the scenario, the circumstances (which he says determine the "relative" application of an "objective" morality) are actually quite objective, and no compromise of absolute moral standards is necessary. The baby's life is no less sacred than the adults', therefore his (or her) life is no less worthy of protection than the adults', even if he happens to be crying at a really bad time. What's more, even if the entire group ended up slaughtered because the baby gave them away, the baby's death would not be on their hands, but the Nazis'.
There are many wrenchingly difficult situations in life in which we might be tempted to control the outcome in the name of a quantitative, or qualitative, "greater good" rather than a strictly moral one (based on what is righteous). But we truly cannot know, or imagine, either the ripple effect of consequences nor how life (or a situation) might pan out if we actually do the right thing rather than sacrifice what ought not be sacrificed, even if we must suffer or die in the process. So why not trust God and do the right thing.
It's a stewardship issue as well.
Posted by: Bonnie | October 24, 2009 at 07:56 PM
Thanks for the comment, Bonnie. I completely agree with your analysis, especially regarding the aspect of our attempting to ascertain what might happen, given the choices we have. Just curious, but did you take the time to listen to Greg's commentary? My biggest fear in writing this type of post is misrepresenting the subject's statements.
Posted by: Rusty | October 25, 2009 at 07:41 AM
Yes, I did. I don't think you misrepresented him (although he said a lot, and the issue is complex -- my problem is that I think about stuff too much & then my memory is affected; that's my caveat as to my ability to judge whether or not you misrepresented him). I think the bottom line (from what I recall) is that he defends the use of utilitarian means to achieve a morally-absolute end, but what he's really doing is using morally-absolute ideas to inform a utilitarian end. Or rather, he casts a supposedly morally-absolute end in a utilitarian light.
I can't help but think that the group would be cowards for "silencing" the baby, although I can't say that, in the same situation, I wouldn't be a coward too :-(
Posted by: Bonnie | October 25, 2009 at 12:46 PM