RSS
Home
Is it ever right to do wrong? Part 1
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
AP
Some time ago, way back in the last millennium, I came across a site for an “Institute of Ethics.” This being my area of interest, I took some time to surf around and came across an interview with the founder. Not too far into it, the founder discussed one of the moral conundrums that exemplified the problems his institute handled. This was some years ago so I can’t remember the exact wording, but I do remember the concepts involved and here it is:
Suppose your neighbor knocks at your door and you let him in. He explains there is a hit man trying to kill him. He asks you to hide him and, being a moral person, you do. A few minutes later, there is another knock at your door. It is the hit man. You know who it is because your neighbor gave you a good description. The hit man tells you he has dropped in to visit your neighbor who doesn’t seem to be at home at the moment. Then he asks you the Important Question: “Do you know where he is?”
This is the supposed conundrum: do you tell the hit man a lie which would mean your neighbor’s life would be saved or do you tell the truth which means your neighbor dies?
I read part-way through the convoluted explanation of how it was morally acceptable to commit a minor moral evil (lie) in order to prevent a greater moral evil (murder). I lost interest at that point and went on to whatever else I was doing. I figured if the founder of this Ethics Institute was so confused about simple moral principles, there was undoubtedly little of interest at the site.
Whenever I’m asked, “What is your moral code?” I am always happy to answer. Then I wait. Many times, the other person will detect a weakness in the code and ask a hypothetical question to have me clarify – or to illustrate how the code has a fatal flaw. The details of the question differ slightly but the general form is this: “Suppose in order to prevent [a major moral infraction such as murder] you have to [commit a minor moral infraction such as stealing a loaf of bread]. How does your morality handle that?”
Sometimes the options differ only by a matter of scale: “Suppose in order to prevent [a major moral infraction on a large scale such as the killing of many innocent people] you have to [commit the same major moral infraction but on a smaller scale such as killing only one or two innocent people].”
The fact that I can write these questions in a general form means they can be asked of any moral code. Is there any moral code that can suitably answer such questions?
The problem with these questions is the assumption that the morality of an act can be judged without reference to context – in other words, an act is moral or immoral intrinsically, without regard to circumstances or context. However, like common words, meaning depends on context. If you see a word such as riddle, for example, and try to give the “correct” definition without knowing in what context the word is used, you will find it a perplexing riddle and any defense of whichever definition you choose will be riddled with flaws. So it is when judging acts.
Is killing a person morally bad...or good? As asked, there is no way to determine the correct answer because the question does not establish context.
Take the Fort Hood shootings. On one side you have Maj. Nidal Malik, who shot over 40 people (as of this writing, 13 have died) and on the other side you have police Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who shot Malik (as of this writing Malik is alive but in critical condition). Two people at the same location at the same time and both perform the same act – shooting someone. Each one, however, acted in a different context and that allows us to judge that one was performing a moral good while the other was performing a moral evil.
If killing can be a moral good if done in the right context, then how is it that lying is always wrong?
The answer, of course, is that lying is not always wrong. Actions are not intrinsically right or wrong. There is no way around it, morality requires judgment.
Whether you are doing something morally good or morally bad, there are two ways you can act, directly or indirectly. A hit man can kill an innocent person – he acts directly. The one who hires the hit man acts indirectly. Both are guilty of murder. However, the hit man may pay a cop to provide him with necessary information to make the murder possible. In legal parlance, this is aiding and abetting and is generally considered a crime if somewhat lower than the crime that was committed.
In the moral sphere, to act immorally you can commit evil, you can instigate evil or you can cooperate with evil (or interfere with good). To act morally you can commit good, you can instigate good or you can cooperate with good (or interfere with evil).
Doing nothing is an act. It may also be judged as moral or immoral depending on the context. If doing nothing allows evil to be done, or prevents good from being done, then it is morally wrong. So refusing to act (not getting involved) is not always the morally safe decision.
So where does that put us when the hit man knocks at our door and asks us where his intended victim is hiding? We are not pulling the trigger, so we will not be performing the evil; we did not hire the hit man so we are not instigating the evil; but if we answer the question truthfully, we will be cooperating with the evil, aiding and abetting the evil, permitting the evil to take place.
In this case, lying (interfering with evil) is the only moral course – telling the truth would be immoral.
I anticipate some criticism that this concept, that an act is not intrinsically good or bad but determined by context, will be seen as the same thing as situational ethics, or the end justifies the means. Such a conclusion would be wrong, however, which I will explain in more detail in another column.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
