by Anonymous Logician, Copyright April 18, 2006, all rights reserved. 1078 views
In a previous post about the show 24, I mentioned the conflict between deontological ethics (which focuses on duty) and teleological ethics (which focuses on the effectiveness of actions in producing certain ends). I've been meaning to clarify for some time, so now I'll try to put some additional thoughts down on, well, screen.
Teleological ethics (especially utilitarianism, its most popular form) is not consistent with the biblical theistic ethic of a divine Legislator. On top of this, utilitarianism simply fails as a coherent system. (See Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation.) But that doesn't mean there's never a place for considering utility within the general framework of biblical revelation.
What am I talking about? To make things more concrete, take the example I mentioned earlier from 24: releasing nerve gas in a crowded mall. Now compare that situation with one from Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six. In one incident, terrorists have seized an amusement park and are holding a little over thirty children hostage in a castle-type building on park property. Shortly after the Rainbow team arrives, the terrorists are about to kill a cancer-stricken little girl in order to demonstrate their seriousness. A Rainbow sniper has the terrorist in his sights, but is ordered not to fire because the team is not ready for an all-out assault, and shooting the terrorist on the spot would effectively end any chance of saving the other thirty children.
In a hearbreaking decision, the sniper obeys, holding his fire. The terrorist shoots the little girl through the heart. Later, Rainbow storms the castle, killing all the perpetrators and rescuing the remaining children, none of whom received more than a scratch on the arm. (Though Team Two commander Domingo Chavez, whose job was to place himself between the hostiles and the children, has several bullets in his body armor.)
In both of these cases, those in command decided that their duty to save lives had to be balanced with their duty to save more lives. I agree with Rainbow commander John Clark's call, but not with that of 24's President Logan. But why do I choose the one over the other? Both are utilitarian decisions. So perhaps it might be best to say that in the 24 case, people might have died because Bauer refused to sacrifice the people in the mall (though Jack proved to be right in the end), while in Clark's case, the children would have died if his men had begun the assault too hastily. It's hard to swallow, but it seems to come down to probability. Scripture provides us with a sound basis for ethical decisions, but never promises that these calls will always be easy.
So here are some brief and tentative conclusions: (1) Utilitiarianism and other forms of teleological ethics can't form an independent basis for morality. (2) Utility can never be used as an excuse for doing wrong. (3) But utility can be used to help us choose between two conflicting duties.