by Chris Alexion, Copyright February 26, 2006, all rights reserved. 320 views
I learned about Fox's counterterrorism series 24 when it first arrived, but never followed the show until this season. I'm generally not a fan of TV shows, for various reasons. But Kiefer Sutherland and crew won me over; the acting is credible and backed up by great action and a meticulous plot. The credit largely goes to Sutherland, who plays major roles on both sides of the camera.
But being the philosophy nerd I am, I'm also drawn to 24's moral presence. The series succeeds where others have failed, presenting complicated, nuanced, sticky ethical choices without losing moral authority. Pardon a little philosophical detour here. Ethics can be roughly divided into two schools: teleological ethics and deontological ethics. The former judges the rightness of an action by its consequences (the most common form of teleological ethics would be utilitarianism, which seeks "the greatest good for the greatest number"). The latter focuses on duty and asserts that actions don't derive their rightness or wrongness from their consequences (two examples would be Kant's categorical imperative and biblical theistic ethics).
This debate showed up in a recent episode in which Jack Bauer goes undercover in order to make contact with a group of terrorists. Suddenly it becomes clear that the terrorists want Jack to help them release a canister of nerve gas into a crowded mall. Only after the "test" of the gas is successful can Jack follow the terrorists back to the other nineteen canisters. The Counter-Terrorism Unit has to decide: move in and stop the release of the gas (thus risking the loss of the other canisters and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives later) or let the terrorists continue (thus signing the death warrant of over 800 people, many of whom are children).
The leadership at CTU and the president take the utilitarian approach, ordering Jack to let the gas be released. But Audrey Raines, CTU employee and Jack's former girlfriend pleads against it. Audrey points out a false dilemma in their argument: people may die later if CTU fails to recover the canisters. But people will die if CTU doesn't act immediately. CTU does not have the right to stand by and let these people perish.
Jack also rejects the utilitarian decision and disobeys the order to provide the terrorists with the arming code. As a result, they're only able to release some of the nerve gas, allowing Jack to evacuate the mall and save nearly everyone. Some might have called the scene in which Jack carries the little girl out of the mall contrived, but I thought it was touching and simply highlighted Jack's priorities: His job is to protect the innocent.
Jack made the right call, in my view. Scripture leaves little, if any, room for utilitarian judgments, focusing instead on God's commands and prohibitions, which sovereignly determine right and wrong. This isn't to say, though, that moral decisions are always easily apparent. They're not; we need wisdom to properly interpret Scripture, obedient faith to carry out what we know, and sometimes (like Jack Bauer) courage to disobey man in order to obey God.
I'm just trying to figure out how all this ended up on modern primetime TV.
1 • Chris Yokel • February 27, 2006 • 11:11 PM
Just finished watching the latest "24″…wow, more sticky ethical choices. I think I may be getting hooked. I was surprised when the President prays….it wasn't done in a farcical way (like Christianity is so often treated on TV)
2 • Chris • February 28, 2006 • 9:38 AM
You can see in that episode how President Logan continues to follow his utilitarian philosophy, while the first lady rejects that view.
Even when his wife was in the motorcade of the Russian president, Logan was paralyzed and unable to warn them of the attack that he, after all, had set them up for. He tells Mike Novik that if he doesn't let the terrorists assasinate the Russian president, they'll kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, and even his wife's life isn't enough to sway him over.
That's utilitarianism: work for the "greatest good" down the road, while denying the duties of friend, of host, and even of husband.
3 • adam dolce • April 05, 2006 • 11:39 AM
just writing a paper on 24, and i couldnt help but notice that you applaud Jack's use of deontological ethic, but disapprove of a utilitarian approach, the likes of which plagued the White House and CTU in this current conflict. Yet, isn't Jack always using Utilitarian logic to do what he needs to do?
4 • Chris • April 05, 2006 • 8:01 PM
Adam:
You're right; Jack does often use utilitarian reasoning–sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. I've been meaning to write a post clarifying what I said about utilitarianism.
Hopefully I'll get around to writing it soon.
——-