Stand to Reason Blog

Intentions + Actions

I'm a fan of the television show "Law & Order" and there was an interesting closing argument made by the defense lawyer in Wednesday night's episode.  The scenario was this.

A very slick con man had kidnapped a six-year-old girl to blackmail her father into robbing the bank he managed.  When the police tracked down this con man, the girl was no where to be found and one officer used excessive force to get the information out of him and save the girl's life.

In the summation, the defense lawyer contrasted the kind treatment the kidnapper gave the girl - giving her candy, holding her hand as he led her off, letting her pizza and watch T.V. - with the rough treatment the police officer gave him.  Because one was gentle and the other violent it was supposed to make a difference in the jury's judgment of the overall acts of each man.  It was a moral appeal to the jury because the judge had already allowed the evidence obtained by the police for reasons I won't go into.

The problem with his argument (from a moral perspective, not a legal one) was that he tried to divorce the actions from the intent.  No matter how kind the kidnapper was to the girl, everything he did was subsumed under the intent to kidnap her, threaten her father, and rob the bank.  All of his actions were morally part of that intent.  Though the police officer's actions are possibly difficult to justify, still all of his actions were part of his intent to save the girl's life. 

Actions don't exist in a vacuum apart from the intentions.  Intentions are part of the moral nature of the act.

The reason I bring this up is because it reminded me of arguments made about active and passive euthanasia.  Some ethicists argue that the difference between these two distinct kinds of acts is whether we move body parts or don't.  Something is active euthanasia only if you do something to kill the patient and passive if you don't do something. 

Now, in the case of the kidnapper and the police officer, I think it's pretty clear that the difference in their actions is not whether their actions were gentle or violent, but what their intentions were.  The entire moral act is made up of the action and the intentions, and the intentions are often the most important factor that can change the nature of the actions.  Similarly, the morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia is not moving body parts but the intent. 

When evaluating the morality of euthanasia, we don't just judge whether the person acted or didn't act; we judge their intentions, as well.  So active euthanasia might involve no action at all if the intent is to allow someone die when intervention could prevent it.  Not acting can be active euthanasia if the intent is to cause death. 

Causing someone's death can be a result of acting or not acting when intervention was possible.  It's the intention that makes the morally significant difference.

!*@#!!*%#

A new poll out reveals what most of us probably know - people use profanity more in public now than before. 

There is a moral issue at stake here, but probably not the one you'd immediately think.  I think it's more a matter of civility than morality.  And that's why public profanity bothers me. 

Civility is fundamentally the common respect citizens show to one another.  Seemingly innocuous customs demonstrate respect for others whom we coexist with in society, and it's that respect that is the moral issue behind the profanity that concerns me.  It's not the profanity in public but the lack of respect for the others who hear it that bothers me.  It doesn't seem to concern many people anymore that they might offend someone overhearing their public vocabulary.  I'm really old-fashioned, but it bothers me that men don't care that a woman or child might hear their vulgar comments.  And, of course, many women (and children) talk that way now, too. 

Profanity is sometimes referred to as "rough language" and the increase in public profanity seems to be one of those elements that makes society rougher to live in. The loss of civiity in society is the loss of respect for one another.

Extreme Cases Make Bad Rules

Cases like this little girl who was born with a second head that was removed over the weekend prompt people to question our conventional and fairly settled philosophy about identity and the soul.  "What do you make of this?"  Explain this."  Generally, our view is a very conventional one - there's one body per soul - or visa versa.  So this seems to some people to challenge that idea.

The first thing to be said about something like this is that extreme examples don't make good philosophy or ethics.  It may challenge us to explore our view to understand it, but the odd exceptions don't break the rule.

It is a little hard to know what the state of the second head was last week, but it's clear that during gestation twinning occurred so a second human being existed at some point.  It's hard to tell if that human being still lived in that partial body last week.  If there was no discernible sense of an individual identity I'd say it was at this late stage a physical appendage reflexively responding to stimuli  If there was a sense of individual identity and independent physical movement, then that partial body was inhabited by a unique soul and this was an extreme example of conjoined twins who clearly had two souls and identities.  And if that was the case and the physically complete girl couldn't live with her physically partial twin, then it was an unfortunate matter of survival to remove the twin who couldn't live independently.

There are examples of conjoined twins who live out their lives together and clearly have unique and individual identities and souls.  They don't challenge our view of the soul and body.  Neither does a tragic example of this twin who at some point couldn't live out her physical life. 

Christians Caught in the Middle

All the focus in the major media in Iraq is on the differences between the Shia Sunnis, and Kurds.  Little has been reported about Iraqi Christians who are caught in the middle. Iraqi Christians are a small but indigenous minority who are suffering at the hands of the three Muslim factions that make up the majority.  They have no real representation in the newly elected government because of their small numbers.  In fact, even though the Iraqi elections were a very encouraging milestone, Iraqi Christians largely stayed home because of threats if they participated.  And as the Iraqi military is improving and standing on their own to protect the country, the Muslims that make up the military don't protect the Christians.  They are suffering financially because their businesses are targeted for attack, and they are increasingly confined to their homes because their lives are threatened. 

Christians are being persecuted for their faith at the hands of the Muslim majority in Iraq.

I do think it's an issue of justice and human rights to encourage democracies where freedom flourishes.  As we invest in this difficult goal, we need to be sure that vulnerable minorities are not forgotten within societies that don't yet have the foundational fully laid for religious freedom.

Morally Impaired

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Time Magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Tuesday (replaying Thursday).  The interview is a stunning example of how moral relativism impairs one's moral intuitions and renders their judgment nonsensical.

Ware argues for a journalistic objectivity that requires moral neutrality, thus he can't discern or won't admit to a moral difference between the Iraqi and Coalition troops and the terrorists blowing up innocent Iraqis.  They are just two sides of a war he must report on.  Ware has spent time with the terrorists and written about their perspective with the lack of value judgment he deems necessary to journalism.  It's only required to represent another point of view.

In one segment of the interview, Hugh asked Ware a hypothetical question, which Ware apparently had no moral apparatus to understand.  Hugh asked him whether if he'd been a reporter in World War 2, would he have reported Hitler's side of the war with the neutrality he reports on the terrorists.  Ware, seemingly genuine, took the question as a logistical one, not a moral one.  He said that it was impossible to compare the two wars since there was a clear front line between the Allies and Hitler that prevented reporters from crossing over and no such line prevents reporters from reaching the terrorists in Iraq.  When Hugh probed further, Ware responded that Hitler's views were widely disseminated during the war so there was no need for journalists to represent them as there is a need to tell people what the terrorists think.

The man seemed truly incapable of understanding the moral nature of Hugh's question.  And his view of the moral neutrality required of journalists is clearly grounded in relativism.  But there is no morally neutral ground for anyone, including journalists.  A reporter can report the facts, but the refusal or inability to render a moral judgment is itself a moral judgment that all moral perspectives are equally valid while at the same time declaring that moral judgments are wrong.  Blow up a mosque full of innocent people or protect them, there's no moral distinction. 

It would be merelu a sad thing to hear an intelligent man so profoundly morally impaired by relativism, but it is truly tragic when such moral impairment is found at levels of responsibility that require good moral judgment.

If Monogamous By Nature, Then Also...

Surprisingly, William Saletan grounds a defense of monogamous same-sex marriage (over and against polygamous heterosexual marriage) using an appeal to human nature. What part of human nature leads Saletan to reject polygamy? Jealousy.

Sounds like pickin’ and choosin’ to me. What about the rest of human nature? What about the clear reproductive purpose of sexuality? What about the clear heterosexual purpose of the sexual organs?

Saletan unwittingly picks a quality from human nature that applies to all sorts of social arrangements, not just sexual. And he rejects those aspects of human nature that are specifically sexual.

Saletan may be right about jealousy ensuring monogamy, but are we really to believe that a negative emotion like jealousy is really the underlying reason why one person should be committed solely to one other person sexually? Isn’t it stronger to appeal to something like the nature of sexuality itself to ground monogamy? Sexual intercourse is so intimate and unitive that in order to be healthy and sensible it must be experienced within the safety and security of lifelong commitment.

But Saletan doesn’t appeal to these stronger reasons for monogamy, based on the nature of sexuality itself. Perhaps he realizes that if he does, he’ll be forced to acknowledge that heterosexuality, like monogamy, is built into the nature of the thing.

Obigatory Sacrifice?

If you're not a "24" addict, just keep moving along.

Okay, terrorists with guns walk into the natural gas plant where you work, shoot two people, and order you to reduce the pressure in the pipes - and admit they don't know how to do it themselves.  They're obviously up to no good and require your help to accomplish their dirty deed.  Do you cooperate to save your own skin and one remaining co-worker even though this can't be good for your customers at the other end of the gas lines or do you sacrifice yourself and foil their plan? 

Maybe I'm expecting too much from utility workers, but isn't the answer obvious?  After all, even if the terrorists don't kill you when you've reduced the pressure, all your customers end up dead - except for the ones with all electric appliances.  (I hate electric stoves.) 

Is there such an idea as obligatory sacrifice?

Jack has finally found the woman of his dreams.  She understands he must interrogate her now and then, but she still loves him for the ruthless anti-terrorist agent he is. 

And Curtis has got to be the most patient man in the world to put up with Jack knocking him out and escaping, heading up the missions, and barking orders to him when Jack isn't even with CTU anymore.  He's probably even let Jack shoot him if that's what the job required.  Curtis has no ego and knows when to work outside the rules.  Don't kill-off Curtis in the purge that is this season!

"Unlivable Life"

Many people dismiss all analogies to the Nazis because they are so often misused.  The Dutch recently rejected the comparison of their infant euthanasia legislation to the Nazi practice of euthanizing handicapped children.  While the comparison might be inflammatory and the Dutch claim they are motivated by compassion rather than bigotry, in the end it's the act and the rationale for it that matters and hopefully offends.  Wesley J. Smith analyzes the comparison in "Killing Babies Compassionately."

The Groningen Protocol devised guidelines for hospitals when considering whether to kill disabled newborns.  The Groningen University Medical Center killed 22 disabled newborns between 1997 and 2004.  Studies covering 1995 and 2001 showed that in each of those years 8% of all newborns who died in the Netherlands were euthanized by doctors - and not always with the parents' consent.  The Royal Dutch Medical Association approves of infant euthanasia if the baby is deemed to have an "unlivable life." 

The "livableness" of a newborn's life is determined by a combination of factors, including the following:

* The expected measure of suffering (not only bodily but also emotional--the level of hopelessness)

* The expected potential for communication and human relationships, independence (ability to move, to care for oneself, to live independently), self-realization (being able to hear, read, write, labor), and the like.

* The child's life expectancy.

If the infant's "prospects" didn't measure up, the child could be euthanized.

The subsequently compiled Groningen Protocol--which is expected to form the basis for the official approval of Dutch pediatric euthanasia--similarly created categories of killable babies: infants "with no chance of survival," infants with a "poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care," and "infants with a hopeless prognosis," including those "not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life . . . is predicted." In other words, infant euthanasia is not restricted to dying babies but can be based on predicted serious disability.

Smith concludes:

But the Netherlands cannot escape this ugly fact: Dutch doctors kill scores of babies each year and justify this fundamental abuse of human rights upon the inherently discriminatory concept that they can decide that another human being's life is of such low quality it has no business being lived.

Causing Armageddon?

President Bush was asked last week whether he sees the war in Iraq as an element of bringing about Armageddon.  Many critics of President Reagan accused him of developing his foreign policy to cause the end times.  Paul Kengor discredits this accusation in his spiritual biography of Reagan.  And Bush denied that he ever considers such things.  Yet this suspicion pops up somewhat regularly about Christians.  On CNN over the weekend, on "analyst" cited the popularity of the "Left Behind" series as evidence that Christians commonly hold the view that Armageddon should be plotted and planned for.  (Obviously, many people read those books as entertainment fiction.)

The idea that we can plan Armageddon or strategize how to cause it is ludicrous on its face because of the way the Bible talks about Armageddon.  The Bible talks about the End Times as prophecy, what will happen, not as a command of what Christians should do.  Human actions are involved to the extent that ultimately our sinful actions will result in the Final Judgment.  Ultimately what the Bible clearly communicates about the End Times is that it is in God's hands and will take place as He wills.  While the scenario of the culmination of all things is a frightening warning, it's also meant to be comforting to those who trust in God since He is in control of everything. 

Christians can't intentionally make Armageddon happen.  We can't plan it.  It is an act of God who alone decides the timing and events.

"Apostasy"

While charges against Abdul Rahman have been dropped, two other Christians have been arrested in Afghanistan and a third Christian was beaten because of his faith:

March 22 (Compass) – An avalanche of media coverage of an Afghan man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity has apparently sparked the arrest and deepening harassment of other Afghan Christians in the ultra-conservative Muslim country. Authorities arrested Abdul Rahman, 41, last month for the “crime” of leaving Islam for Christianity. Compass has confirmed the arrest of two other Afghan Christians. Another Afghan convert to Christianity was beaten severely outside his home by a group of six men, who finally knocked him unconscious with a hard blow to his temple. He woke up in the hospital two hours later. “Our brother remains steadfast, despite the ostracism and beatings,” one of his friends said.

Meanwhile, Rahman has applied for asylum and wishes to leave Afghanistan.

Mark Steyn asks the question in his Sunday column:

Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet. What can we do?

We need to pray for Afghanistan as it struggles to find its footing that will support a free society.  Just as the practice of suttee in India could not be allowed to continue because it was an objectively barbaric practice, Afghanistan - and Islam - must be reformed to protect the rights that all human beings can rightly claim as creatures of God.  This is not the time to appeal to an indiscriminate pluralism, but rather the time to appeal to universal rights and goods that all people deserve.