« Non-destructive Stem Cell Research | Main | Freedom of Religion »

January 10, 2007


Did you mean to say that your illustration of tripping someone is or is not an example of situational ethics? It seems like an application of situational ethics to me, but it kind of sounded (from the preceding paragaph) like you were intending it to illustrate just the opposite.


what do you mean by situational ethics?

I have seen the 1st two episodes of the new season and they are awesome. And I think that people are going to find that Jack's time in China...well, I won't say anymore. But there will be good discussion about morality in the coming months.

OK, this is simply not fair. I live in Japan and will not be able to watch season 6 until it comes out on DVD...poor me.

24 certainly highlights our ideas about torture. It is ok to torture the Bierkos of the world, but not Audrey!

I think there is a fine working definition of situational ethics found elsewhere on this blog -- namely doing the "loving" thing in a given situation. Why?

Colin, if you want to know where to watch 24 as the season progresses, email me.

There is something profoundly wrong with this comment. Hanah Arendt comes to mind.

"Most people who cautiously support it's use recognize the complexities and consequences, which is exactly why "24" is so interesting. It shows that. If people disagree about the justification of torture we can at least credit the other with having taken the issue seirously (sic) and recognizing the difficulty of it."

I'm sure that is a huge comfort to: Maher Arar, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1621765.ece

Khaled Masri, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html

Jose Padilla, http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-administrations-torture-of-us.html

Abu Zubaydah, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008794.php

An interesting article; http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6

The issue is what actually is right and wrong, which is determined by external standards not subjective ones.

This is an important point. One of the reasons I like 24 is the situations where this axiom gets put to the test over and over again.

Even if torture is justified in a certain situation, I don't think it should ever be taken lightly.

Good Post.

"Even if torture is justified in a certain situation, I don't think it should ever be taken lightly."

Arrrrggggg!!!! Where did this moral relativism come from? There is no legitimate discussion possible as to the institutionalization of torture in a system based on the rule of law. The historical record is clear; torture corrupts and degrades the societies that adopt it.

sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils, one can be forced into a situation in which the only responses are evil. Deciding which is the lesser evil is the key. And that's what makes 24 so crazy, Jack is often put into situations where some form of evil is the only option, deciding which evil is lesser is the big problem.

The best example i've heard is in Nazi germany when people would hide Jews and then lie to the germans when confronted. Lying is evil, but so is sending an innocent person to certain death.

It seems that most of you have put a lot of philosophical thought into this. Have you thought about justifying your thoughts with biblical proof text.


The comments to this entry are closed.