Thoughts on 24 and Language on Lying
It's time to get somethings off my chest. (Spoiler warning: if you haven't watched the first four episodes of season six for 24, you might not want to read this first part, but skip to the bottom. Consider yourself warned.)
Specifically, they are thoughts regarding 24. I thought the recent season opener was interesting, to say the least. There's some more intense drama. Some pretty crazy stuff, too. Jack Bauer turned vampire? Now that's a little gross, I say. You have to hand it to the writers, however, for continuing to add unpredictable elements to the story. I didn't see that one coming.
Despite the fact that I am a big fan of the show and I think Jack Bauer rocks, there is something that is really starting to bother me about the show in general. That concerns the way it portrays moral choices. I have been aware for some time about the fact that the show doesn't excactly promote proper behavior in relation to authority. Authority figures are always wrong in this show, and they must always be disobeyed to save the day and beat the bad guys. People who go behind the back of their superiors or violate their orders are never ultimately wrong. They are always exonerated. Despite this flawed moral message, it has been easy to detect and identify as silly, stupid, wrong, etc. So I can still enjoy the show for the drama, even as I have identified the wrong message it sends about authority.
However, in the past season and the current one, it seems like this "end justifies the means" morality has taken a turn for the worse. It's now more subtle in some ways. While there's still plenty of defying authority, now authority figures are using "the end justifies the means" morality to justify their behavior. Presidents now choose to do/promote/allow evil. They aren't contradicting a higher authority in the show by doing so, because they are the highest. Maybe this has been present since the beginning of 24, and I just can't remember it. But at the least I am noticing it now. And it's bugging me.
The logic used to justify these choices is so terribly flawed. It goes something like this: bad guy threatens to do bad things if I don't do x (which is also bad). Though x is bad, if I don't do it then the bad guy will carry out his threat. So it will be my fault if bad guy does his bad thing, because I could stop it by being bad. So I'll do the bad, because it's my "only option," and I don't want to be held accountable for the bad actions of the terrorist.
Maybe it's political reality that a president will be held accountable for the actions of others, but it doesn't fit with moral law, which only holds individuals accountable for their own actions, and not that of others. So it kills me when a president chooses to allow Bauer to be murdered, for example, because a terrorist demands it, and the president thinks it is the only way to stop more terrorism from occuring. So wrong. And since when do you believe that a terrorist will honor his word? Such thinking kills me.
End of spoiler section
I'm afraid this "end result determines the morality of the previous action" mentality is too pervasive in society. At least it's present enough to fill the entire story line of a drama like 24. But I also see it in those who say "I lied" when something they said in the past turns out not to be true, even though they did not intend to be misleading at the time they said it. For example, if I say on Saturday that "I'm going to work on Monday," but then get sick Sunday night and do not go to work the next day, that is not a lie. But people commonly refer to this as a lie, because they only judge the statement by the end result, and do not take into account the motive/intent of the person when they made the original statement. It is, of course, silly to call this a lie, but many people do, and I think it's indicative of a larger trend toward Machiavellian morality. That is, people judge the merits of an action by its result, instead of its intent.
Closing thoughts on this. The next time you stop to help a little old lady with a flat tire, beware. If you fix her tire and get her going on her merry way, and then she is involved in an accident that kills her, you will be a murderer. You should have avoided murder by not helping her change her tire. Infallible logic, right?
How's that for a nice, light Friday evening post? :-)
Specifically, they are thoughts regarding 24. I thought the recent season opener was interesting, to say the least. There's some more intense drama. Some pretty crazy stuff, too. Jack Bauer turned vampire? Now that's a little gross, I say. You have to hand it to the writers, however, for continuing to add unpredictable elements to the story. I didn't see that one coming.
Despite the fact that I am a big fan of the show and I think Jack Bauer rocks, there is something that is really starting to bother me about the show in general. That concerns the way it portrays moral choices. I have been aware for some time about the fact that the show doesn't excactly promote proper behavior in relation to authority. Authority figures are always wrong in this show, and they must always be disobeyed to save the day and beat the bad guys. People who go behind the back of their superiors or violate their orders are never ultimately wrong. They are always exonerated. Despite this flawed moral message, it has been easy to detect and identify as silly, stupid, wrong, etc. So I can still enjoy the show for the drama, even as I have identified the wrong message it sends about authority.
However, in the past season and the current one, it seems like this "end justifies the means" morality has taken a turn for the worse. It's now more subtle in some ways. While there's still plenty of defying authority, now authority figures are using "the end justifies the means" morality to justify their behavior. Presidents now choose to do/promote/allow evil. They aren't contradicting a higher authority in the show by doing so, because they are the highest. Maybe this has been present since the beginning of 24, and I just can't remember it. But at the least I am noticing it now. And it's bugging me.
The logic used to justify these choices is so terribly flawed. It goes something like this: bad guy threatens to do bad things if I don't do x (which is also bad). Though x is bad, if I don't do it then the bad guy will carry out his threat. So it will be my fault if bad guy does his bad thing, because I could stop it by being bad. So I'll do the bad, because it's my "only option," and I don't want to be held accountable for the bad actions of the terrorist.
Maybe it's political reality that a president will be held accountable for the actions of others, but it doesn't fit with moral law, which only holds individuals accountable for their own actions, and not that of others. So it kills me when a president chooses to allow Bauer to be murdered, for example, because a terrorist demands it, and the president thinks it is the only way to stop more terrorism from occuring. So wrong. And since when do you believe that a terrorist will honor his word? Such thinking kills me.
End of spoiler section
I'm afraid this "end result determines the morality of the previous action" mentality is too pervasive in society. At least it's present enough to fill the entire story line of a drama like 24. But I also see it in those who say "I lied" when something they said in the past turns out not to be true, even though they did not intend to be misleading at the time they said it. For example, if I say on Saturday that "I'm going to work on Monday," but then get sick Sunday night and do not go to work the next day, that is not a lie. But people commonly refer to this as a lie, because they only judge the statement by the end result, and do not take into account the motive/intent of the person when they made the original statement. It is, of course, silly to call this a lie, but many people do, and I think it's indicative of a larger trend toward Machiavellian morality. That is, people judge the merits of an action by its result, instead of its intent.
Closing thoughts on this. The next time you stop to help a little old lady with a flat tire, beware. If you fix her tire and get her going on her merry way, and then she is involved in an accident that kills her, you will be a murderer. You should have avoided murder by not helping her change her tire. Infallible logic, right?
How's that for a nice, light Friday evening post? :-)
posted by redsoxwinthisyear at 12:11 AM
4 Comments:
very good.
this was a very good post. not fluffy...
Some good points regarding the show.
I do take exception to your concern over disobeying a supervisor or
workplace policy. It is only immoral if the action is inherently immoral. If your employer says you can't use your work cell phone for anything but work, and you use it to call 911 to save someone, you have violated the policy and can be fired, but have done nothing immoral. But you are right that it seems to be a constant theme on the show.
Arguments against the "end justifies the means" raise interesting dilemmas. If your parents punish you by saying you can't leave the house for 24 hours, and you see someone starting to drown outside and you run out and rescue them, does the end not justify the means? Is it better to obey your parents without exception, or to save a life?
Catholic teaching (Protestants lag far behind in precisely reasoning out many moral arguments) says that killing in self defense is permissible because of the principle of double effect. Your intent is to protect life (intended effect), not to kill (unintended effect). You are judged by your intended effect, not the unintended one. That type of tortured nuance seems silly to me, I must say.
Anyway, the show does raise interesting issues.
Good point keith. I did not intend to make it sound like I think unquestioned obedience is the right thing to do in all situations. I agree that there are exceptions, as you pointed out.
And as tortured as the nuance of Catholic teaching is, I generally agree with it. But I think such teaching would also say that the killing of someone else for self-defense purposes has to directly lead to the saving of a life in order for the action to be justified. Motive and action are judged together. That is, you have to be killing the man with the gun in his hand who is about to kill you in order for it to be self-defense. The morality of an action can't be judged on motive alone. To use an extreme example, if motive alone is important then someone could be justified in nuking a few billion people if their "intended effect" is to alleviate world hunger and ultimately save lives.
In 24 recently you have had people killing or allowing to be killed those who are not perpetrators, which means that you can't know for sure if the direct result is saving life. This is because it is ultimately up to the bad guys to honor their word and stop doing something evil as a result of the President or someone else killing a good guy. Though the motive is good, the act cannot be justified because there is no immediate and definite saving of life as a result of the act.
This is great info to know.
Post a Comment
<< Home