There is a question going around the poli-blogosphere at the moment, a question that I believe was originally posed by Kevin Drum (who has a knack for this sort of sophistic dreck): Is it acceptable to kill 18 innocent people in order to get rid of one "bad guy"?
Obviously, this is a reference to a recent event in which our military forces dropped a bomb on a house believed to contain an al-Quaeda officer, and ended up killing 18 innocent people in the process.
Now, at first glance this question seems straightforward, and even carries with it a wholesome tinge of the kind of late-night what-iffery one engages in during one's years in a college dormitory. Playing with the answers, you can get deep into your shared assumptions about the nature of life, of innocence, of guilt, of the worth of an individual, and all those lovely mind-crunchy questions that philosophers enjoy whacking about.
The problem is, this question is not some random hypothetical dreamed up for the purpose of mental and ethical playacting. It is a response to a real act, a real set of circumstances, and is being asked in a very specific political context. Moreover, it is also a hypothetical that, by its very nature, inevitably leads the respondent to answer in the affirmative if the surrounding hypothetical context is extreme enough. (Thanks to tristero for pointing this out so nicely.)
As if that were not enough, the context in which the question is asked -- the recent bombing, the ongoing "war on terror" -- makes it easy to interpret the question as being in essence a question about the problem of global terrorist activity and the way in which we respond to it. The answer to this question -- to bomb, or not to bomb, to kill or not to kill -- is intended to serve as a litmus test for deducing how the respondent perceives the administration's response to this activity; if you answer "no" then you are not in line with the administration's handling of the issue, and if you answer "yes" you are.
As tristero explains, ultimately the result is to force everyone into supposed alignment with the administration, because eventually one can dream up a situation in which you have to either answer "yes" or appear to be an inhuman monster. (Ironic, no?)
(In many ways this echoes the dynamics and problems with the "Is torture ever justified?" question. Similarly, it is possible to escalate the variables until the respondent has to answer in the affirmative. Similarly, simply answering the question means buying into the questioner's value system, a set of values that considers torture an acceptable addition to the anti-terrorist toolkit instead of a moral abomination beyond the pale in any and all circumstances. If you believe in the latter, the only response you can make to that question and maintain your integrity is to refuse to engage with the questioner at all. The same applies here: if you do not believe that the loss of innocent lives is ever acceptable, or if you believe that the situation demands solutions more nuanced than a bomb, you can't answer the question without simultaneously compromising your position, even if you answer "no.")
But the problem with that question is deeper than that bit of rhetorical sophistry.
Recent Comments