Situation Ethics

Palomar · 2002-11-04 11:27:11

*Since I didn't want to muscle in on any of Clark's material, I thought I should start a new thread. When I was a kid, the people [extremely devout Christians] in my childhood church were asked the following: You are living in Nazi Germany, as the born-again Christian you are now. You live on a farm just outside a village; your nearest neighbor is 2 miles away. A Jew knocks at your door, disheveled and terrified, saying he is being pursued by Nazis and will be arrested and incarcerated if you don't help hide him. He would have to run at least another 2 miles to get another chance at safety, and the Nazis are hot on his heels. You tell him to come in, hoping the Nazis will bypass your home. They don't, and knock at your door. They ask if you have seen such-and-such a man [description provided], who is a Jew; if so, you are to tell them what you know. You are in no position to ask questions, i.e. is this man a criminal? Are they sure he's a Jew, and not simply some felon on the run? Civilians weren't allowed to question Nazi authority.

Do you *lie* to the Nazis to protect the Jewish man, thereby committing the sin of lying...or do you tell the truth and thereby condemn the man to being apprehended and sent to the concentration camps, and quite possibly to his death?

This scenario REALLY ruffled a lot of feathers for the church folks back home; they didn't want to address the issue.

The major fault I see in this scenario is that anyone willing to endanger themselves to rescue a persecuted person wouldn't so easily "out" said person, especially not 5 minutes later, and particularly not if aiding that person results in your own imprisonment and possible execution; either you are willing to protect this person or you are not, and an unwilling person most likely wouldn't have allowed him into their protection in the first place.

My own response to this scenario would be to lie to the Nazis; it would, IMO, be the lesser [it goes without saying] of two evils to lie about it ["Yes, I saw a man running past the house, that way -- "] than to surrender the Jewish man into the custody of Nazis.

My answer comes about as a result of my own personal sense of ethics, and not from any religious mandates.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-11-04 11:34:35

Let's update this, shall we?

A man comes to your door saying he is being persecuted by the federal government. He has proof that the government leaders are lying and are corrupt. They have declared him a terroist and are now chasing him. He asks that you allow him to hide on your farm.

The Feds show up a few hours later, asking if you have seen this man.

Do you allow the man to hide (he has no evidence on him about his claims)?
Irregardles of wether or not you allow him to hide on yuor farm, do you lie to the Feds about his whereabouts?

The problem I have with the Nazi example is that we4 already know that the Nazi's are bad- so we are more inclined to help the Jewish person.

What do you do when the "bad guy" is an unknown and you have a "patriotic duty"? This should be interesting for any who choose to answer.

Byron · 2002-11-04 14:09:12

I'd like to make an attempt to respond to your 'updated' situation...you mention the man 'has proof' about the government...but then you say he has no proof on him..which to me, means he has no proof. The only way I would allow the man inside my home / farm, etc is if the gentleman had actual, verifiable proof that he is being unfairly persecuted...and of course, I would then tell the FBI that I've never heard / seen the man...

B

clark · 2002-11-04 14:17:15

SO if the government labels a person a terroist, you would only help them if they could demonstrate to you that they are being persecuted? Correct?

So flashback to 1942, a Jew runs up to your house, you are German, The German goverment has declared that all Jews are enemies of the state, you would more than likely turn the person in. Correct? Remember, most of the population did not know that the Jews or others were being systamatically exterminated.

If you read the Patriot Act, you will notice that the government has the power to label anyone it wants a "terroist", and if you help these people that the government says is a "terroist" you are commiting a crime.

So anyone who opposes the federal government can simply be branded a terroist if the federal government so chooses. How is that for silencing politcal dissenition.

Byron · 2002-11-04 14:38:03

SO if the government labels a person a terroist, you would only help them if they could demonstrate to you that they are being persecuted? Correct?

How else would I know that he / she isn't really a terrorist that is about to blow up a whole city or whatever? From the standpoint of assuming the heavy risk of harboring a fugitive...I'd have to feel mighty comfortable about whether the accused individual is truly innocent...if I just believed what they said, saved him/her from capture...and two days later that person goes away, and I turn on the news that a major city is in flames....no, that is a chance I just wouldn't want to take..even at the expense of a person who is perhaps truly innocent. It's a tough bite, I know...but what else to do in that kind of situation ???

So flashback to 1942, a Jew runs up to your house, you are German, The German goverment has declared that all Jews are enemies of the state, you would more than likely turn the person in. Correct? Remember, most of the population did not know that the Jews or others were being systamatically exterminated.

In the context of that time, and what people knew of the current situation...I don't see how one can fault a German citizen for turning in a Jew...one can only make the best of whatever knowledge they have available to them at that particular time, and act upon it. It may or may not be the right thing to do, but how can you possibly guess about what is really going on?

However, I do strongly disagree with the so-called Patriot Act, as well as many other laws that have made mince meat of the U.S. Constitution...so I do what I can to raise awareness of the less-than-desirable political climate that is currently in place. But the specter of 9/11 is still prominantly in my mind, as well as just about everyone else I know...which leads to me being wary of the potential terrorists out there...not a very comfortable balance to have to strike, that's for sure...

B

clark · 2002-11-04 14:46:29

Thank you Byron for your very open comments.

There have been times where I listen to the news, with all the debates in regard to war, and wonder if perhaps the German people prior to 1939 might have been trying to make the same sense of all of this the same way we are.

Our leaders, much like the german leaders of the time, are declaring that we must go forward beyond our borders to defend our way of life. We will occupy a foreign country- that is what our leaders tell us we WILL do if we go to war. Germany occupied Europe.

I am not saying Bush is hitler, or america is repeating the same mistakes as nazism- I am saying that there are some striking similarities and I question what is happening. Will it be some time in the future that other will look back upon us, wondering why we turned in people labeled "terroists" the same way we look with wonder at the people who turned in the "jews' of their times?

The first concentration camp is in Cuba (yes, much better than the Nazi's version), but it exsists all the same. Is it right to question that?

Byron · 2002-11-04 15:00:22

I will have to agree with you about the eerie similarities between 2002 America and 1939 Germany...and, as they say, the price for liberty is eternal vigilance...

It is always a good thing to question what our leaders are up to...unabashed apathy is a society's worse nemisis, in my opinion...

B

Palomar · 2002-11-04 18:51:42

Let's update this, shall we?
A man comes to your door saying he is being persecuted by the federal government. He has proof that the government leaders are lying and are corrupt. They have declared him a terroist and are now chasing him. He asks that you allow him to hide on your farm.
The Feds show up a few hours later, asking if you have seen this man.
Do you allow the man to hide (he has no evidence on him about his claims)?
Irregardles of wether or not you allow him to hide on yuor farm, do you lie to the Feds about his whereabouts?

*It'd depend, to some extent, on the specifics.

I'd call the Feds -unless- I had [via whatever means] some really good reason to believe this person were being unfairly pursued, persecuted, etc. Then, of course, we have the problem of "what would that 'really good reason' be or have to be?" I can't think of any specifics at the moment; let's say this person is known to me from childhood, or I knew from a reliable source or from the person himself previously that he'd gotten duped into temporarily joining a shady group and was trying to get out, and now they were playing him for their "fall guy," etc., etc. Then I could protect such a person, but predicated on my knowing the background of that person, the factors surrounding the situation, etc.

However, if this person were a total stranger and it'd been mentioned on the news that s/he had a criminal background, I'd call the Feds. And not out of any sense of "patriotic duty," but rather because I'd not care to get into legal hot water for aiding and abetting, especially not for a stranger who might well deserve apprehension by the authorities.

As for the "proof" factor you mention, in the case of the stranger I'd be skeptical [forgery, hoaxing, etc.]. However, if I suspected my acquaintance of forging, hoaxing, etc., official gov't documents, then my attitude toward him would change.

And what would -you- do, Clark, in this scenario?

--Cindy

clark · 2002-11-05 08:23:39

Thank you Cindy for your honest reply. The point I was trying to make though is that EVERYONE will answer the same way to this scenerio (okay, maybe 99%). This scenerio is what the German farmer in your original statement would experience.

An enemy of the state- a stranger, and as far as you know, a criminal, comes to the door and asks for refuge.

Exchange the word "Jew" with "terroist" and now we as Americans can understand why very few people helped the Jews in Germany. The scenerio you presented had a stanger on the door- yet we here in 2002 are looking back on this situation with all of the history in between- the sin of lying is a lesser sin in this situation becuase we know that the sin is being commited for a greater "good" (the Jew will die). The Germans then didn't have that information- so they would be making the decision the same way we would for the "updated" scenerio.

As for me, I would turn them in. I just hope that would be the correct thing to do. I also would have turned in the Jew if I lived in 1939 Germany and didn't know what my government was doing- which is why I updated the scenerio (i didn't want to get screamed at right off the bat).

I wonder what my government is doing on Gutanamo with the "detainee's". I wonder what my government is doing with the men still in jail, arrested right after 9/11, that have yet to be charged, or discussed in public. I wonder what my government is doing when it decides to hold secret military tribunals for people it won't even declare prisoners of war. I wonder what my government is doing when it will name terroists, but provide no explanation or evidence as to why they are terroists.

And yet, I will turn them in if they show up at my door... god help us all if our leaders are lying.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-04 11:27:11

Re: Situation Ethics

#2 2002-11-04 11:34:35

Re: Situation Ethics

#3 2002-11-04 14:09:12

Re: Situation Ethics

#4 2002-11-04 14:17:15

Re: Situation Ethics

#5 2002-11-04 14:38:03

Re: Situation Ethics

#6 2002-11-04 14:46:29

Re: Situation Ethics

#7 2002-11-04 15:00:22

Re: Situation Ethics

#8 2002-11-04 18:51:42

Re: Situation Ethics

#9 2002-11-05 08:23:39

Re: Situation Ethics

Board footer