View

Attack Modes

Alexander F. C. Webster on An Unexpected & Refreshing Lesson in Ethics

Dr. Benjamin Carson's controversial reply to a journalist's question concerning the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, last October reminded me of a student's unexpected proposition in an undergraduate college ethics course I taught almost fifteen years ago.

Asked how he would have acted when a deranged, anti-Christian bigot began shooting in the head nine captive students who self-identified as Christians at Umpqua Community College on October 1, 2015, the Republican presidential hopeful mused aloud ingenuously: "I'm glad you asked that question. Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, 'Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can't get us all.'"

The ensuing media firestorm, most of it self-interested, ideology-driven, politically correct misdirection, dwelt on supposed flaws in Dr. Carson's character for "second-guessing" the integrity and courage of the victims. However, Dr. Carson's preferred course of action is refreshing, practical, and commendable.

Avoiding Binary Extremes

During a lively discussion on the ethics of the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant in an undergraduate course on moral philosophy at American University in spring 2001, I tried to help my students transcend the simplistic either/or "dilemmas" to which inadequate philosophical thinking is prone, particularly when the issue concerns whether or not to lie. Kant's emphasis on moral duty and actions that are morally "right" only when capable of salutary adoption by anyone at any time precluded lying as always destructive to personal and social community.

I proposed to the class a hypothetical scenario: "Let's say you are the father or mother of a Dutch family hiding a Jewish family in the attic or basement of your house during the Nazi occupation of Amsterdam in 1944. Two Gestapo agents bang on the front door in the middle of the night, demanding to know whether any Jews are on the premises. What would you do?"

Of course, a few students recognized the similarity of the hypothetical to the historic plight of the family of teenager Anne Frank, whose Diary is still read by multitudes in America. The Franks and those hiding with them were betrayed by another Dutchman in the vicinity of their canal-house annex in Amsterdam. For our discussion of Kant's ethics, however, I wished to put the students in the position of having to decide what to do when confronted by the Gestapo.

When several students proffered the conventional false dilemma—to deny the presence of the Jews and try to protect them or to tell "the truth" and hand over the Jewish fugitives—I prodded them to consider other courses of action. After a brief meditative pause, several students began, like Alexander the Great "unraveling" the legendary Gordian Knot with his sword, to suggest creative ways of avoiding the binary extremes of lying or betrayal. "Pretend I'm deaf and do not understand," said one.

"Create a distraction," said a second student, "by having another family member set a small fire in the kitchen and trying to flee from the house with the Gestapo agents."

"Try to stall somehow for time," another, exasperated student suggested, "while the Jews tried to escape, if possible, from the attic to the roof or somewhere!"

As the likely futility of those alternatives began to settle in the students' minds, a fourth student, who happened also to be the most brilliant member of that class, declared matter-of-factly, "I'd kill the two Nazis."

---

Preemptive Pursuit of Justice

After a hushed silence, an incredulous student countered with raised voice, "Do you mean Kant would have us kill the two men rather than merely lie to them?"

To which the fourth student replied, again matter-of-factly, "I would put it this way. The Gestapo agents are unjust aggressors with evil intents who wish to inflict deadly harm on the innocent people I'm protecting. Therefore, I am not bound to be completely truthful to them, telling them everything I know. In fact, I don't even owe them a verbal reply."

"What I can do," he continued, "is to act preemptively in the pursuit of justice by shooting them dead. Of course, that would only buy us some time before the local Gestapo headquarters sent another pair of agents to my house. In the meantime, we could try to help the Jewish family escape from the attic and maybe find refuge elsewhere. In any case, it's better than allowing the Gestapo to haul them away to a concentration camp and to arrest me and do God-knows-what to me . . . without so much as a fight."

No Second Guessing

What that insightful college student in 2001 and Dr. Benjamin Carson in 2015 share is the ability to think outside the box, to transcend false dilemmas between "lesser evils" and to choose a virtuous, heroic, albeit quite risky course of action that others may not perceive or undertake.

Neither the student nor Dr. Carson intended to insult the others or disparage their decisions. There was no "second guessing" of them at all. On the contrary, preparing in advance for such crisis scenarios and discerning an unconventional, practical, and ethical response to an unjust aggressor is a sign of intellectual brilliance and moral excellence. •