Moral Absolutes

I had a class last week on Ethics and Morality. The instructor pondered the morality of lying on the witness stand or utilitarianism The ends justify the means) in general. His opinions, and, by that I mean the material he was given to teach, was oversimplified. It was apparent he was trying to quantify moral absolutes in police work. Glossing over science and religion, he seemed to target the philosophy of moral relativism. Defining it as morality relative to the individual, he quantified it with the statement: "If you believe it's right, then it's right." His example was of a man that believed murder was okay, therefore it was okay. What he seemed to miss was relativism not only applies to the individual, but also the situation during which choices are made.

The following scenario was provided. There is a murderer loose in Raleigh. Every Sunday the murderer kills an innocent child. You are a police officer. The department believes they know the identity of the murderer, but, as always, they don't have sufficient probable cause to make an arrest. A common theme in police work. You develop informants who tell you, "That's the guy," or information that identifies a potential suspect. But, without video, fingerprints, or any corroborating evidence, arresting the suspect would result in an acquittal at trial. Therefore, you are left in the unfortunate juxtaposition of having to wait for more information before making an arrest. Which means you might have to wait for him/her to commit another crime. Not a pretty scenarion if the guy is killing children, or anyone else for that matter.

So, the scenario is you stop the guy on Saturday, knowing he'll kill again on Sunday. You don't have any reason to make an arrest, but, as luck would have it, you made a drug arrest several hours before and have three crack cocaine rocks in an evidence baggie. Do you plant a rock on the suspect to keep him from killing on Sunday. Or do you follow your sworn code of ethics and let the guy go?

I found it disconcerting everyone in the class decided to let the guy go. I don't think the instructor thought the scenario through. He even chided prior officers who'd pondered planting evidence on the criminal. "You can't lower your ethical standards in any situation." This sounds great. Personally, I'd never lie under oath or cheat someone, but to save a child's life? Given the absolute of knowing the guy would kill again the next day? I think he (and the class) simplified the choice.

Were it not for the fact we were about to be released for the day, and I-loving my time off-wanted to go home, I'd have posed a few questions to muddy his pool of morality. "What if you were to stumble upon a time machine, sir, and travel forward to Monday, only to find out the child killed was your own? Would you be so pious in your decision if it affected you, personally?" Of course you wouldn't! The rock would be planted and the kid saved. Morality is easy if you have nothing to lose personally.

Or let me pose this conundrum. You stumble upon a time machine and are transported back to 1928 in Germany. You just happen upon a young Adolf Hitler before he becomes the powerful Nazi leader. You are alone with him. Would you commit murder to save millions of lives? How could you not? Is it wrong to murder under such conditions?

Utilitarianism views the outcome. I love the phrase: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," even though it has religious overtones of which I do not subscribe. Why, just because your motives are for good, are bad decisions not attributed to those with good intentions? Case in point: AIDS. The most viable theory we have concerning this virus is that, upon working on a vaccine for Polio, scientists used Chimpanzee kidneys to culture the vaccine. Thereby mixing monkey viruses with human inoculations. Ethically, is this evil? The scientists working on the vaccine were most certainly striving for the good of humanity? But they might have killed millions of people. Utilitarianism uses the outcome to judge, not the intentions.

Understanding this principle, murdering one to save millions might be the ethical choice, right? Not according to my instructor. Evidently, adhering to moral absolutes is more important than millions of lives. But, as I demonstrated with my examples, if the scenario hits home the decision almost certainly changes. I guess relativism isn't such a bad word after all.