The Gospel According to Jack
Now that you've read Dave Berry's humorous take on Jack Bauer, about the moral ambiguity of summary execution of pirates, and our spirited back-and-forth on the merits and shortcomings of the latest season premiere for '24' please consider this serious moral defense of Jack's tactics:
Colliding with those facts, however, is the conventional morality, held even by some of those supposedly committed to our defense. It is clear that the enemies of “24” hold ethical notions drawn from the toxic wells of the antiquity: incoherent “virtues” of a vague niceness, of infinite “restraint,” of turning-the-other-cheek, of dutiful self-sacrifice, of infinite generosity—all as ends in themselves, regardless of their consequences to our survival, and to be observed even in wartime emergencies. That this suicidal gospel is being preached even at West Point is, frankly, terrifying.
Fortunately, however, our young fighting men and women are hearing, and apparently heeding, another gospel:
The Gospel According to Jack.
If there’s an encouraging message in the New Yorker article, it’s that many soldiers are actively resisting this “moral” training. Again, I’m not debating the efficacy of any specific tactics; I’m simply upholding our moral right and responsibility to use extreme tactics if they work and if we have to. That’s the Gospel According to Jack.
As Ayn Rand would have said, "Check your premises." The storyline in '24' occurs not over 24 weeks with time to weigh and calculate every action - it represents a single day. And not any ordinary day. A day like, for example, 9/11. Anyone remember that?
Bidinotto concludes: “America wants the war on terror fought by Jack Bauer.”
Read the whole article for the story about how the Pentagon wanted '24' to "tone down" certain scenes, and why.
Television
Posted by JohnGalt at November 30, 2008 1:32 PM
JG, you are forcing my hand....
Here is my real problem with Jack Bauer: The world of 24 is a lie. Real life does not happen in a single day. 9/11 is a fair example of this. There were rumblings about terrorist attacks for years before they actually happened. President Clinton bent to public pressure and failed to deal with the problem when it first became apparent, and President Bush stuck to his "humble foreign policy" up 'til the day of the attacks, despite clear warnings of what the consequences could be. Let me reiterate this point: we had years. Not 24 hours, not 24 weeks, but years.
That is why I am quite glad out boys at West Point are getting a lesson in real morality. See, our soldiers don't live in the world of 24. In the real world - the one we occupy - America just won a war because of the virtues "drawn from the toxic wells of antiquity."
But let us pretend that this happens in one day. Lets pretend that our world loses all shades of gray. Is 24 moral, correct, or representative of what a real-life Bauer should do then?
Hell no.
Here is why:
1. Torture. Does. Not. Work.
This one is pretty simple. People capitulate under torture. However, you cannot trust a single thing they say. The tortured man cares not for accuracy or truth- only something that will make the pain go away. There is a reason, after all, that so many women confessed (and blamed as many others)of witchcraft during the Middle Ages.
Bidinotto tries to get around this by stating that the efficacy of torture is irrelevant to 24. That is bull crap. Sure, 24 might be an argument for doing "extreme tactics" in times of extremity, but you cannot get around the fact that 24 advocates a very specific extreme tactic.
2. The statement "I’m simply upholding our moral right and responsibility to use extreme tactics if they work and if we have to" is one of the most dangerous I have ever come across.
Think about the implications of these words.
I have, perhaps sentimentally, held the belief that America is, or should be, a land ruled not by men, but laws. A nation ruled by laws is, by definition, a nation ruled by limitations. We limit the sphere of government to very specific tasks. The government is not to interfere with the market of goods or ideas. The government is not to violate the liberties of its citizens. These are rights, self evident and unreliable, that the government does not have the right to break.
Such a system is impossible if we accept the morality of 24.
See, one only needs to declare that we are in an "extreme" time, and the mere idea of the rule of law and natural rights is destroyed.
Consider, for example, the case of global warming. Convince the majority of the citizens that we are "running out of time" before they all die, and the government has a free hand to confiscate property and destroy liberty in order to prevent it.
Another example: gun rights. Ak-47s are dangerous. Obviously ATF agents need to strip citizens of their second amendment rights- because if they did not, "the people holding those rights will not [survive]."
A third example: A country with a rather large army and projection capabilities invades the United States. Recognizing that the United States is near "imminent destruction" he decides to suspend the constitution and place his fellow citizens in a state of martial law.
One final example: One happens to believe that President-elect John McCain will lead us into a nuclear war with Russia the minute he becomes President. Facing an existential threat, the simplest solution is to assassinate the man before he becomes President.
And herein lays the problem: once we have defined something as "extreme" there is no limit to tyranny. Orwell said much the same, near 60 years ago. "There is no 'Law'," he said, "there is only power."
If we do not limit what those working for our government can and cannot do, then Orwell will have been proven right.
~T. Greer, quoting a Mr. King, "A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live."
P.S. I also take issue with Bidinotto's general idiocy and factual inaccuracy. Here are a couple of things he seemed to be particularly sloppy about:
*The "image" of terrorist organizations has dropped faster than that of the United States. See Here.
*Rights do not exist to "protect human life", nor are they "moral principles that define proper boundaries of human action in society." Rather, natural right are independent of society altogether- indeed, our government was created in order to secure these rights from interference in the first place. (Hopefully I do not need to link this one...)
*Did Bidinotto ever inquire the context in which "conventional morality" that is accepted by those "in the highest ranks of our military"? Because - and perhaps he just did not notice - we are not in a ticking-bomb scenario. The threats of 24 are not the "threats to our national security" our Brass has to worry about. If you want to see how those threats are actually solved I would advise a look at this link.
JG, you are forcing my hand....
Here is my real problem with Jack Bauer: The world of 24 is a lie. Real life does not happen in a single day. 9/11 is a fair example of this. There were rumblings about terrorist attacks for years before they actually happened. President Clinton bent to public pressure and failed to deal with the problem when it first became apparent, and President Bush stuck to his "humble foreign policy" up 'til the day of the attacks, despite clear warnings of what the consequences could be. Let me reiterate this point: we had years. Not 24 hours, not 24 weeks, but years.
That is why I am quite glad out boys at West Point are getting a lesson in real morality. See, our soldiers don't live in the world of 24. In the real world - the one we occupy - America just won a war because of the virtues "drawn from the toxic wells of antiquity."
But let us pretend that this happens in one day. Lets pretend that our world loses all shades of gray. Is 24 moral, correct, or representative of what a real-life Bauer should do then?
Hell no.
Here is why:
1. Torture. Does. Not. Work.
This one is pretty simple. People capitulate under torture. However, you cannot trust a single thing they say. The tortured man cares not for accuracy or truth- only something that will make the pain go away. There is a reason, after all, that so many women confessed (and blamed as many others)of witchcraft during the Middle Ages.
Bidinotto tries to get around this by stating that the efficacy of torture is irrelevant to 24. That is bull crap. Sure, 24 might be an argument for doing "extreme tactics" in times of extremity, but you cannot get around the fact that 24 advocates a very specific extreme tactic.
2. The statement "I’m simply upholding our moral right and responsibility to use extreme tactics if they work and if we have to" is one of the most dangerous I have ever come across.
Think about the implications of these words.
I have, perhaps sentimentally, held the belief that America is, or should be, a land ruled not by men, but laws. A nation ruled by laws is, by definition, a nation ruled by limitations. We limit the sphere of government to very specific tasks. The government is not to interfere with the market of goods or ideas. The government is not to violate the liberties of its citizens. These are rights, self evident and unreliable, that the government does not have the right to break.
Such a system is impossible if we accept the morality of 24.
See, one only needs to declare that we are in an "extreme" time, and the mere idea of the rule of law and natural rights is destroyed.
Consider, for example, the case of global warming. Convince the majority of the citizens that we are "running out of time" before they all die, and the government has a free hand to confiscate property and destroy liberty in order to prevent it.
Another example: gun rights. Ak-47s are dangerous. Obviously ATF agents need to strip citizens of their second amendment rights- because if they did not, "the people holding those rights will not [survive]."
A third example: A country with a rather large army and projection capabilities invades the United States. Recognizing that the United States is near "imminent destruction" he decides to suspend the constitution and place his fellow citizens in a state of martial law.
One final example: One happens to believe that President-elect John McCain will lead us into a nuclear war with Russia the minute he becomes President. Facing an existential threat, the simplest solution is to assassinate the man before he becomes President.
And herein lays the problem: once we have defined something as "extreme" there is no limit to tyranny. Orwell said much the same, near 60 years ago. "There is no 'Law'," he said, "there is only power."
If we do not limit what those working for our government can and cannot do, then Orwell will have been proven right.
~T. Greer, quoting a Mr. King, "A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live."
P.S. I also take issue with Bidinotto's general idiocy and factual inaccuracy. Here are a couple of things he seemed to be particularly sloppy about:
*The "image" of terrorist organizations has dropped faster than that of the United States. See Here.
*Rights do not exist to "protect human life", nor are they "moral principles that define proper boundaries of human action in society." Rather, natural right are independent of society altogether- indeed, our government was created in order to secure these rights from interference in the first place. (Hopefully I do not need to link this one...)
*Did Bidinotto ever inquire the context in which "conventional morality" that is accepted by those "in the highest ranks of our military"? Because - and perhaps he just did not notice - we are not in a ticking-bomb scenario. The threats of 24 are not the "threats to our national security" our Brass has to worry about. If you want to see how those threats are actually solved I would advise a look at this link.
Posted by: T. Greer at December 1, 2008 12:36 AMAwesome post and comment -- did I mention that I have much to be thankful for?
Without taking sides here (though you know which side I'm on), I would just add a nice riff in The Black Swan. Taleb goes to some conference in Vegas discussing the philosophy of uncertainty attended by business, government, and military leaders. He claims the business and government guys did not get it at all, but that the military folk -- and only the military folk -- had the nuanced and philosophical understanding to comprehend what he was saying and add insight.
I don't remember that's being highlighted in "American Beauty," but I believe it. And I believe that those same leaders, like Capt. Wright in the Newsweek piece, can handle a "Human Rights seminar" and still be able to defend our nation.
Posted by: jk at December 1, 2008 11:22 AM | What do you think? [2]