The moral implications of "24" revisited

Last spring I posted about the moral implications of "24." Season 5 began with a two-day, two-hour-each season opener on Sunday and Monday nights. I missed them. Both of them. I almost cried. Right now I'm trying to find someone who taped them... (Maybe Blogs4Bauer can help)

To my great delight, I recently discovered that the godfather of the modern blogosphere got hooked on "24" as well, and he linked to some another blogger's comments on the show. Ms. Penner's thoughts are along the same lines as mine, but much better written. We have a slight disagreement concerning my description of the show's moral system as utilitarian:

Some have mistaken the choices in “24” to be utilitarianism or situational ethics. But those are specific moral systems. Utilitarianism is the view that what is right depends only on the consequences, and usually a specific kind of good is defined as the goal. Situational ethics is one rule: Always do the loving thing. But in “24” the ends don’t justify the means, but the ends are taken into consideration when the moral rules conflict.

I suppose my only defense is that I wasn't necessarily using the term 'utilitarianism' to encompass an entire moral system or situational ethics. I simply used it to refer to the many, many, many situations in "24" where, in order to accomplish the greater/greatest good, Jack Bauer uses tactics that would make Dick Durbin faint. [mild Season 3 SPOILER ALERT] Decapitating a convicted murdurer in order to get in undercover with his enemies is not justified for police work. But in order to save millions from a nuke? I think we can overlook that one...

Later on I discuss why utilitarian morality, in the end, doesn't work:

...without God there's no reason to hold innocent life in such high regard (the millions of potential casualties from the nuke or virus). Why go to virtually any lengths to stop the slaughter of a city unless you acknowledge the fundamental value of life? Sure, there's a place for utilitarian arguments, but the very concept itself presupposes a hierarchy of importance and inherent value in things, which can only be sourced back to God.

Don't get me wrong; there is definitely a solidly defined right and wrong in "24." The show just doesn't mention it explicitly. Ms. Penner is right to observe that

Morality is black and white in “24.” There are right choices and wrong choices, not that they always get it right. The characters are also clearly drawn: The bad guys are bad, not conflicted morally that we nevertheless want to root for. There is no rooting for the villains on “24.”

One of the best parts about "24" is the way it makes the viewer really struggle through the moral implications of the show. Few other shows are so adept at combining nail-biting entertainment with difficult, but genuinely positive, moral discussion.

NOTE: Another provocative ethical analysis of "24" is available here.

My other "24"-related posts:
"24" - the moral implications of the best show on television
The Moral Implications of "24" revisited
Republican Conspiracy Theories on "24"--almost

Tags: Jack Bauer, 24, Utilitarianism