Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: March 24, 2024 10:33AM
The *practical* correctness of a decision is often viewed in hindsight; by what good or ill effects the decision brought about for the person or his family.
However, the *morality* of a decision; that is, whether it was morally right or wrong, is never viewed in hindsight because it is based upon what the person knew at the time of the decision, and what his moral sense required at that time. What actually followed from such a decision, whether good or ill, is irrelevant to the morality of the decision itself, and the corresponding moral character of the person making that decision.
Imagine a firing squad of ten officers, who are all lined up ready to kill a man who they all believe (because that is what they were told) is guilty of some heinous crime. But then, suppose it turns out that one of the officers, we will call him Dagwood, had discovered in advance that the man was totally innocent, of impeccable character, and was being killed solely for political reasons. Dagwood immediately thinks that he cannot do this; he cannot participate in this injustice and must therefore resign from the firing squad. But then he thinks, my family depends upon me. My wife is counting on me to fulfill my civic obligations. If I resign, she will surely divorce me, and I will lose my family. So, he reasons, I cannot resign.
Scenario 1: Dagwood determines that no matter what he does, the man will die anyway, so it really doesn’t matter what he does. So he decides to fully participate, and with the other officers aims at the victim’s heart and fires. Is Dagwood morally culpable?
Scenario 2: As part of the firing squad procedure, one of the officers by design draws a blank, so that none of the officers knows whether they actually in part caused the victim’s death. After the shooting Dagwood’s conscious bothers him, so he does an investigation. To his relief, he finds out that he drew the blank that day, and by this fortunate fact he was not responsible for causing the victim’s death. Is Dagwood morally culpable?
Scenario 3: Once Dagwood became aware of the victim’s innocence, he decided that instead of aiming at the victim’s heart, he would shoot over the victim’s head, so that he could be sure in his own mind that he was not the cause of the victim’s death. He now can walk away assured that he had no part in the death of this innocent victim. Is Dagwood culpable?
Scenario 4: Whichever of the above applies, Dagwood feels very guilty. After all, he did participate in the firing squad, knowing full well that it was unjust, and the victim was in fact killed. He reasons that his very presence and acquiescence in the procedure makes him blameworthy.
So, several years later, he seeks out the widow of the victim to apologize for his part and beg her forgiveness. When he finds the widow, she laughs it off. “You know,” she says, “before my husband’s death, we were very poor, barely surviving. I was very resentful of him, and we did not get along. But it turns out my husband had an insurance policy, and after his death me and the children became quite well off. I was not only able to provide them with all the necessities and even luxuries of life, but also with an education, and moral training, such that they are all now wonderful people and do much good in the community. None of this would have been possible if that firing squad had not occurred. So, you see, I am grateful. I am sure that in hindsight, even my husband would have thought his sacrifice was worth this wonderful benefit. So, go in peace.” Is Dagwood culpable?
It is easy to absolve Dagwood, or ourselves, of moral responsibility under some imagined set of circumstances. In the context of our own moral dilemma, we can also easily project our favored speculative outcomes into the decision and thereby achieve justification. Maybe this, or maybe that, will happen, if only I stay, and live the lie just a little longer. And sometimes we get lucky, and the outcomes seems to be worth the moral sacrifice. We then, in hindsight, let the outcome dictate what the moral requirement actually was at the time of the decision. If the outcome was good, the decision must have been morally right. If the outcome was bad, the decision must have been morally wrong. But that is not how morality works. It proscribes moral duties notwithstanding what the ultimate outcome turns out to be.
The above response is not meant to be an indictment upon you or your husband. These decisions are difficult and complex, as is morality itself. In any event, I am glad your husband's decision worked out for you and your family.