Could you push the button?

By JON HOORNSTRA

Suppose you are a middle-aged male when a quirk in the time continuum tosses you into a 1960 courtroom where you are the defendant in a divorce. The rules in 1960 were very different from today, so you face a messy, painful battle designed to establish fault and place blame.

It's a grim outlook until an attorney puts you in the witness chair and poses an interesting alternative.

"Suppose there was a red button--right here," he says pointing his finger at a spot on the rail in front of you.

"And suppose," he continues, "that if you push that button, your wife would no longer exist." To ease your conscience, the lawyer assures you that pushing the button would inflict no pain, cause no suffering.

Then the lawyer gets to his point. "Would you push that button?"

Now, my question is could you push that button? If you could, should you? What are the ethical and moral considerations involved in a decision that would eliminate a fellow human being, or perhaps thousands or more?

The imaginary courtroom drama actually appeared in Billy Wilder's 1960 Oscar-winning film, The Apartment. It was a funny, but sad look at marriage at that time and the human struggle to remain moral under stress and temptation.

Fiction aside, there are people around us who confront ethical conflicts such as this in their daily work. Police, for example. To pull the trigger or not; to negotiate, or order a sharpshooter to "take out" the bad guy who holds a hostage.

But the people who occupy the center ring of ethical and moral anxiety certainly must be the nation's senior military officer corps. They are among the select few who counsel the president and weigh the cost benefit of human loss and military gain.

What were the ethical and moral tradeoffs when a Cruise missile mistakenly destroyed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant or a Chinese embassy? Or bombing that destroyed electrical infrastructure that supported military operations in Bosnia, but also supplied life-essential services to civilians?

Do those who control such enormous power bring an ethical and moral awareness and framework to these decisions?

Yes. In fact, the Pentagon employs academics to teach such courses and to consult senior officers. One of them is Dr. Martin Cook, a former resident of this area, now a professor of Military Studies and Ethics at the U.S. Army War College. Before, Cook was on the faculty at Santa Clara University for 16 years.

Cook, who holds a doctorate in philosophical theology and ethics from the University of Chicago, will be in Cupertino on Feb. 18, to speak to an adult forum, open to the public, at St. Jude's Episcopal Church.

Wars have long been waged under the cloak of religion, e.g., the Crusades carried out by European Christians against Islam over a period of three centuries as well as jihads waged by Muslims against perceived enemies of their faith.

"Most Christians have not been pacifists historically," Dr. Cook said. "But they have tried to work out a 'just war theory' that retains the bias against the use of military force, while recognizing it as sometimes the only way to restrain evil and protect good."

Dr. Cook will speak about the apparent clash between a "militant" Old Testament and a "pacifist" New Testament, as well as other fundamental questions, such as "What are legitimate reasons to use force" and "Are we witnessing a shift from simple 'national defense' to one of intervention, anywhere, on the basis of human rights?"

Cook's presentation, which begins at 9:15 a.m., offers a rare opportunity to get a glimpse at the kinds of discussions carried out at the War College.

Sheriff's Report

Jon Hoornstra: Could you push the button?

American Cancer Society will hold its 16th annual Daffodil Days fundraiser for cancer research

Sports Briefs

Montanez wins league title for Mats