The possibility of anyone ever facing the position of deciding between life and death for a group of shipwreck survivors is indeed remote. It is not often that anyone has to deal with such a situation. However, deciding between life and death for thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children, a situation even less likely to happen to anyone, was a choice faced by many medical professionals who found themselves in concentration camps created by the Nazi regime. The start of the war saw the beginning of a moral dilemma for many unlike that which anyone living had previously faced. As the conquest of territory grew, so did the number of camps and those held within. The Nazis made use of slave labor; prisoners could find themselves working as musicians, craftspeople, or many other professions including that of doctors.

Even three famous philosophers (Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill) are not in agreement as to what a medical professional should do who was chosen to function as a concentration camp doctor with the chance to save thousands of lives but also with the fate of condemning some to death. Aristotle and Mill both would agree that the doctors should accept the position offered. Any doctor that accepted such a deal would do so not only to save his or her own life. The doctor would also do so in the hope that it would be possible to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Mill was a believer in utilitarianism, a belief that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 1987, p. 278). Sending some innocents off to death would be difficult, but does follow the Greatest Happiness Principle. Perhaps the best possible way to state this principle is in a quote from Aristotle who says, “The truly good and wise man will bear all kinds of fortune in a seemly way, and will always act in the noblest manner that the circumstances allow” (Amemiya, 2007, p. 137). Aristotle was in a way a utilitarian before there was such a name.

Kant would not be able to approve of any doctor accepting the bargain offered by the Nazis. The belief that only maxims “that can be universalized without contradiction” (Cahn, 2012, p. 396) should be permitted would not allow a doctor to make such a Faustian bargain. “By a lie a man throws away and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man.” (Kant, 1964, p. 93). The decision regarding who lives or dies has no place within the sphere of universal law or universalized maxims. All three philosophers would want as many as possible to survive. However, it would only be Aristotle and Mill who would be able to make the tough choices necessary to create the greatest good for the greatest number. They both stand for consequentialism. A truly happy ending does not exist, but a best possible outcome does. Kant would not philosophically be able to justify the murder of some so that others can be saved. He stands for deontological ethics; he focuses on someone’s intention. Kant’s belief would not allow him to intentionally kill someone even if other people’s lives could be saved. This attitude can best be summed by the Bible verse from Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

The choice of whether I would have accepted such an offer is something which required a lot of soul searching. I believe that ultimately I would have to accept the utilitarian maxim of doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant could not have accepted the offer made by the Nazis since it would have required violating the principles which held together universalized maxims. I find that the philosophical thoughts of Aristotle and Mill would lean toward accepting the offer made, even though done so with great reluctance. I hope that I would have the strength to make the right decisions that would save as many lives as possible. Here is to the hope that the world never again faces such a moral dilemma.


References

Amemiya, T. (2007). Economy and Economics of Ancient Greece. New York, New York.
            Routledge.

Cahn, S. M. (2012). Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (4th ed.). New
            York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Honderich, T. (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York, New York:
            Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1964). The Doctrine of Virtue: Part II of the Metaphysics of Morals. Philadelphia, Penn-

sylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mill, J.S. (2010). Utilitarianism and Other Essays. New York, New York: Penguin Classics.

The ouster of Hosni Mubarak is once again a trending topic because of the just concluded sentencing portion of his trial. The former leader of Egypt is sentenced to life in prison by a court in Cairo. He is the first Arab leader tried and convicted by the court system of his own nation. This is a historic event that will be a defining moment in the so-called Arab Spring.

The five media sources used fall into two camps regarding the story. Two of the sources are unbiased, but the other three are not. The Huffington Post can already provide numerous in-depth articles related to the ouster and trial of Mubarak. This has to do with the relatively unrestrained nature of even a famous blog where viewers are also allowed to be contributors. The existence of a known entity does not guarantee that it is the same as a reliable source. It is more difficult to police and control a site that has that many contributors. The Huffington Post blog entry appears professional and unbiased. The facts leading to the trial and the final verdict are reported. This article conveys a sense of integrity in the writing. However, it is important to confirm the facts with a comparison of sources created by professionals held responsible for their videos and writings. 

The next source is the BBC that uses language guaranteed to catch the eye and to influence the readers. The word “deaths” is present in the headline and a subheading mentions “years of darkness.” The article wants to convey more the emotions of those involved than provide factual details. This story is more sensational than informative. The CNN video about Mubarak receiving a life sentence is only two minutes and 14 seconds. This makes it impossible to go into any detail on perhaps the most important event related to the Arab Spring. This video (like the BBC story) plays on sensationalism when it opens with discussing Mubarak ruling Egypt with an iron fist. This is clearly not an unbiased report.

The next source used is the press release put out by Amnesty International. The organization makes no attempt to disguise the bias against Mubarak. The statement says that, “His security forces were given free rein to kill, torture and imprison people.” The press release is short with a focus on the need to do more to bring closure for the people of Egypt. The end of the statement emphasizes that Amnesty International has won the Nobel Peace Prize. This gives an impression that the use of clearly biased language is acceptable from such an organization.

The final source is an article that appears in the Spring 2012 issue of Middle East Policy. This article is about the reforming process needed so that Egypt will be able to hold free and fair elections. Although the article does start with a mention of the authoritarian regime of Mubarak, the writing is an in-depth and comprehensive overview of the changes necessary to create a democratic and transparent voting process.

Three of the five sources are designed in various degrees to inflame public opinion against Mubarak. The most scholarly source is the Middle East Policy and the least scholarly is Huffington Post; both provide the most balanced and unbiased look at Egypt and Mubarak. The wording and images chosen always have been able to effect society in either a positive or negative way. Three of the sources take a route which seems more designed to guarantee an increased number of readers or viewers. The three sources are technically correct, but they lack the balance that should be a hallmark of responsible journalism. The Spanish-American War started primarily because of irresponsible yellow journalism. Both William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer fanned the flames so that they could sell more newspapers. Although the three biased sources do not reach that level, they certainly could be more objective in what they write and in the videos that they create. As someone interested in the Middle East, I will continue to look toward Middle East Policy and Huffington Post as news sources. Since the latter is at least partly created by those who bear no professional responsibility for contents, I will continue to read while making sure to confirm the veracity of the information.


References

BBC News. (2012). Mubarak jailed for protest deaths. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk.      Accessed: June 02, 2012.

Faris, D.M. (2012, Spring). Constituting institutions: The electoral system in Egypt. Middle East
            Policy, 19(1), 140-154. Accessed: June 02, 2012.

Hendawi, H. & Michael, M. (2012). Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's ousted president, sentenced to
            life in prison. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com.     Accessed: June 02, 2012.

Mubarak sentenced to life in prison [Video file]. Available from CNN

            Website: http://www.edition.cnn.com/video. Accessed: June 02, 2012.

Trimel, S. (2012). Amnesty International says Mubarak verdict an important step, but full truth

             about victims’ deaths during uprising must be uncovered to deliver justice. Amnesty

             International. Retrieved from http://www.amnestyusa.org. Accessed: June 02, 2012.