Vayeira

So Abraham awoke early in the morning, took bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them on her shoulder along with [Ishmael], and sent her off. She departed, and strayed in the desert of Beer-sheba. When the water of the skin was consumed, she cast off the boy beneath one of the trees. She went and sat herself down at a distance, some bowshots away, for she said, "Let me not see the death of the child." And she sat at a distance, lifted her voice, and wept. God heard the cry of the youth, and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the youth as he is there." - Gen 21:14-17

The medieval commentator Rashi gives us a corresponding celestial narrative of this verse, derived from the Hebrew "שם-הוא באשר" -"as he is there". When Hagar prayed for her son's life, the angels pleaded with God to let Ishmael die, as his descendants would kill and oppress the Jews. But God refused, and miraculously saved the child, on the grounds that Ishmael was not yet guilty of any wrongdoing; "as he is there", in his present state, he was an innocent.

This fascinating piece of Midrashic lore is a striking example of one of the oldest conflicts in philosophy: that of deontological vs consequentialist ethics. Simply put, deontology focuses on the inherent rightness of actions, whilst consequentialism looks at the outcome, or consequences, of actions.

A common and powerful examination of this conflict take the form of a thought experiment: suppose one had the opportunity to travel back in time and kill an Austrian baby named Adolf Hitler; would it be the right thing to do? A deontologist would argue that killing babies is always wrong, and that one is always obligated to refrain from such actions. A consequentialist would counter that the good being wrought - the prevention of World War II and the Holocaust - far outweighs the evil of killing a single baby.

The dilemma is further examined with exquisite subtlety and humanity in the graphic novel, and movie of the same name, Watchmen. [SPOILER ALERT: the following two paragraphs contain major plot details from Watchmen.] The movie revolves around a vigilante named Rorschach and his attempt to uncover a conspiracy. As the details come together for both protagonist and viewer, we learn of a plot to massacre millions for the sake of preventing an impending nuclear holocaust. Rorschach, a strict deontologist, says the following of his continued efforts against small-time criminals while the Apocalypse draws ever closer: "Soon there will be war. Millions will burn. Millions will perish in sickness and misery. Why does one death against so many? Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this." Rorschach's assertion is a deeply resounding one, in no small part because we constantly face echoes of his conundrum in our everyday lives. When we give food to the hungry, we do not eradicate hunger. Let us labour under no such delusions. We give food to the hungry, because good needs to be pursued for its own sake, regardless of the folly and futility of doing so.

Rorschach's worldview stands in deep contrast with that of Ozymandias, perpetrator of the grand scheme. Ozymandias sees a Cold War in imminent danger of becoming very hot, and decides to kill off large civilian populations while framing a scapegoat, in the hope that the USA and the USSR will put aside their differences to combat this perceived new threat. After his plan is implemented, he explains and justifies it to Rorschach and his fellow heroes. From the god-like figure of Dr. Manhattan, who can (partially) foresee the future, he seeks reassurance: "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out, in the end." "'In the end?'" echoes Dr. Manhattan. "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."

Here lies one of the fundamental problems with consequentialism. The full ramifications of our actions are never truly foreseeable. The popular video game Command & Conquer: Red Alert demonstrates this using a form of the Killing Baby Hitler problem given above. Red Alert takes place in an alternate universe in which Albert Einstein invents a time machine, and uses it to prevent Adolf Hitler's rise to power, and thus World War II. But the lack of a hostile Third Reich to weaken and check Stalin's fledgling regime means that the Soviets grow far more powerful than they otherwise would have; and threaten the West not just with nuclear might but with massive conventional military force.

There is far more to be said on the topic. Rashi gives us a starting point, and a fine example of ethical reasoning, but he does not spoon-feed us the solution to our own dilemmas. Let us take his example and further explore the topic ourselves. As the name itself suggests, Genesis is not meant to be an end, but a beginning.