LOST: Ethics in Television

Here it is: my term paper from last semester. I haven't even read it since I wrote it. Hope it is enjoyable.

The hit television series “LOST” has become somewhat of a pop-culture phenomenon. The magical island, jungle of mystery, and questionable characters make the show easy to be interested in to say the least. What I find most interesting about Lost, is the underlying philosophical and ethical messages that are a prevalent aspect of the show. Almost all the characters on the show at least resemble, if not directly refer, to a philosopher or philosophical entity. Furthermore, the personality traits of the individual characters and the situations they find themselves in the show, give the audience a good taste of how certain ethical theories pan out, and how certain moral dilemmas can be approached. Throughout his time on the island, Jack Shepard finds himself in and out of situations that most people would find emotionally draining. Overall, Jack is a good person; he lives a dutiful life and inevitably does what could be considered to be the right thing. Since his plane crash led him to this mysterious “rock”, Jack has found himself in the middle of ethically diverse situations that challenge the very essence of his moral beliefs. In fact, much of the show’s progressive plot emphasizes the personal strain that Jack has experienced as a result of his inner desire to “do good” throughout his life. Based on his actions and demeanor throughout the story, Jack is an accurate depiction of a deontological or duty-based ethicist. Deontology theories claim that morality is found in the duty of an act and that consequences of an act do not represent rightness or wrongness. Although this sounds ethically strong, there are some fundamental issues which make it difficult to solely rely on duty-based ethics. Throughout the storyline of Lost we get to witness many ethical theories play-out as they are tested to their roots. For the purposes of this paper we will focus on Jack’s approach to ethical dilemmas using a duty-based ethic.

One of the shows earliest moral dilemmas comes to us in the beginning of the premier season when as a result of the plane crash, a federal marshal has sustained a life-threatening injury (S1, E1.) The marshal, unconscious for the majority of time since the crash, has suffered a pierced abdomen as a result of shrapnel from the wreckage. It is made clear that the marshal is (or will be) in a serious amount of pain, and is in dire need of medical supplies and antibiotics if he is in fact to have any chance of recovery. Being the only physician on the island, it is Jack’s duty to treat the patient to the best of his ability and because of this, Jack has dedicated his time (there are others injured and in need of medical attention) and resources (medical equipment, antibiotics, etc. that were salvaged from the crash) to the critically injured marshal. It is clear at this point that there is no real moral issue with Jack’s decision to take heroic measures to save the dying patient. Moral questionability is not revealed until a later episode when Jack meets Sawyer in the cabin of the crashed airplane while scavenging for much needed medical supplies. (S1, E3) During this confrontation, Sawyer points out the important fact that their rescue is not as inevitable as some may have initially been hoping. Because of this, Sawyer questions Jack’s decision to take such heroic measures to save the marshal and freely using the limited amount of medical supplies. It becomes apparent that what may have been considered a non-issue, has turned into a situation worth taking another look at. It should be known that at this point, there is no certainty that the patient will survive, even if he is privileged to all of the available medicine, surely a factor in Sawyers concern in “wasting” the antibiotics. In the following episode, Jack informs Kate that the condition of the patient has not improved and the prognosis is certainly death. (S1, E3) Both Kate and Sawyer suggest to Jack that he do something to expedite what is thought to be a certain death. Jack’s initial conflict is in dealing with the allocation of limited medical supplies; how much medicine should he use to try and save a suffering patient before his use of that medicine becomes a mere waste? Also, how long should Jack let the terminal patient suffer on the road to his inevitable death? Here we see how the role of a physician sort of naturally fits with a duty-based ethic; as a doctor, Jack assumes responsibility and inherits an ethical obligation to try and preserve the life of the dying marshal, in other words, Jack’s duty. This is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative (second formulation), Ross’s prima facie duties (beneficence, justice), and Rawls’ “Justice Theory” (if we say that from behind the veil of ignorance we would all “want” or choose to be helped in that situation.) The dynamics of Jack’s situation give us different aspects and components to consider when performing a moral examination. Making the life of a dying patient his personal resolve, is clearly a duty-based characteristic on Jack’s behalf. Furthermore, it seems as if once he makes up his mind, he has a strong ability to not let his decisions be influenced. His duty is to save the guy and that’s it; nothing else is relevant to that particular situation. What’s interesting here is that it almost seems irresponsible to not, at the very least, consider the potential need for medicine and supplies for future use. Sawyer (the ethical egoist), Kate (possibly a care-ethicist) and others from the camp all question Jack’s judgment in using the limited supplies. This is a good example of one the questionable side effects of some duty-based theory. It seems almost brash or inhumane to not consider the other alternatives based on perceived outcomes. This is why a strict deontological approach sounds really great, almost virtuous (“I have a duty to…”) however, once in that situation, we find it really difficult to simply dismiss the potential consequences. Jack’s second conflict in this situation comes after he realizes that despite the best efforts made, the life of the dying man will soon end. It’s at this point that Jack is approached by numerous members of the camp, all asking that Jack do something to “speed” things along. Now this scenario is similar, but the duties involved are significantly different. For example, now Jack has to decide between his duty of helping the patient live (beneficence) and his suggested duty to help the patient die (which contradicts his duty of nonmaleficence.) This situation provides an interesting parallel to the physician’s duty in the euthanasia debate. It is clear that Jack in no way wants to take action in the death of a patient; I can only assume that Jack has previously determined that the duty to preserve life is more sacred than the duty to prevent pain and suffering.

Near the end of the first season we find Jack struggling his way through a more personal moral dilemma. In the eleventh episode “All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues,” we catch the scene of Jack losing a patient on the operating table. His father, the Chief of Surgery is in the room with him and there is an obvious friction between the two. We later learn that Jack assumed responsibility of the surgery from his father (Christian), who was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. The end result is the death of a girl whose life may have been salvageable, a result that Jack clearly blames on his father. Due to the patient’s death, a formal medical hearing has been sanctioned; as the surgeon of record, Jack must decide to either falsify the report, absolving his father of any responsibility, or testify the true events to the medical review board, an act that will surely ruin his father’s career. What’s unique about this situation is not only do we have conflicting duties, we have added a more personal element to the possible consequences. Keep in mind, a true deontologist would not allow their decision to be impacted by the addition of consequences. If Jack considers he has a duty to his father (loyalty, gratitude, etc.) then his only real option is to falsify the documents. The conflicting duty here is Jack’s responsibility of reporting his father, and hopefully preventing this event from happening in the future; the duty of nonmaleficence. So Jack is now trying to decide which duty is priority. A good deontologist (having grasped the concept that situations like this may arise,) may have his or her duties already pre-prioritized and may be able to assert that one’s duty to his family is of higher priority than other “non-familial” duties. What happens if Jack leaves his little black book of deontology on his nightstand; how does he work himself through this issue? A deontologist might say the moral agent would then have to decide on-the-spot, which duty that person held to a higher value. Jack finds himself at a decision yielding only two possible outcomes. Each outcome represents both an achievement of a duty, and the denial of a duty. For example, if Jack chose to surrender his father; he would achieve the duty of “preventing future harm” but he may also sacrifice the duty of beneficence or gratitude to his father. His alternative option yields results that achieve another duty, and finally the denial of another; almost an “I can’t win” scenario. I think a better solution may be to consider using a different ethic altogether. For example, if you get stuck with conflicting duties, you could progress to a utility-based theory where you can qualitatively and quantifiably choose the better of your two options. This can be looked at as getting the best out of your loss, or doing the best with what you had; it all depends on your outlook. Regardless of the decision that is made, you can say you did your duty of due diligence on the matter. In the show, Jack chooses the duty to his father is of the highest value in this situation and we are given the impression of a mutual understanding between Jack and Christian, one that entails a certain degree of change in Christian’s behavior moving forward. Jack agrees to sign the papers and testify on behalf of his father at the review hearing. The final question during Christian’s medical review reaches Jack and the television audience at the same time when we simultaneously learn that the dead patient was pregnant. Jack is immediately distraught and uncomfortable with this news, a feeling that eventually causes him to retract his testimony and legitimize the report of his father’s actions. Now this is an interesting conflict; Jack made a decision based primarily on duty, yet when we add a consequence to the equation, Jack actually changes his testimony and in essence, disregards the duty to his father. To me this shows us that Jack simply was unable to come to a decision based on duty alone, and he had to revert to the cost-benefit model of a consequentialist theory. Once a pregnancy and a loss of a child are entered into the equation, his choice of the higher ethic changed as well. We the audience never learn exactly what influenced Jack’s decision; it could have been the additional loss of life, or perhaps it was Christian’s willingness to lie in response to his knowledge of the girls pregnancy, all we know is that something did in fact make him change his mind. Because of this, I can only assume that Jack must have used some sort of consequentialist reasoning to come to his conclusion. If he truly made that decision based on duty and duty alone, then consequences (in this case collateral damage) should be irrelevant.

The season five finale presents Jack in a situation where he’s now challenged to make a decision that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on a large number of people. We learn in the “Follow the Leader” episode (S1, E15) that Jack has an opportunity to potentially reverse everything that has occurred over the last five television seasons. The scientist Daniel Faraday learns that if they can destroy the massive amount of energy that’s beneath the island’s surface, then they can potentially travel back to the exact point in time before they ever crashed on the island. This would mean that nothing that has occurred on the island as we know it will actually occur. Now we have a situation where the moral reigns are given to Jack so that he may decide what’s best for everyone. This a step-up from his other dilemmas because now instead of the implications only impacting one or a few, Jack is making a decision that will either work and be catastrophic for some, or it will fail and be catastrophic for all. You would have to be a fan of the show to really understand the implications involved with each of Jack’s options in this particular scenario. It’s important to know that should Jack succeed, he would reverse the deaths of many innocent people. It is also important to know that should he succeed, there would be a significant amount of collateral damage. For example, Kate (the women Jack has come to love) would inevitably end up in prison, Claire (who we learn is Jack’s sister) would give up her baby (Jack’s nephew) for adoption, and Rose would inevitably die from the cancer that has plagued her up to the point until she crash-lands on the island. So how does a good duty-based ethicist move forward? He could revert to his core beliefs and choose which duty “outranks” the other (much like in his first dilemma) or he can adopt methods from another ethical standpoint to help him through the decision (similar to Jack’s dilemma with his father.) Which of these options is the “right” thing to do? If we leave it to Jack to decide which duty to adhere to, we are in essence saying that we trust his judgment, as any good deontologist in that situation would choose the act which is most dutiful. Regardless of what we say we would do in this situation, I find it hard to believe, if not impossible, that any moral agent in this situation would not instinctively refer to the possible outcomes. It simply does not seem rational that an agent could be “right” by doing a duty that leads to many deaths, while there was another option available that resulted in less catastrophic outcomes. If a deontologist cannot at least “see” this point while in the crux of a moral dilemma, then said agent is in fact being ethically lazy. If Jack were to drop down (or step up) to another theory to help resolve the issue, he’s at the very least showing an understanding that since his chosen ethic has led him to a situation he cannot resolve, perhaps there is room to investigate other options or theories.

We’ve now had the opportunity to follow Jack through a number of dilemmas during his time on the island; each dilemma with its own set of circumstances, risks, and potential outcomes. Some might argue that these examples are not an accurate depiction of real life, but I think the series of events that Jack undergoes portrays very realistic parallels to the real world. Let’s take Jack’s first dilemma, the dying federal marshal. Here Jack is faced between two conflicting duties; the duty of beneficence and the duty of nonmaleficence. The crash, the island, and the whiny survivors are mere “multiples of zero” (they cancel themselves out) in Jack’s moral equation; the true dilemma lies with how to treat the dying patient. Jack is now at a point when he only has two choices and he himself must choose one. Once we rid ourselves of the visuals of crashed planes and jungle polar bears, we find this situation strikingly relevant to the euthanasia debate. When discussing this issue we are quick to compare the morality of patient rights with the duties of the doctor, it’s interesting now to see how the doctor’s morality is challenged. It’s almost as if we normally don’t consider the feelings or input of the doctors themselves, like they would do whatever we deem morally acceptable. Because we get to see how these implications impact Jack on a personal level, we gain more insight to the humanity of the euthanasia debate, simply from a different perspective than we might normally consider. What about Jack’s issue with his father? I think this issue is actually a lot more prevalent in our daily lives than we may consider. Again we have to dismiss much of the “movie magic” that’s included in the story, but at the end of the day, Jack is simply stuck choosing between his family and what is right. Personally speaking, family issues are the hardest to resolve. We sometimes may know that what Aunt Bethel did was unacceptable, but when push comes to shove, are we really willing to prosecute our family members based on a belief or value we may personally hold? This is a good example of how a potentially easy decision can go awry once a family component is introduced. Finally we have Jack’s last attempt to save the island. This is a more complex dilemma because so much is at risk and virtually every available option has serious implications. I find a unique correlation here between Jack’s situation and perhaps the situation of any company owner, politician, or leader. Jack is put into a situation where he is responsible for the lives (or well-being) of many people and regardless of the decision he makes, there will inevitably be loss, suffering, and the potential risk that the wrong decision was made altogether. Whether or not Jack wants the responsibility, he has it. To me it’s obvious that his duty now becomes to do that which would ultimately provide the best possible outcomes for the higher proportion of people. Through these examples of the moral turmoil that Jack experiences, we gain more insight to some of the inner workings of a duty-based ethic. We find how a duty-ethicist may approach certain situations, more importantly we discover a certain number of challenges that may be present when using an ethic of this type to approach day-to-day ethical dilemmas.