24: Jack Bauer's Moral Dilemma

By Jesse Carey
CBN.com Interactive Media Producer

CBN.com - The computer network controlling the infrastructure of the United States is about to be comprised by a mad-man bent on killing thousands of innocent Americans if his demands are not met—demands that would lead to a genocide on the other side of the world. A highly-trained ex-government agent has cornered the man who may give them the answers needed to avert either scenario, but instead of cooperating, the man demands to see his lawyer to avoid answering the questions. With only minutes before thousands of innocent people die, former intelligence operative Jack Bauer decides to do what it takes to get the information he needs to save the world, even if it means breaking federal laws against the use of torture in the interrogation process.

Welcome to the morally-conflicted world of 24, the real-time action drama that is back for its eighth season on Fox. The scene I just described took place during the opening of season seven, but fans of the show have seen Jack take drastic measures before—many times before. Torture is one of the most prevalent themes in the show. When faced with getting information that may save lives, Bauer—the show’s hero—doesn’t hesitate to get physical to make the bad guys talk.

But torturing terrorists isn’t the only extreme measure Bauer will go to while trying to prevent worldwide disasters. In the last seven years on the show, Jack has faked his own death, executed a fellow co-worker, been addicted to heroine in order to preserve his cover, broken out of prison and spent years in the custody of Chinese of government, all in order to save his country.

Premiering just weeks after the World Trade Center fell, 24 is perhaps pop-culture’s most clear reflection of the morally ambiguous post-9/11 world. No longer do things seem so black and white. Evils like torture, invasions of privacy and government cover-ups have become seemingly tolerable methods of self-preservation … but should they? Is there really such a thing as “necessary evil”? Do the means justify the ends? It’s exploring questions like these that have made 24 so successful.

But unfortunately, the real-time nature of the show (the entire season takes place over 24 hours), leaves no time to reflect on consequences. These are “shoot first ask questions later” scenarios. But unfortunately, in the reality of today’s world climate, the consequences are real; and the reminders of mistakes and missteps are ever-present.

Since 9/11, we’ve been constantly aware of the toll terrorism and the fight against it has taken on communities around the world. Suddenly, methods of fighting evil that once seemed black and white, have been greyed as politicians, churches and activists debate how far is too far in a global war on terror. And though it is at times over sensationalized, 24 has underscored that conflict—becoming a lightening-rod in its own rite. Since the show first aired, critics and fans have been locked in debates over the extreme measures taken by heroes to stop villains, and how, in the end, sometimes they aren’t that different when it comes to the methods they will use to get what they want.

But, beyond the fictional plotlines which reflect America’s real war on terror, 24 also offers more subtle analogies, particularly for Christians. Without a doubt things like torture, lying about your identity and breaking the law are morally wrong. But what about in situations in which doing those things could prevent the deaths of innocent people? Does that make actions that are clearly wrong, right—or at least permissible ? If so, what implications does this have on our notion of absolute truth?

There are even stories in the Bible that illustrate the notion of a greater good overshadowing seemingly minor indiscretions. In Joshua 2, Israelite spies were sent to the town of Jericho to scope out the city before an invasion. They stayed at the home of a prostitute named Rahab. When local officials came looking for the men, she hid them, and told the officials, “The men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them" (Joshua 2:5). Obviously, she was lying in an effort to keep the Israelite spies safe. The spies, who were hiding on her roof, were complacent in her lie because they knew that it was God’s will for them to take Jericho. It’s important to note that the Bible never explicitly endorses lying or Rahab’s lie. But she is rewarded for helping the spies. In this case, was lying OK because it saved the lives of the spies and allowed Israel to take Jericho for God?

Stories with morally complicated outcomes are nothing new. Whether it’s the Old Testament or 24, they show us that sometimes, there are no easy answers. As Christians, we are constantly faced with the choice to do things we know are right or the things we are know are wrong—that’s the easy part. Knowing what is right is sometimes more difficult. Sometimes, the line gets a little blurry.

In many ways, this is the conflict Christians face living in a post-modern culture—with complex questions, there aren’t always simple solutions. Shows like 24 and the moral quandaries surrounding nuanced issues underscore the need for Christians to truly understand what they believe and why they believe it. But just because the questions are difficult, doesn’t mean that we should avoid trying to answer them.

Instead of letting difficult questions wear down our faith, we should welcome opportunities to strengthen it by truly grappling with what the Bible the teaches us. Even when the answers aren’t always easy.