Among the more revealing moral dilemmas are those that arise less for the actors themselves than for others evaluating the actions after the fact. One such case is that of British reporter Stephen Farrell, rescued from the Taliban on September 9 at the cost of two dead: his Afghan interpreter and a rescuing British soldiers.
In most cases, such incidents would be seen as normal tragedies of war. Nobody questioned the rectitude, nay the heroism, of the rescuers. But British punditry lit up with debate anyhow—a debate well summarized by Tunku Varadarajan in today’s Forbes .
It seems that Farrell had ignored direct and sound military advice not to enter Taliban-controlled territory, deciding instead to go for whatever scoop he had in mind. The question in dispute is this: Did Farrell, whose impetuousness was motivated by undue ambition, deserve to be rescued at such cost, or even at all?
He must have considered it likely that his countrymen would come for him if he got captured—as American soldiers would probably do for their own in similar circumstances—but it seemed awfully selfish of Farrell to presume on such gallantry. After all, he was far more likely to benefit than those who had nothing so tangible as their lives to gain by rescuing him.
One could well say that abstract justice did not require a rescue here, that it was not the case that the soldiers were required to rescue Farrell. But must we go further and claim that they ought to have left Farrell to his fate?
Sometimes we owe to ourselves more than what justice ordinarily requires us to do for others. To show mercy, especially when it costs, can be a truly noble thing. One does not pass up such opportunities lightly; solidarity depends on taking up at least some of them.
Which is something that soldiers know, which is perhaps why those British fighters took this one up.
