Anatomy of a Cataclysm: Waco

    This past Friday, before the game, I made a trip down I-35 to Waco to see a friend's concert. I did not have enough time to visit Mount Carmel, unfortunately, but the sojourn itself got me thinking about the siege that captured the attention of the country. The Waco cataclysm has been explored from both sides using different frameworks for decades; this post will look at what happened strictly through the view of a number of ethical perspectives and standpoints. 

Mount Carmel (image from Wikimedia Commons)

BRANCH DAVIDIANS 

1. Religious absolutism

The leader of the Branch Davidians, an off-shoot of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, David Koresh, had a religious system that was extremely dogmatic, scriptural, and apocalyptic. Koresh believed himself to be a self-proclaimed messianic prophet who was preparing his followers for divine judgment. However, Mount Carmel notably was not the most sanitary of places, with unsafe conditions alongside a totalitarian view that Koresh's word was law. The dilemma is thus: is it ethical to endanger one's community, including young children, for a transcendent belief? Koresh certainly thought it was, as did many of his followers, as they would all be rewarded in the end for their faith. 

2. Self-determination

Nearly all of the Branch Davidians willingly followed Koresh, but how much of their choices within Koresh's sphere of influence were freely made? After all, Koresh's word was essentially law, so each choice a Branch Davidian made would've had to been under his auspices. The dilemma here is this: when does belief become coercion? How much self-determination did the Branch Davidians actually have? One could argue their freedom of choice ended when they decided to follow Koresh, but another could argue that Koresh never coerced them, rather he simply showed them the way and they way decided to follow. 

3. Ends vs. Means

Koresh believed in resisting what he saw as a corrupt government; however, that resistance showed itself through armed preparation and bloodlust. Salvation for his people required violence on Earth. Was that justified? To him, that end did justify the means. To others, perhaps, not so much. 

4. Perverted Discourse

The Branch Davidians saw death as vindication rather than failure, even welcoming it in some cases. This flips the moral calculus entirely, as death becomes a perverse form of fulfillment. Can ethical discourse even apply when the definition of what death means changes? In this scenario, one could argue the Branch Davidians were beyond saving, seeing as their idea of what is "good" is what others would call "tragedy." 

ATF/FBI 

1. Utilitarianism 

The agents believed that raiding the compound could prevent greater harm, including child abuse, illegal weapons use, and mass violence; yet, their actions resulted in far more death. In classic utilitarian fashion, they faced the dilemma of causing immediate suffering to prevent far more suffering later. It's the age old question of should you sacrifice the few to save the many. In this case, the agents believed they should. 

2. Deontologics

From a Kantian, duty-based ethical perspective, the agents were following legal orders---they were just doing their duty. However, deontology demands acting according to universal moral rules rather than just institutional ones. Did following protocol create a moral shield when those protocols resulted in lethal confrontation? Some would say yes, the agents did their duty and followed the law; they were morally responsible. Others would say no, the confrontation resulted in carnage; they failed to act morally and responsibly. 

3. Virtue Ethics 

The ATF negotiators struggled between demonstrating compassion and understanding and projecting authority. They had to decide whether or not what they were saying showed weakness of moral strength to Koresh. It begs the question: what does moral character and virtuousness look like under severe pressure?

4. Pragmatism Against an Outside Perspective

The Waco siege happened after Ruby Ridge and under serious media scrutiny, as it lasted 51 days. Agents faced immense pressure to resolve the crisis. Thus, they faced this dilemma: act slowly and risk being seen as impotent, or act decisively and risk moral and physical catastrophe. At first, they chose the former, but then they felt compelled to choose the latter, and we all know the result. 

BOTH PARTIES

1. Communication Ethics

Both Koresh and the agents manipulated truth to control the narrative. Koresh had his prophecies and claimed the ATF/FBI never attempted to ascertain the religious beliefs of the Branch Davidians. The ATF/FBI emphasized the Branch Davidians having broken the law and portrayed them as a threat to outside society. Information became a weapon; whether or not that's ethical to do (in this case and in general) is up for debate. Sometimes, the truth may be unnecessary to achieve ends, but one risks moral compromise in burying it so. 

2. Pluralistic Morals

The incident forces us to question how much tolerance for unconventional belief we can hold before it becomes immoral and unethical in the context of a pluralistic democracy where there are many unconventional beliefs. At what is the line drawn? When does protecting religious freedom become complicity in nurturing a dangerous environment? Did the Branch Davidian faith deserve autonomy, despite their questionable practices? Depending on how you interpret freedom, the answer could be yes or no. The Branch Davidians would they're carrying out God's will. The government would say no religion is above the law. 

3. Asymmetric Power

Koresh held massive religious power among his followers---they literally believed him a messianic prophet. The government, meanwhile, vastly outnumbered the Branch Davidians in firepower. The dilemma here is how should authority be exercised when actions will end up dictating who lives and who dies? This decision will be a combination of every other ethical framework discussed above because ultimately, it's the most important dilemma of them all. Conflict is inevitable, but the death toll can be fluid. The Branch Davidians chose violence; the government chose violence. Was this the correct exertion of power? Maybe. But it speaks to the idea of truth we've talked about in class before. Truth in the Waco Siege became a battleground, and when truth itself becomes muddled, morals and ethics become muddled. When truth becomes muddled, whether or not power was used in the "right" way ultimately comes down to who won and who lost. In the case of Waco, nobody won...but everybody lost.