I had an interesting discussion with a friend today about justifiable killing. It started off as a few casual comments about a movie and a TV show. The two weren't linked by much, except that each included what would be legally termed "murder", and torture. Unusual? Obviously not. But what did make it a bit different was that these acts weren't the work of some nasty villian or a few thickheaded thugs but instead were carried out (without remorse) by the protagonists - characters whom, like it or not, the audience automatically cheers for. And we're not talking about some sicko indie productions here, these are mainstream, designed for serious mainstream consumption. They are both quite popular. The contrast between the two is the way they treated the killing. Now I've already talked about the portrayal of violence in film/tv; I'm not going there today - so just hang with me.
One (as far as possible) refrained from judging the protagonist. He did horrible things to combat horrible people, and that was that. What they did . . . was monstrous he says at one point - And they created a monster another character shoots back at him. Is terrorism a morally viable tactic when fighting Nazistic regimes? The filmmakers purposely leave it grey. Conversely the other production is unequivocal about who holds the moral high ground: the Die Hard/Ransom style main character. Sure he kills and tortures people - but all to save lives. And he only does it to bad guys anyway.
My friend, though uncertain if he would have the wherewithal to carry it out himself, was quite certain that if placed in a situation where brutal/lethal violence was required to save lives he would be morally justified in resorting to it. I was much more doubtful. I know it's a cliché, but where do you draw the line? Legally, it's easy. Looking at it from any other angle though, it's anything but easy. Conundrumic, messy and dangerous would be better terms perhaps. And while you can say the above filmmakers just copped out by refusing to make a definite judgement on their character and his deeds, let me ask you this: what else should they have done? Drawn their sword and cut the Gordion Knot as Alexander did almost three millenia ago?
Aristotle taught his prize pupil well in pragmatic diplomacy and relational skills - but one gets the idea that Alexander might have daydreamed through 'Moral Ethics'.
5 comments:
I considered many of those same things while watching "Munich".
I've always felt that direct and specific human attacks was not the same as a battle or war. Basically, I feel this way because I believe that retribution and/or justice should never, ever be personalized. There is a reason that the hatchet man wore a mask - he was the uncomprmising face of justice (hopefully), and he didn't matter.
In "Munich", they only made opposition grow through their brutal attacks. An eye for an eye should not be our path if we want to fight back (you should regret the need for violence). Forgiveness is far more difficult, and should be the option unless the specific enemy can be brought to justice.
I don't think I answered any questions, but I'm sure if there is an real answer.
Can we ever justify the taking of a human life outside of war?
I think so.
Here is something else to ponder, I watched a movie called deep impact a while ago, in it, there is a band of spacemen who volontaired to give up there lives (Kill themselves) to save the lives of half the world. Is that suicide or sacrifice?
I'd say sacrifice for sure.
Suicide is only when you want to die for your own reasons, without any good for others.
So could we define murder as "The killing of another human for your own pleasure/goals"???
That would leave euthanasia and some cases of abortion in the right. I don't think it's quite that simple.
Post a Comment