When we were examining The Dark Knight in class, Dr. Griffin brought up a point that I wish we had more time to discuss. When the Joker tells the story of how he got his scars, we get some insight into his character and why he is so violent and unpredictable. Learning about his past sheds him in a new light. In the end, it doesn't really matter what version of the scars story (or if any version) actually happened. The Joker obviously is the product of extreme trauma. His character for those moments becomes pathetic (in the literal sense of the word). The Joker was not born evil, but rather is the product of his environment. He perturbs the world around him in radical ways to try make sense of his confused existence. So does knowing a bit about his past abate the rancor we should feel towards such a menace? Does circumstance matter when deciding what to do with those who have breached any standard code of ethics?
Let's ride this train of thought into the real world now. The following link takes you to a scene from the 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg. The film is about the trial of the men who served as judges under the Nazi regime in Germany. In the clip, the former German judge, Dr. Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster), explains the circumstances in Germany that led to such a catastrophic breach in ethics and the deaths of millions. The clip is long, but worth it.
For Love of Country
This entire film is a treasure trove of philosophical side of ethics. I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in history and a few hours to kill. But more to the point, does knowledge of the particular circumstances in Germany at all change how the men should be judged? Even though it does not excuse their actions (or inaction), we at least understand the factors at play in Germany that can account for how such a crime against humanity could have happened. Part of the dilemma in judging the Nazi judges is the question of whether their decisions were excusable given that they were in accordance with the laws of the Nazi regime, or if they are guilty of violating a higher universal code of ethics. As an additional complication, the American judge of the trial faces pressure from his superiors to go easy on the German judges. Why on earth would they do that? Circumstance. The Nuremberg trials were held at the onset of the Cold War. To sentence the German judges harshly would win the ire of the German people. Given Germany's position along the Iron Curtain, the allies wanted as much German support as possible to help cope with the expanding threat of the Soviet Union. I hope you see how easily particular circumstances influence how we view right or wrong. Is it possible to fairly judge a criminal without knowing every factor that led to the crime? Should knowledge of circumstance even matter when passing on judgment? If so, how? I'm not just spewing out a stream of hypothetical questions for the fun of it. I'd really like to know other people's thoughts on this topic. I feel like this issue has tremendous relevancy to our criminal justice system, and that the justice system in this country could be vastly improved.
I agree that this clip shows an aspect of ethics that could easily be flushed out into an entire course rather than just a day or two, as it is a very difficult situation to simply explain and move on. However, for the sake of the class that is what had to be done.
ReplyDeleteThrough our brief foray into Ethics during our class we discussed in detail only 3 of the many different schools of thought, Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Ego ethics. So I shall look at your final questions through each of those viewpoints before expressing my own.
First, a Deontologist would state that yes, it is possible to fairly judge without knowing every factor of the crime and that no we knowledge of circumstances should not matter. The law is what the law is, and there should be no variation from what the law states. As such, circumstances have absolutely no bearing on what judgement should be passed. Quite simply, a crime is a crime, and it must be dealt with as such.
Utilitarians would have a more diverse and spread opinion towards your questions. Is it possible to fairly judge without knowing all of the factors? Maybe. There are times when knowing all the factors is necessary, and others when it is simply easier and better for the greater number of people to ignore the specifics and judge on the upfront facts. If a person has killed a lot of people and could continue doing so, does it really matter what the reasons behind his actions were when many more people could be protected by just killing the murderer and not worrying about the reason? In less extreme cases, however, the circumstances are necessary to reach an appropriate judgement, as determining what is best for the most people often requires knowing the smaller details.
An ego ethicist I'd imagine would want to know the details. Protecting and looking out for oneself may be an ego ethicist's first priority, but in a case such as this the best way to take care of oneself would be to carefully analyze the situation and make the most ideal choice that one can. This is because that careful choice is the one that stands the best chance of benefiting (or at least not negatively affecting) the ego ethicist.
Personally, I find I agree more with the Utilitarians than the other two schools of ethical thought. In nearly every case I would find it necessary to gather as much information about the case before casting a judgement, as otherwise it is nearly impossible to know how your decision will actually impact the situation. This mentality also spans to other debates, such as the decision of what to do with Nazi medical data. One should always gather as much knowledge about a topic before making a decision, and this knowledge needs to come from both sides of a decision, and not just one in particular.
~ Brandon
Thanks for picking up this thread, Bryce and Brandon. I also wanted to hover around the Jocker example to see where it might go.
ReplyDeleteThe context or circumstances of a villain can often change our perceptions of his/her actions. It is tempting to feel sorry for the Jocker because he has obviously experienced some horror or abuse that shaped him into a villain, but the fact that he keeps changing his story calls into question his reliablity.
The Jocker does bring up bigger questions about the role of society and the condition of society as it relates to our actions. It's hard to be virtuous in a culture that seems jaded and unfair.
That said, the question at the heart of the posts seems to be relativity of ethics. Cultures have often acted against human rights and dignity.
We owned slaves. At the time, owning slaves was considered a reasonable practice, but as we look back, such practices can be seen as unethical.
Animal testing with disregard for suffering was a normal practice.
Infantcide was a practice in various cultures.
Bride burning or Sati (where the wife of a deceased husband is burned alive on his pyre) was a cultural practive.
The Bodies in Motion exhibit is very controversial where it is suspected that some of the bodies were those of murdered monks who obviously did not consent to being displayed.
The displays are educational (greatest good for greatest number perhaps), but are they ethical, especially considering where some of the bodies came from and the circumstances of their deaths.
By knowing this information and going to the displays, are we practicing ethical behavior?
Sorry to make this debate even more complex.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg1oqv_controversial-bodies-exhibit-coming-to-galleria_news