The Evil Lima Bean
March 15th, 2008
by Daren Jaques
I’ve given quite a bit of thought to what it means when someone says something is “wrong.” Suppose someone says to me, “it is just your opinion that murder is wrong, and someone else’s view is just as valid as yours because there is no truth in ethical questions.” I also happen to find lima beans to be very disagreeable. However, I do not hold the opinion that eating lima beans is “wrong.” Why doesn’t my opinion in that case lead me to declare eating lima beans as immoral? My hypothetical opponent may then counter with this, “well, the fact that so many other humans agree with you that murder is wrong has given you the illusion that it is objectively so, but chances are you know people who like lima beans.”
Actually, I don’t, but I can infer from their availability and persistence that someone, somewhere does indeed like them. So, is the only difference between these two questions merely how much agreement I share with my fellow humans? I think not.
You may remember awhile ago there was a man from Afghanistan who was slated for execution because he converted from Islam to Christianity (which is punishable by death under Afghan law). The West was outraged, but Islamic countries agreed that this kind of apostasy was indeed capital. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the world was divided roughly 50-50 on whether this man should be spared. Now what about the lima bean? We have a lot of disagreement on the moral question of killing this man, yet that hasn’t changed the certitude of those who want him dead. It would appear that consensus alone among humanity is not enough to determine morality.
Here is how I see the lima bean question: it is not really a moral question. Many questions can be couched as ethical or moral, but at their heart, are not really. These kind of questions can be distorted by culture, and can be become quasi ethics questions. Another example: is it really wrong to not keep the sabbath holy, in the same way it is wrong to steal? I do not think so. Some ethical questions really get to the gravamen of what it means to be a cooperative species and others do not. Those are the masquerading ethics questions. [Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker calls these types of moral assertions “disagreeable, unfashionable, or imprudent.”]
This to me, that is the biggest danger of cultural relativism. It gives credence to the idea that whatever your culture happens to believe is indeed right. Therefore, the idea that a muslim who becomes an atheist ought to be executed can’t be criticized as immoral. I think it certainly can, because that is a real morality question. Cultural relativism mixes up true ethics questions with bogus ethics questions.
In sum, the lima bean is not evil, but killing a human on poor justification is.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
You say that killing a human on poor justification is evil. Is it fair to extrapolate that you mean that killing a human on good justification is not evil? Who gets to decide what is good justification and what is not? Why is it that the state can decide what is good justification in the case of capitol punishment but I cannot in the case of homicide? Isn’t the state deciding just another situation of consensus being used to decide when killing a human is justifiable?
March 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Yes, “justification” is an area ripe for philosophical investigation. Let’s start with an easy one. Let’s say you awake to the presence of a burglar in your room, and he is trying to kill you. Your only exit, the bedroom door, is blocked by the burglar. You hit him in the face with the baseball bat you keep by your bed, and he dies. Were your actions justified? Let’s start there, to determine whether killing is ever justified before we get into the weeds of when it is not.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Quote: Were your actions justified? /Quote
Depends - was the bat wood or aluminum? (Thanks folks, I’ll be here all week.)
But seriously, though, I think there is another factor at play in your scenario. It may not make a difference - but did she INTEND to kill him or just incapacitate him and/or scare him off?
March 17th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Well, as you know Brian, striking someone in the head with a bat is generally defined as lethal force regardless of what the actual intent of the person is. A reasonable person would understand that hitting another person with a bat in the cranium is likely enough to result in death such that the actual intent is irrelevant. Imagine I shoot you in the leg with my gun, but I can prove that I only wanted to injure you. Firing a gun at another person is lethal force, regardless of the subjective intent. If I accidentally shot you in the leg while cleaning my gun, and you died, it is different altogether. I doubt I would be charged with either murder or manslaughter - perhaps negligent homicide, but what it lacks is the intent to do the act which caused death (as in hitting the burglar with the bat).
This is somewhat of a tangent, though subjective intent may relate to justification in a roundabout way, I’d rather get your take on whether the use of lethal force likely to result in the death of another human is ever justified? Let’s cal it the “intentional use of lethal force.”
Stated simply, is killing another human EVER justifiable?
March 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Hmmm, yes, I guess killing could be justified in the case of self defense. But, even though I think it is justifiable and not “wrong” I don’t necessarily think that it is “right.” If something is not “wrong” does that mean it necessarily is “right?” I don’t think so but I’m not sure what other alternative there is except that is just is.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I think that is an excellent point, Jaime. Reducing complex ethical questions to mere black and white answers would certainly seem an oversimplification.