The execution of Osama Bin Laden a week ago caused me to reflect again on the death penalty thoughts I posted just prior to that.
At its most simple, the assassination mission was simply a death penalty carried out. As I said before, I happen to support the death penalty in theory – when it’s used by society to terminate a force that is a significant threat to society.
This was exactly that – Bin laden was the self-professed mastermind of attacks on this country that killed thousands. He had confessed, was delighted with his actions, and was hiding from us to avoid execution. He didn’t seem to believe in “due process†himself, based on the delight he seemed to take in killing innocent people.
There are calls from some that his assassination was wrong, in that it failed to live up to the ideals and beliefs of this society. In denying him “due processâ€, our actions were wrong. The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch made these comments a week ag0.
He’s right of course. A strong moral argument can be made that killing anyone is wrong, and I’d agree with his comments that execution without due process is morally wrong.
This is where we all need to find our level of comfort with the moral dissonance created when we support an action that is immoral. For the good of society in general, I absolutely support the execution of this man who had caused many deaths and who would like to cause many more. There was no doubt of his guilt – he had proudly proclaimed his guilt over past actions and his intent for future action.
At the extremes, there are two reactions a person might have:
- A person can take the approach that the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch did, and simply stick by the moral argument, with no consideration of anything else.
- A person can justify the actions as “moral†in their mind – check out any of the right-wing blogs for examples of this perspective.
Both of these actions are the result of a low tolerance for moral dissonance. People who fall into these extremes want to see the world as very black and white, with no space for gray. They want to believe they have the complete and accurate set of universal moral rules programmed into their moral compass, and their way is the one and only way to see the world. If they support an action, it MUST be moral, and if it’s not, they’ll find a way to make it sound moral in their mind. Or they refuse to support it, no matter how “right†the decision is.
Our assassination of Bin Laden simply isn’t moral. Justify all you want. We invaded a sovereign country with our weapons and assassinated him and the people around him, and that’s simply not “moralâ€.
But in my mind, it’s OK. I have no problem with it. It was the right thing to do, as it removed an extremely harmful element of threat from our society – one that would surely cause grief and destruction in the future.
Moral dissonance might not actually be a phrase that’s commonly used – I just made it up because it seems to fit this dilemma. Look inside yourself, and ask yourself how much tolerance you have for moral dissonance. Your reaction to this assassination might be a good clue for you…
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for the comment!
As someone who would, by the criteria of this thought-provking article, but at one of the extremes (“Killing is wrong, and more particularly if capture, trial, and imprisonment are possible!”), I would note that it is quite possible to hold a position and yet recognize that the world does have many “gray areas.” For example, in the case of Adolf Eichmann, I was in 1962 and am now absolutely opposed to his execution — but not to his capture and trial by any nation or international tribunal capable of giving him a fair trial. Likewise with Bin Laden. This might involve compromising the principle of national sovereignty in various regrettable but justifiable ways in order to bring a mass murderer to humane and nonlethal justice, not a pure position but a reasonably humane one. Also, for some of us who are committed to the principle of nonviolence, there is a real compromise and moral “impurity” in recognizing the lesser evil of injurious but nonlethal force as an alternative to killing. Thus, for some of us at the “extremes,” the question may be not whether any “moral dissonance” is admissible, but what forms of dissonance are tolerable or intolerable. For me, either judicial or extrajudicial killings of prisoners fall in the “intolerable” category.
Thanks for the comment Margo. If I understand your comment, I would disagree that you fall into an “extreme”. It sounds to me as though you are very willing to face and accept some level of moral dissonance in certain instances, which takes you out of the “extreme” category.
I did a series of two or three of these postings, relating to moral dissonance. My opinion being that the world isn’t a clearly black and white place, and that there are shades of gray all around us. Extreme positions are ones that insist on black and white, and people who take them tend to lie to themselves in order to justify positions they support when that position doesn’t fall neatly into the black or white universe they want the world to be.
For the rest of us, we tend to face the moral dissonance and live with it. We accept that yes, in this case, we’re supporting a position that seems counter to the principle we say we support. And yes, we see and understand that, and aren’t going to lie to ourselves to try and make it fit when it doesn’t. That’s moral dissonance, and accepting it allows us to understand and see and live with the shades of gray that comprise the universe.
Clearly, in your thoughtful comments, you see and accept that. Congratulations! It’s not an easy task, as you point out.
Thanks again for the comments Margo!
Neil
As someone who would, by the criteria of this thought-provking article, but at one of the extremes (“Killing is wrong, and more particularly if capture, trial, and imprisonment are possible!”), I would note that it is quite possible to hold a position and yet recognize that the world does have many “gray areas.” For example, in the case of Adolf Eichmann, I was in 1962 and am now absolutely opposed to his execution — but not to his capture and trial by any nation or international tribunal capable of giving him a fair trial. Likewise with Bin Laden. This might involve compromising the principle of national sovereignty in various regrettable but justifiable ways in order to bring a mass murderer to humane and nonlethal justice, not a pure position but a reasonably humane one. Also, for some of us who are committed to the principle of nonviolence, there is a real compromise and moral “impurity” in recognizing the lesser evil of injurious but nonlethal force as an alternative to killing. Thus, for some of us at the “extremes,” the question may be not whether any “moral dissonance” is admissible, but what forms of dissonance are tolerable or intolerable. For me, either judicial or extrajudicial killings of prisoners fall in the “intolerable” category.
Thanks for the comment Margo. If I understand your comment, I would disagree that you fall into an “extreme”. It sounds to me as though you are very willing to face and accept some level of moral dissonance in certain instances, which takes you out of the “extreme” category.
I did a series of two or three of these postings, relating to moral dissonance. My opinion being that the world isn’t a clearly black and white place, and that there are shades of gray all around us. Extreme positions are ones that insist on black and white, and people who take them tend to lie to themselves in order to justify positions they support when that position doesn’t fall neatly into the black or white universe they want the world to be.
For the rest of us, we tend to face the moral dissonance and live with it. We accept that yes, in this case, we’re supporting a position that seems counter to the principle we say we support. And yes, we see and understand that, and aren’t going to lie to ourselves to try and make it fit when it doesn’t. That’s moral dissonance, and accepting it allows us to understand and see and live with the shades of gray that comprise the universe.
Clearly, in your thoughtful comments, you see and accept that. Congratulations! It’s not an easy task, as you point out.
Thanks again for the comments Margo!
Neil