I've heard some people defend the step-father's action: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/406426.html
Here is my reponse to them.
Most people observing a person being chased, with no knowledge as to why, have a natural concern for that person, for he's both in apparent danger and possibly undeserving of his situation.
Similarly, most people observing a person being sexually assualted, but with no knowledge as to why, feel concern for that victim, a label they would apply to the subordinate subjects in both examples, and with the incomplete knowledge they have, would be correct in doing so. Most people would also assume him to be innocent.
In both examples, an observer naturally feels empathy for the victim, whether he's being chased or sexually assualted, but generally don't for the aggressor because it's not assumed that he'll be justified after the fact, thereby making his action at present appear to be inappropriate to the observer.
What those who've condoned the step-father's action are arguing is that an act which they would normally consider criminal and abhorrent to think of, let alone watch, is good if there's an acceptable, to them, excuse, even given belatedly. After all, if the step-son deserved it, he deserved it no matter when the rationalization is given, right?
That means I could rape someone and be a hero to them, because they would probably not know my actual reason at the time, as long as I give a good excuse later.
In other words, they are inhumane morons.
2 comments:
When the most recent attempt to execute someone in California was thwarted by the argument that the procedure is cruel and unusual punishment, I heard a caller to a radio show say that what the murderer deserved was to be killed as he had killed his victim, in this case by hammer blows to the head. The caller argued that such an "eye for an eye" approach couldn't be cruel, but only justice.
It may be fair to look to the biology of our brain that such symmetry appeals to people as being justice. Our innate morality has not been studied extensively, but this principle might belong there. For a culture to move past that, a number of ideas have to take hold, such as two wrongs not making a right, such as the state that someone is in when he or she commits a crime not being the same as when the agent of the state punishes that criminal. That the punishment should fit the crime is not the only standard that determines punishment.
Fortunately our culture has progressed to forbid vigilante justice, even to a family member. Maybe one could find 12 people on a jury to look the other way, but I doubt it. We all have our biological prejudices, but most of us overcome them regularly.
Thanks for your input.
Fortunately, most of us do, but to listen to some of Alan's callers and blog commenters, that part of their brain seems to be severely impaired.
Post a Comment