We don't know our own badness
New research done by Dr. Hollie Nyseth Brehm at The Ohio State University focuses on war criminals of the Rwandan genocide, and shows that overwhelmingly the criminals attempted to appeal to the goodness of their character when they were being tried. From a broader sociological perspective, this research fits into a larger picture - these criminals fail to recognize themselves as "bad" people. They were capable of justifying even murder, capable of considering themselves good people at the same time as recognizing that they had participated in the genocide.
What if this is the rule?
I cannot easily regulate this thinking and behavior to Rwandan genocide criminals. Maybe the potential to justify even these abhorrent crimes is present in anyone? In fact, I find this very relevant to the current state of American race relations and the concept of white innocence. I won't get more into that with this post, and it will probably be a while before I read Ta-Nehisi Coates new book if ever, but here is an article and a video to explore more of the idea, things that helped me make the connection.
Another question: If not everyone absolves themselves and can justify any of their actions, under what circumstances does this recognition of our badness happen?
This to me is an interesting case to consider in light of moral relativism.
Moral relativism does not provide me satisfactory answers here. The ethical issues here may be relative in terms of the way they are explored or dealt with, and also relative in terms of the fact that there is an imposition of ethics here. But at what point do we say that ethics is not relative if anything can be justified? I am not comfortable with an interpretation of relativism that lands on a place of "killing can be right as long as your culture says it is", or worse "as long as it feels good to you" (I'm not sure many people would be). Asked another way, what ethics are not imposed if every ethical action is justified relative to the person who commits the action? Relativism, if interpreted in the sense that "it is not right to impose your ethics on others", pretty much throws any meaningful discussion of ethics out the window. Yeah, that's a pretty loose interpretation of relativism, but it's one that I have heard being implied as well as explicated.
A quote from a movie that explores the theme of recognizing our badness: "War crimes are defined by the winner". If that is the case, then relativism is the case, but relativism should be the starting point, not the endpoint answer for discussion. I think there are two possible responses to this issue.
I own my bias here. Reflection is one of my favorite things. It was one of my first research topics and is something I am dedicated, if not simply strongly inclined, to do.
If war crimes are defined by the winner, then we should prompt the winner to recognize their own war crimes.
Reflection can prompt us to turn an ethical code towards ourselves. If we do not reflect, it is easy to maintain a comfortable distance between our actions and our ethics. This is popularly known as cognitive dissonance - the ability to hold two conflicting premises in mind simultaneously and is a feature of our irrational human minds. Yeah, we did some things but overall we're innocent people!
Reflection also leads us to evaluate ethical systems. Without reflection, our ethical thinking remains in the dark, and there it can twist and bend to allow us to justify any action. I think of another quote of Jung's:
It might take reflection. To note: reflection is not easy, and it rarely happens without prompts from education, and/or hardship.
The other way I thought of addressing this issue is to establish rules that help others evaluate our actions. This is not foolproof, of course, because there are no perfect ethics, though some are better than others.
This strategy is employed in many cases, whether they be the Geneva Convention rules for armed conflict, the Belmont Report - created in reaction to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and based on the principlism approach, or local IRB's.
This issue was made more real to me as I helped write 2 IRB protocols over the past 2 weeks. If we do not know our badness, then we may transfer some of that responsibility to external bodies like our IRB. We may trust others to help us reflect on our actions and to help us evaluate our own ethical systems.
All of this continues to poke holes in the idea of relativism as an answer, though relativism can remain a fact (and how's that for a paradox?).
I'll take it as a rule, that we are capable of sleeping comfortably at night, even while we might be considered by some to be immoral, even while we might consider ourselves to be erring on the side the unethical if we took a closer look. And if so, we should be more focused on considering ethics, rather than maintaining ethical solidity.
What if this is the rule?
I cannot easily regulate this thinking and behavior to Rwandan genocide criminals. Maybe the potential to justify even these abhorrent crimes is present in anyone? In fact, I find this very relevant to the current state of American race relations and the concept of white innocence. I won't get more into that with this post, and it will probably be a while before I read Ta-Nehisi Coates new book if ever, but here is an article and a video to explore more of the idea, things that helped me make the connection.
Another question: If not everyone absolves themselves and can justify any of their actions, under what circumstances does this recognition of our badness happen?
This to me is an interesting case to consider in light of moral relativism.
Moral relativism does not provide me satisfactory answers here. The ethical issues here may be relative in terms of the way they are explored or dealt with, and also relative in terms of the fact that there is an imposition of ethics here. But at what point do we say that ethics is not relative if anything can be justified? I am not comfortable with an interpretation of relativism that lands on a place of "killing can be right as long as your culture says it is", or worse "as long as it feels good to you" (I'm not sure many people would be). Asked another way, what ethics are not imposed if every ethical action is justified relative to the person who commits the action? Relativism, if interpreted in the sense that "it is not right to impose your ethics on others", pretty much throws any meaningful discussion of ethics out the window. Yeah, that's a pretty loose interpretation of relativism, but it's one that I have heard being implied as well as explicated.
A quote from a movie that explores the theme of recognizing our badness: "War crimes are defined by the winner". If that is the case, then relativism is the case, but relativism should be the starting point, not the endpoint answer for discussion. I think there are two possible responses to this issue.
Reflection / Metacognition
I own my bias here. Reflection is one of my favorite things. It was one of my first research topics and is something I am dedicated, if not simply strongly inclined, to do.
If war crimes are defined by the winner, then we should prompt the winner to recognize their own war crimes.
Reflection can prompt us to turn an ethical code towards ourselves. If we do not reflect, it is easy to maintain a comfortable distance between our actions and our ethics. This is popularly known as cognitive dissonance - the ability to hold two conflicting premises in mind simultaneously and is a feature of our irrational human minds. Yeah, we did some things but overall we're innocent people!
Reflection also leads us to evaluate ethical systems. Without reflection, our ethical thinking remains in the dark, and there it can twist and bend to allow us to justify any action. I think of another quote of Jung's:
Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.Reflection may be necessary to hold us accountable to ourselves, and that may be all we need to become self-authoring citizens with integrity. This principle is why a cheap relativism falls apart, for me. Cheap relativism leads to the idea that all ethical systems are created equal, in which case ethical systems cannot be evaluated, and then it is fully appropriate to adjust our ethical systems to preserve our innocence. Reflection allows us to apply checks and balances to our shifting ethical system, considering more fully what may be right or appropriate or true, with less shifting to catch up and justify our actions.
It might take reflection. To note: reflection is not easy, and it rarely happens without prompts from education, and/or hardship.
Establish More Universal Rules
The other way I thought of addressing this issue is to establish rules that help others evaluate our actions. This is not foolproof, of course, because there are no perfect ethics, though some are better than others.
This strategy is employed in many cases, whether they be the Geneva Convention rules for armed conflict, the Belmont Report - created in reaction to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and based on the principlism approach, or local IRB's.
This issue was made more real to me as I helped write 2 IRB protocols over the past 2 weeks. If we do not know our badness, then we may transfer some of that responsibility to external bodies like our IRB. We may trust others to help us reflect on our actions and to help us evaluate our own ethical systems.
All of this continues to poke holes in the idea of relativism as an answer, though relativism can remain a fact (and how's that for a paradox?).
I'll take it as a rule, that we are capable of sleeping comfortably at night, even while we might be considered by some to be immoral, even while we might consider ourselves to be erring on the side the unethical if we took a closer look. And if so, we should be more focused on considering ethics, rather than maintaining ethical solidity.
The quote you provided, “war crimes are defined by the winner,” immediately made me think of an example from WWII. First, and undeniably, the war crimes of the leaders of the German military were abhorrent in every sense of the word and unforgivable. I now want to say that I also remember learning in school about the bombing of Dresden and one firsthand account describing the destruction as a barren moonscape. And of course, the dropping of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These latter two examples are instances of actions that the victors at the time (the Allied Forces) considered morally justifiable actions but that history has shifted into the category of morally questionable or even plain evil. What I’m trying to get at is, maybe the universal rules you mention in part establish themselves over time? Then again, maybe what I’m thinking of is simply a mass public reaction to written universal rules such as Geneva Convention rules for armed conflict. Thanks for the thought provoking post!
ReplyDeleteYou have raised a very important point and I think the majority of the people will not be comfortable as well with this interpretation of relativism which justifies bad behavior because of individual good outcome such as "killing can be right as long as your culture says it is". But unfortunately there are some people for whom this is just fine as long as you honor your tribe like in Rwanda. Last time I talked with a friend and she told me that there are people posting things on line such as claiming that South Sudan is their tribe`s kingdom that. This can empower some of the tribes who are fighting in there and in my opinion this is some of the reason for why they have keep fighting since they got separated for the North (actual Sudan). These kind of person would go for whatever because of what they believe is the right thing or good for them
ReplyDelete