February 19, 2010

• Stupid Arguments: He brought it upon himself!

  One of the worst kinds of moral justifications of an immoral act is that the victim “brought it upon himself” yet we find this argument is used repeatedly in regular discourse as if it were the most normal and logical thing in the world. Variation of this are statements like “he was asking for it” or “he should have expected it”. Equally stupid.

  Most recently I heard this with regard to Tiger Woods. Basically some reporters were talking about how he gave some apology speech and in it they said the only time he showed what seemed like genuine emotion was when he was talking about how his family and kids were being hounded by reporters. The reporter reporting this was indignant. He was like, how dare Tiger Woods get angry at reporters. Doesn’t he know he brought this level of public scrutiny upon himself!!

  Of course the reporter is factually accurate. There’s no doubt that Tiger Woods brought this upon himself. In every real sense of the word. He’s the one who made himself good at golf. He’s the one who won championships. He’s the one who made himself a cultural icon. He’s the one who got married. He’s the one who cheated so brazenly  He’s the one who got caught. While we may quibble over how much society and the sports media industrial complex influenced his behavior and fed into it, or even whether he’s been treated fairly compared to other famous figures in similar situations, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that his own choices were one of the major causal agents for everything that transpired thereafter.

  Here’s the thing though. The fact that all of that is true does not in ANY WAY excuse the journalists for any immoral or improper behavior on their parts.  You can’t as a journalist say “oh well he’s famous, I guess the rules don’t apply to him”. That’s not moral. If a journalist would restrain from hounding someone’s kids or family if that person is a normal person or a politician out of sheer human decency well then out of the SAME sense of human decency he or she should refrain from hounding Tiger Woods’s family. 

  There’s no “but I don’t like him” exception to moral principles. Invading Dick Cheney’s privacy is equally as deplorable as invading Nelson Mandela’s or the Dalai Lama’s.  That doesn’t mean there might not be a moral justification for engaging in that immoral act, for example if you had solid evidence that the Dalai Lama was conspiring with aliens to unleash a super virus that would wipe out 9/10ths of the world’s population. Well then maybe you need to invade his privacy.  But that’s entirely different than I know Dick Cheney’s a bad unlikable guy therefore it’s right to invade his privacy. If he complains, I’ll just say he brought it upon himself!

  Do you see? Here’s a clearer simpler way to think about it. Imagine if you were on a Bus and some guy walks up to you talking shit, insulting you, being a regular douche bag and won’t let up.  Let’s say you punch that guy in the face laying him out cold and then walk away.

  I think a lot of people’s initial reaction to that story is to shrug and say well “he brought it upon himself”. He should have known better than picking a fight. You gotta know your limits, etc. etc.  And that reaction is in some sense right. Obviously the person DID provoke the fight. But usually for many people that’s where the moral analysis ends.

  But let’s consider a slightly different example. Same scenario. Bus. Trash talking douche.  What if instead the recipient of the trash talk not only punches him in the face but keeps ON punching him. Punches AND kicks him. Brutalizes him. Breaks every bone in his body. Puts the man in a coma. He does it deliberately consciously and without a hint of rage or malice. Afterward when asked why, he says “I wanted to ensure that that idiot suffered as much as possible”.

  Would you say that the man in the coma brought this upon himself?

  No? Why not?  It’s the same provocation. Factually he DID bring it upon himself. He did instigate. But note how that does not in any way remove the responsibility of the other party for their actions.

  Provocation and instigation does play a part in morality but it is not the deciding factor because human beings DO have agency. Unless it can be shown that the provocation in some way removes that agency, that is causes someone to be mentally incapable of stopping themselves, then actors are fully responsible for their actions. It’s as simple as that.

  We see this all the time in all kinds of situations from kids teased in school, to rape, to international war crimes. Kids who “act nerdy” are said to have brought the teasing they experience upon themselves. Women who dress provocatively are accused of having brought the rape they receive upon themselves. The people of Pakistan are said to have brought civilian killing predator drone strikes down upon themselves for daring to harbor members of the taliban.

  Maybe it’s time we stopped focusing so much on who brought what down upon themselves and focused a lot more on whose doing what terrible acts whether or not it provokes or was provoked by other terrible acts.

  Because if we allow ourselves to justify immorality by way of other immorality we will allow a vicious cycle of ever escalating acts of moral repugnance culminating in disaster.

  • 8:01 pm
  • 5 Comments