I’ve wanted to jump into the fray on Amit Varma’s question for some time. The question in question is whether a man who eats another man with the latter’s consent should be prosecuted.
Arun Simha gives his answer as yes, but I find the reasons he gives incoherent. He argues that we should punish the man because his act violates our universal human values. He doesn’t mention which value is violated, but presumably the value is that one human being may not kill another, regardless of whether the “victim” gave his consent to getting killed or not. Which is why the act is inherently “amoral” (I think he meant immoral) and criminal.
So what’s incoherent about this? Nothing so far, but later on in the comments he says that he favours the utilitarian approach and prefers to solve issues using a case-by-case approach. But Arun, you did not approach this particular case on a utilitarian basis. You simply referred back to first principles – the principle in this case being that you put a higher value on human being’s life over his own desires. Those principles are different from mine, but they are principles nonetheless.
I don’t want to make this a long post, so I will just lob the ball back into Arun’s court and wait for his response before going on.
Arun has a point in talking about about “universal values” and utilitarianism in the same breath.
For illustration, consider a case where there IS a victim —-
Say somebody kills a year old baby in a particular brutal fashion (Crime A) and somebody kills a middle-aged man in the same way (Crime B); we would accord more punishment to crime A than to crime B.
Though in both cases there is a single victim, the punishment varies.
The reason is that the person committing the crime A has a worse set of “universal values” as compared to one committing crime B.
But the alarm signals of pure utilitarians or libertarians start sounding. Is this utilitarian? Is this libertarian? Well yes.
For the reason why consider yet another thought experiment (ok so I like thought experiments): If it is known for sure (by some way) that a person X is going to commit a crime, would a libertarian not prosecute that person? Or would he wait for a victim so that his utilitarian brand of justice could kick in?
Well, he should, if he believes in all the talk about rationality and all that, prosecute that person if he knows for sure the crime is gonna be committed.
Now, when one talks about crimes with victims, does one only consider the act of violating the victim’s rights?
NO!!
We also take into consideration possible future violations of rights. (Parole for e.g. is given if the person is deemed safe to release into society)
It is this greater discounted cost of future violations that makes one give a greater punishment to somebody who brutally killed an innocent baby as compared to someone who killed an adult.
And it is precisely in gauging this future cost that universal values come into play. When somebody is cheerfully cutting off his friend alive to eat him, we could take the crutch of universal values in saying that a discounted cost of future violations should apply in prosecuting him.
What has this got to do with the case at hand? Obviously there are many cases where the conclusions one draws from universal values and those one draws from utilitarian arguments coincide. I would be very surprised if it weren’t the case.
For example,
1) Universal value: “Murder is wrong”
2) Utilitarian rule: “We should punish those who commit murder, because otherwise, society would plunge into chaos”
Naturally, the conclusion that you will draw from the two approaches is the same. But that two approaches are still different from each other. If you say you follow utilitarianism, then you should come to the conclusion from approach 2 and not approach 1, that is all I am saying. I am only asking him to justify this particular case based on approach 2.
The premise of Amit’s question and the ensuing discussion is incorrect in my view. Does a “sane” person wake up one fine morning and decide: gee its a nice day for me to end my life?
Niket, you assume it’s a sudden decision, and even then, why not? I could be deeply dissatisfied with my life and my limited ability to achieve anything in it, and might decide to end it. That is not insanity; in fact, if I have a right to life, and to live it the way I want, I also have a right to end it when I want. What is wrong with that? (Note: we are talking thought experiment here; personally, I want to live a long life and blog for many decades.)
And if there is nothing wrong with that, what is wrong with my bequeathing my body to whoever I want, and to their doing whatever they want with it, especially if it’s with my prior consent, especially if he is not harming anyone else in the process?
seven_times_six, like Arun you are entering this discussion with the assumption that there is a “crime” and a “victim”. Please explain what is the crime, and who is the victim, if the dead person committed suicide and bequethed his body willingly, both of which a libertarian would agree are not wrong by themselves. Is it the cannibalism part that disgusts you? 150 years ago, would you have felt similar repulsion at the thought of sodomy, and demanded that it be illgal and homosexuals be jailed? Should our natural aversions be a basis for the laws of society?
But that two approaches are still different from each other…I am only asking him to justify this particular case based on approach 2.
One of the points in my comment was that universal values help us gauge the extent, probability, etc. of future violations, future victims. This also answers Amit’s question —“Please explain what is the crime, and who is the victim”
As in a thought expt in that comment, suppose you know for sure a crime is going to be committed, you’re going to act against that person. You’re not going to wait for a victim (e.g. self-defense).
Similarly, if universal values are violated, this signals a high probability of
future violations e.g. if somebody is cutting off a friend alive to eat even if consensual, there is a high probability of his committing future non-consensual crimes. Asking for action only upon a victim is not libertarian, it is foolishness — for one is not using all the information available at hand.
One of the points in my comment was that universal values help us gauge the extent, probability, etc. of future violations, future victims. This also answers Amit’s question
Erm, actually it doesn’t. It only replaces “crime” for “violation”. What violation?
To repeat my questions, answer these: 1. Why can’t I take my life if I want to, for reasons that are none of anyone else’s business? 2. Why can’t I will my body to whoever I want to? 3. Why can’t he do what he wants with it, especially since I had agreed to it beforehand, and since it is not harming anyone.
To argue, as you did, that he will then be inclined to eat people without their consent is like saying that everyone who has sex for the first time is then inclined to rape. Non-sequiteur. And circular.
To argue, as you did, that he will then be inclined to eat people without their consent is like saying that everyone who has sex for the first time is then inclined to rape.
No it isn’t. And it isn’t precisely because of the thing under discussion — “universal values”.
The concept of universal values isn’t bunk, it encodes important information about rights. Yes rights!
As a libertarian, you wouldn’t mind punishment if there is coercion, since
it involves violating somebody else’s rights. And one decides upon this set of inviolable rights, e.g. liberty, axiomatically. But just a set of rights isn’t sufficient.
You also need duties/rules.
One simple yet important rule is “do not violate somebody else’s rights”. Now a libertarian minimalist might ask why should there be any more rules than that single one, once we have defined a set of inviolable rights?
But that implies a throwing away of information — the bounty of psychological knowledge, etc. Via certain other rules e.g. “do not eat other humans”, we can stop violation of rights before they occur.
That’s why I’ve been talking all along about future violations of rights. You might then ask if there is a slippery slope, if it might lead to rules such as do not have sex to prevent rape.
That is where judgement is required to formulate a universal value. But then that’s why one calls it universal value in the first place, as opposed to just a desired value. One also needs to look at costs/benefits of such rules I agree. But to say that there need not be any such rules is just being irresponsible.
Using information to predict future events is what led to the evolution of our brain might I add. Why should we shirk away from doing the very thing it evolved to do?
Ravikiran,
Incoherent? Strong words.
1. I meant amoral. As in ‘lacking moral sensibility’
2. Thanks for quoting me out of context as well. The discussion on a case by case approach was a reply to a question by Amit and that was not related to the topic of cannibalism.
3. The discussion on utilitarianism was also begun as a response to questions by Amit etc on curtailment of rights.
In your hurry to put a rude rejoinder (as is your wont), you ignored the context of those comments.
I’ve said all I have to say on this subject in my blog.
Ravi,
Please ignore my uncalled for sentence in the previous comment. Regardless of the provocation, I had no right to be rude on your blog.
What exactly did you find rude about my rejoinder other than the use of the word “incoherent”? If that’s the only word, I’ll take it back and replace it with something less loaded, like perhaps “inconsistent” or “self-contradictory” or something.
I don’t intend to be rude. It is just that because nothing ever gives me offense, I have a hard time figuring out what other people will take offense at.
A paedophile enagages a kid to do heinous acts. The kid does it willingly because it was offered chocolates in return.
Should the paedophile be punished or not?
We say that consenting adults should be free to do what they want Subhash.
seven_times_six,
That is where judgement is required to formulate a universal value.
Whose judgement? Based on what? Why is eating human flesh, by itself, wrong if it doesn’t involve coercion or violating someone else’s rights. Arguing that because we instinctively find it repulsive is not enough. A few decades ago most people would have found sodomy quite as instinctively repulsive. And please do answer the three questions I posed in my last comment, don’t argue around them please. Also, you said:
Using information to predict future events is what led to the evolution of our brain might I add.
You a fan of historicism, Pradeep? Surely not. Please say no!
No, but seriously, “judgement” and “[u]sing information to predict future events” are bound to be subjectively used, one can’t come to objective conclusions through them, (Marx and Stalin and Hitler didn’t) and therefore they are fallible. Sticking to the basic principle of libertarianism – that we shall not violate anyone else’s rights – is much less ambiguous.
“consenting adults”
That is where I am driving at….Are you taking the physical age into consideration to term somebody an adult? And who decides on this age threshold?
I know that I can give you the standard answer to this question, but it will be a double-edged sword. So I will give the more detailed answer as a separate post.
Now that serious debating has gone on for a while on this subject. How about some puns? My contribution: This question is so good it has been “eating” me alive.
– Murli