Aftermath

The course ended in April. After looking over final papers and evaluations, I think we can call it a success. I want to leave this blog publicly available as a resource for anyone interested in the topic of literature and revenge. Feel free to use the materials posted here as might be helpful to you, especially in designing your own course. I can be contacted by email. I’d love to hear about how others have tackled the issues our class did on this blog and at Duke in the Spring of 2009.

Revenge for Sabotaging a Sabotage

In a recent NY Times article, a man was killed for discovering and reporting that the private helicopter of one of India’s richest men, Anil Ambani, was sabotaged. There is much debate about whether Bharat Borge’s death was an accident, suicide, or murder. Personally, I think it all points to a case of spiteful revenge, one that is completely unnecessary. As we’ve talked about in class, Murphy gives three justifiable reasons for revenge: “self-respect, self-defense, and respect for the moral order” (19). However, this situation fits none of the above. The person who sabotaged Ambani’s helicopter has no reason to think that his self-respect has been threatened because Borge had not accused anyone of the crime or had any idea who committed the crime, but rather brought it to the public’s attention for the safety of his employer. Even if the perpetrator had killed Borge as a means to protect himself from retribution for the crime, he probably would not have been found since there are currently no leads on who the perpetrator is. Had Borge not found out that something was wrong with the helicopter and the plane crashed, the investigators would have eventually discovered the cause of the accident and be in the same position as they are now. Furthermore, this person has little regard for the moral order since he tried to commit such a heinous crime and murdered an innocent person just to protect himself. Now that this person has killed someone, in addition to attempting murder, he/she has only augmented the punishment that he/she will face if discovered. The revenge that this person got on Borge for foiling his crime is far from being beneficial and is just unethical. Revenge mostly deals with seeking justice, but can it still be considered revenge if the supposed perpetrator, Borges in this case, hasn’t even done anything to the victim? Can it still be considered seeking justice if the victim is seeking justice for doing a crime?

Truth and Reconciliation for the U.S. Government

Op-Ed Columnist – A Torturous Compromise – NYTimes.com

In a New York Times editorial, columnist Thomas L. Friedman discusses President Obama’s decision not to pursue legal action action against the lawyers and advisors involved in the “enhanced interrogation” techniques of the Bush administration.  Without ever invoking the words “truth” or reconciliation,” he articulates the basic mission of the commissions that Desmond Tutu describes.  Although Friedman is unsatisfied with this course, he acknowledges the logic behind Obama’s decision.  He argues that the light which the President is shining on the problem is a step in the right direction, and is ultimately the only step that can be taken at this point.  He notes that there are several factors which have guided his thinking on the matter.  He speaks of the many problems that would arise from selectively assigning blame and culpability.

He lauds Obama both for wanting to expose the way in which America’s firm stance against torture has been weakened by the actions of many member of the previous administration.  He also, however, compliments the President on not viewing the impact of “enhanced interrogation” in a vacuum.  Friedman understands the problems that legal action would bring, both inside and outside the United States.  Sometimes it is more productive to acknowledge the truth about unlawful and immoral conduct without officially sanctioning those responsible for it.  Sometimes there are higher prerogatives that just punishing the guilty.  If a criminal action has had a far-reaching a society, it may be easier for the society to accept, learn from and move past the problems it faces by encouraging open dialogue without imposing punitive measures on the guilty.  As we discussed in class, this solution does not amount to blind forgiveness.  Rather, it constitutes the most appropriate and productive response that a society such as ours can offer to the human rights violations committed over the last 5 years.

“Sri Lanka’s War”

An Article called “At Risk in Sri Lanka’s War,” last week in the Washington Post reminded me of a discussion about just and unjust war in class. In the article, James Traub recounts the current atrocities in Sri Lanka where the government is shooting “indiscriminately among rebels and noncombatants alike” to try and stop the civil war. This strategy has and will continue to kill thousands of people. Traub continues by discussing how other nations have failed to respond to these atrocities and that this goes against a document from the 2005 UN World Summit where nations have a “responsibility to protect” their own people and if they do not, than their fellow nations must. However, Traub says that there has been no effort to protect these people because the fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelem is called one against terrorism. Traub states that the United States has even placed them on its terror list. He says that, “states engaged in combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities; nor does the cruelty if armed opponents absolve states of their responsibility to protect citizens.” Traub concludes by describing both sides lack of consideration of civilian lives and calls for The Security Council to step in and help stop the situation.

I think that this article raises many important questions. Firstly, it shows the difficultly of raging war in the modern age where sides in battle are not always uniformed and neatly labeled “good” and “bad.” Instead, the world is full of groups that are difficult to identify because of their lack of uniform, like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelem. It seems much harder to justify a fight against a foe, no matter how terrible their crime, when they lack a distinct label. It becomes hard to distinguish between civilians and enemies which could lead to a questionable war like we discussed in class. The article also raises the interesting issue of how a nation needs to protect its people. This concept is not new to the United States. Our Declaration of Independence discusses how governments are created to protect the rights of their people. However, I think that Sri Lanka is an extraordinary case. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelem are harming their fellow citizens, so do they really still possess the same rights that they once did? I agree with Traub that Sri Lanka needs to protect its civilians. I understand that this is challenging considering the foe does not wear a sign that says member of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelem, but I feel that better efforts could be made. Also, do the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelem count under the same group as civilians for protection? I think that this is a very challenging question. I agree with Traub that perhaps the only way to reach a resolution in this situation is for the Security Council to step in.

Revenge at what cost?

An Op-Ed in the New York Times by Paul Krugman this morning caught my attention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27krugman.html?ref=opinion

Dr. Krugman is responding to an article about executive pay on Wall Street, which is set to shoot back up to 2007 levels this year following a brief drop in 2008.  This revelation brought up all the feelings of anger and resentment that I felt after learning of the ridiculous AIG bonuses about a month ago.  You may recall that it came out that AIG was paying huge bonuses to the executives in their financial products unit.  This would be the very same group of executives responsible for the decisions that nearly ran AIG, and our economy, into the ground.

While the public anger over these bonuses has died down somewhat since the news came out,  you probably remember all the demands for the return of the bonus money and the plans to tax them at rates of 90% or more coming out of Congress.  Senator Grassley even suggested that the AIG execs should either resign or commit suicide!  At its peak, the public anger over this news rose to such heights that it appeared that President Obama’s plan to stabilize the financial sector was in serious jeopardy.  Even now, it is unclear what the sort of political will there will be to approve more bailout money in Congress, should Mr. Obama decide that it is needed.  The news about rising executive compensation certainly doesn’t help matters.

This brings me to a question.  It is clear that the taxpayers of this country have been wronged by having their money go to pay bonuses to the very people responsible for this mess.  However, taking revenge on these people or the banking industry as a whole could undermine the effort to stabilize the system, possibly pushing the country, and maybe even the world, into a depression.  This would have an extremely adverse effect on all of us.  So, at what point do the benefits outstrip the consequences?  It is pretty clear that, in this situation, the negative consequences of revenge outstrip the benefit to society.  However, there are many other situations where this cost-benefit analysis is not so clear.  How do we decide when revenge is “worth it”?  Is it ever?

Cartoons and Punishment

Futurama is one of my favorite animated television shows. In a fourth season episode, “Three Hundred Big Boys”, the recent Earth invasion of Tarantulon VI has caused a surplus. To resolve this, Earthican President Richard Nixon gives the riches away to the taxpaying Earth citizens; $300 in the form of a “Tricky-Dick-Fun-Bill”. Bender, the robotic and precocious little scamp that he is, tries to buy an extremely extravagant cigar. Unfortunately for him, the tax rebate isn’t enough for the fine smokable, so he uses his rebate to buy a $300 burglar’s kit (from the same store), comes back that night, and steals the cigar! Throughout the episode, the two recurring, bumbling policemen (Smitty and Url, pronounced Earl) try, unsuccessfully to catch the self-proclaimed “Master Criminal”. Finally, at the end of the episode, everyone learns that money cannot buy happiness, and Bender proclaims…

My story king of petered out without me learning a lesson! Hehehehe!

Just then, Smitty bursts in and screams, “There he is! GET HIM!” As they pin him to the ground and beat him to a pulp, he says

Alright! Closure!

This is what I think of when I think of therapeutic punishment. Obviously the show did it for the sake of humor, but it brings up the same question that Socrates addresses; is it better for an offender of the law to suffer punishment or is it better for said offender to escape from punishment? There are many factors that come into this discussion. There are two states of the offender that I think need to be brought to light.

The first kind of offender is one that feels guilty for his crimes and would welcome punishment, as we see, rather humorously, in Bender’s case. In this case, the question seems almost pointless, as the offender would obviously think that the punishment is good for him.The state that I think would come to the minds of the masses would be of the offender feeling no remorse for his action and would want to avoid having justice enacted on him. This is the type of offender that Socrates addresses in his dialogue with Polus.

You would say that to suffer punishment is another name for being justly corrected when you do wrong?…And would you not allow that all just things are honourable in so far as they are just?

The benefits in regards to the offender is outlined in the above quote. It shows that the cycle of justice will be complete because the punishment of suffering will be just and honorable. He wronged someone, and they are in turn “wronged”. Socrates was trying to argue that by experiencing suffering, you’re experiencing justice, and since justice is a good thing, you’re experiencing something good for you. That’s fine, but I think that there are other benefits that deserve taking a look at. We could look at both the offender’s benefit and the community’s benefit. The offender would be repaying his debt to society and perhaps the punishment could cause him to “turn a new leaf” and spread the word that such actions are not worth the result (if the punishment is anything other than death, that is). From the community’s perspective, his punishment can act as a deterrent for those around so they would hesitate to break the law. The governing powers can flex their muscles and maintain order within their province.

I want to know what everyone else thinks of when they think of therapeutic punishment. Don’t think too hard, just put the first thing that comes to your mind. I want to see if I’m the only one immature enough to immediately envision a cartoon.

Hell hath no fury

My girlfriend and I were sitting in my room a while ago while I was working on a response paper for this class. She asked me what the class what about and when I told her it was about revenge and ethics, she told me about a site she’d seen before about breakup stories and the revenge taken by the offended party.

http://www.revengelady.com/top_ten_stories.html

5. Not so much a revenge story as revenge tips:
If you have access to his email account and contacts, change all of them by one letter or number.
Usually, people will know the person’s name, and automatically save their email address….like: Joe Blow, email: jblower29@somewhere.com
Go in and change one character. Something the least obvious. In this case, I would change the number 29 to 27 and leave everything else.
I did this when I found out my boyfriend who I lived with and was engaged to for four years, was emailing other women on the net. I installed a spyware program and got his passwords. Went into his “secret email account” and changed all the emails to be one number or letter off.
Then I went into his work cell phone, found the disguised phone numbers,and changed them by one or two numbers too. Next time he goes to call, they don’t call him I don’t think, ah bummer. I was going to replace the numbers completely with a number that has been disconnected, but was afraid if I couldn’t find a number that looked somewhat similar that it would be obvious.
The best revenge can be the silent kind
*blink twice* and look innocent….cackling wildly inside the whole time.

That one was number 5 on the top 10 list. It’s my personal favorite because it’s so silly. This isn’t Orestes killing Clytemnestra to avenge the death of his father or Kohlhaas pillaging cities for the pursuit of justice, but it’s close enough. Anyway, this is just an everyday example of how we’re still faced with the dilemma of taking revenge or not. My question to you guys is if you’ve ever found yourself in a situation like this? If so, did you choose to take “revenge” or to let it go? What did you do if you did choose to take revenge?

A TRC here?

With all the inflammatory news about U.S. torture practices that has come out in the last few days, we’re hearing calls for criminal prosecutions or a TRC (truth and reconciliation commission) to address theses wrongs. Roger Cohen’s column today is typical.

I find it interesting–telling–that when such a commission is mentioned, commentators like Cohen call it a “Truth Commission”:

A Truth Commission could address the broad collapse of accountability that opened the way for an imperial presidency and the use of cruel and inhuman treatment, while avoiding a facile search for scapegoats that would allow too many to disregard their own small measure of responsibility.

Cohen is picking up on the way many others have put it, a “Truth Commission” rather than a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” “Reconciliation” has been dropped as the concept of such a commission, with its noble and successful liberal pedigree,  is now being used in many circles as merely a way to go after the torture-enablers in the last administration. Cohen, however, does seem to understand what such a commission is supposed to do, but he has picked up on the mislabeling of the process that’s now rapidly traveling the Zeitgeist–and that’s ironic, considering his column is about the corruption of language.

So let’s be clear about what such a process is for. It establishes a shared and open history for a community so that it can begin to heal. But both elements, truth AND reconciliation are necessary. The trade is rather simple: wrong-doers confess and state the truth and in return are granted immunity for the crimes to which they have confessed. Criminal prosecutions are not a part of this. The goal in the end is reconciliation for all members of the community.

Punishment and Revenge in America’s Favorite Past Time

What was once known as the “power era of baseball” is now referred to as the “Era of steroids”.  Following both the publication of Jose Conseco’s Juiced, autobiography and analysis of steroids in baseball, and the issuing of the Mitchell report, the product of a long term investigation listing contemporary baseball players with evidence of steroid use, means in which these athletes are punished have changed.  This has been highlighted with the recent discovery of Alex Rodriguez’ use of performance enhancing drugs throughout his stint with the Texas Rangers, bringing up several ethical questions regarding punishment.  To what extent should these athletes be punished?  According to David Ortiz, currently with the Boston Red Sox, “You do what you’ve got to do … ban them for the whole year [if they test positive]”.  Should their statistics be changed at all? How do you determine steroids use for merely rehabilitation, as the advertised cased of Andy Pettite, or performance enhancing?  Should this stain be a “red letter” on an application to the Hall of Fame?  On the other hand, Should they be accountable when their colleagues, superiors, and medical staff are apathetic to the practice?  These players are expected to perform at the highest level 162 times in a span of 7 months. In this culture of “what have you done for me lately?” a player’s stats from two years ago are as useful as the baseball used to achieve them (the average life span of a major league baseball is about 7 pitches).  In a world where the majority, if not the large minority, of inhabitants use some form of performance enhancing drugs, it would be easy for a skilled player to find the need to seek an extra burst of power.  As such, is it just to only punish the criminal, or does the society that bred and nurtured the habit need some form of penalty?

Forgiveness

Here’s a story on a Holocaust survivor who decide not to go after war criminals.