4
Can We Blame a Man with No Choice?
NICOLAS MICHAUD
Dexter Morgan walks into a warehouse; it is deserted, dank, and dark. On a table before him is a naked man. The man is bound to the table by plastic wrap and he struggles weakly against the bonds that press and stretch his flesh, making him look like a baked ham at a butcher’s shop. Dexter walks up to the table and, while the man begs for his life, makes a small cut on the man’s cheek using a scalpel. Dexter collects a drop of blood welling up from the incision onto a glass slide. All the while, the man’s begging has no noticeable effect—regardless of the terror in the man’s eyes, or the reasons from his lips, Dexter begins to cut the man into pieces. Although we do not see the gore, we are very aware of what takes place. Dexter doesn’t laugh, and he doesn’t cry, he just smiles as the man dies.
How is it that we can watch these events unfold and yet not think of Dexter as an evil man? When we watch the show Dexter we regularly see scenes like this, and yet we are not bothered. It seems we think that what Dexter is doing isn’t really that bad; as a matter of fact, it might be a good thing because the baked-ham man that Dexter just killed is also a murderer.
Dexter generally only seeks to kill serial killers. He restricts himself to killing people who purposely murder other human beings. But, this isn’t the sole reason why we absolve Dexter: Dexter has a compulsion. There’s a sense in which he must kill. Try as he might, due to the traumatic events of his childhood, Dexter cannot stop himself from indulging his morbid murderous streak. He does attempt to divert that impulse into only the most positive possible ways, but, nevertheless, it is a compulsion that drives him. It seems that Dexter lacks the ability to do other than kill. So, for this reason, too, we absolve Dexter and treat him as a sort of hero—a generally good guy who has an unfortunate burden to bear.
How Much Control Does Dexter Have Over the Butcher’s Knife?
The standard philosophical verdict, then, is to say that because Dexter cannot do other than kill, he cannot be blamed for his actions. When we think about moral responsibility, it seems pretty reasonable to say that if Dexter is going to be blamed, he should be able to choose from among at least two options, in his case, to kill or not to kill.
Dexter’s case is tricky, because it does seem as if he has the ability to choose to kill or not kill particular kinds of victims (guilty ones as opposed to innocent ones), and so it does seem that he has the ability to do other than kill a particular person. But, I think if we take a step back we can see that Dexter lacks the ability to not be a serial killer. He might try, and there are moments when he seems to hang up his butcher’s apron, but he still inevitably returns to killing; his compulsion drives him. So it seems fair to say that Dexter does not have the ability to be other than a serial killer. If he doesn’t have the ability to be otherwise, it doesn’t seem reasonable to blame him for it.
This idea, that we should only blame people when they have the ability to do other than what they’re doing seems pretty convincing for most of us. It is the reason we tend to absolve kleptomaniacs, those who have a mental disorder compelling them to steal. And the reason why, if someone holds a gun to our head and tells us to steal something, we think we should not be blamed for stealing. Some believe that the kleptomaniac had no real choice but to steal, and we argue that if someone holds a gun to our heads that we had no real choice either. We only can reasonably blame others when they have a choice not to do what they are doing. If their only option is to do what they are doing, then why blame them?
If we have no choice but to do what we are doing, then we shouldn’t be blamed. Dexter has no choice but to be a serial killer, so we shouldn’t blame him for being a serial killer. What does he have a choice to do? He has a choice as to which victims he murders. Given this fact, we can blame him for choosing the wrong victims and praise him for choosing the right victims. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what we do when we watch the show. We don’t damn him for being a serial killer. We feel that is something he cannot help; it makes no more sense to blame him for being a serial killer than it makes sense to blame a cheetah for having a need to eat meat. On the other hand, we recognize that his compulsion does not drive him to kill one kind of person, he has a choice: He must kill, but whom he kills is up to him. Being a generally good guy, he chooses to kill people who kill innocent people. Since it seems that he has an actual choice, to kill an innocent person or kill a guilty person, we praise him when he refrains from killing the innocent and kills the guilty instead. But we don’t blame him for killing in general, because he has no option other than to kill.
Does Inevitability Absolve Us?
I’ve just argued that people can’t be blamed for what they do when they have no real choice but to do what they do. But the philosopher Harry Frankfurt (best known for the best seller, On Bullshit) disagrees. Frankfurt maintains that even when we cannot possibly do other than what we in fact do, we can still be held blameworthy for our actions—specifically when what we do is the result of the fact that we want to do it.11 Dexter’s killing clearly falls into this category. And we’ll see that Frankfurt provides us with a very persuasive argument as to why even those people without options can still be held worthy of blame or praise.
Frankfurt’s argument made debatable what everyone thought had been settled. It was pretty widely accepted that people are only to blame for their acts when they have more than one option, and if they have only one option, then they cannot be blamed for taking that option. Frankfurt, though, presented a series of famous counterexamples. Frankfurt gives us examples where we would agree that a man, let’s call him “Dex,” is unable to do anything other than what he does and is still blameworthy. I am going to call this the case of “Dex kills Deb.” We will see how even though Dex has no choice, he can still be blamed in at least once circumstance.
Imagine that “Dex” is seriously considering killing “Deb.” Also imagine that “Brian” is able to control Dex’s actions. Perhaps he can do this using hypnotic suggestion, magic, mind-control devices, whatever best suits our fancy.
Imagine that Dex walks into Deb’s house and does not even hesitate to kill her—he just steps right in and does it. Brian looks on in pleasure, but does nothing. He doesn’t have to use his power to force Dex. Dex walks in to Deb’s house and kills her because he wants to do so. Dex had no choice but to do as he did (because if he had decided not to do it, Brian could have still made him do it), but don’t we still want to hold him morally responsible?
Compare this with a case where Brian does exercise his power and forces Dex to kill Deb. There seems to be a significant difference here. In either case, Dex is going to kill Deb. The important difference, however, is that, in the second case, Dex kills Deb because Brian forces him to, not because he wants to. In the first case Dex kills Deb because he wants to, so Brian doesn’t have to use his mind control. But here is a clear case in which Dex has only one option (to kill Deb), and yet can still be blameworthy—if he does it because he wants to do it and not because he is forced!
To make Frankfurt’s point clearer, imagine that you have serial killer tendencies. You are driving along and see a man step in front of you on the road. What you don’t know is that your steering wheel has locked. If you try to swerve your car, your car will just keep going straight. The broken steering wheel will prevent you from doing anything other than drive straight. So, you have no other options—you will hit the person on the road. The only real question is whether you want to hit the person or not. Well, since you have serial killer tendencies you don’t even try to turn the wheel. You just gleefully keep driving straight and mow the person down. Do you think you should be absolved? After all, your steering wheel was broken and you couldn’t turn if you had wanted to! Well, what Frankfurt is going to say is, “You didn’t even try to turn! Yes you had no other option, but that doesn’t absolve you, as you did what you did not because you had no choice, but because you wanted to do it
!” To Frankfurt why we do what we do is very important.
Judge Frankfurt Rules Dexter Guilty
Well, it does seem that Dexter enjoys being a serial killer. As a matter of fact, he seems to think that he’s doing good work. Perhaps he has some moments of regret now and then and wishes he could live a normal life, but, for the most part, he seems to be pretty happy removing evil people from the world. In other words, his status of being a serial killer is not one that has come about only because he has a compulsion. Yes, it’s true that if Dexter tried to give up killing, he would fail. His illness is such that he must kill other people, but does he really try not to do so? It seems that in most cases there is no attempt at restraint, or regret. As a matter of fact, his biggest concern is getting caught. Dexter kills people not because he has to do so, but because he wants to.
This is a serious problem, then. Dexter, by Frankfurt’s argument is still blameworthy for being a serial killer. Some might argue, in Dexter’s defense, that Dexter truly hates his compulsion, which might well be true. Nevertheless, Dexter does not hate it enough to truly prevent himself from acting as he does. I recognize that a compulsion is very possibly impossible to fight, but if he turned himself in, for example, he would likely be unable to kill again. From this we can conclude that his status as a serial killer is something that he is, at the very least, unwilling to give up his life or freedom to change. So, according to Frankfurt, even though he has no choice, he’s still to blame for being a serial killer. Why? Because Dexter is not a killer simply on account of his compulsion; he’s a killer because he wants to kill people he thinks are bad.
One option, if we want to defend Dexter, is to argue that he lacks the ability to want to not be a serial killer. If that’s true, then Dexter lacks the capability to try to turn himself in or otherwise stop himself from killing. In this case it seems that Dexter has no choice but to want to be a serial killer, and so he’s a serial killer because of that fact. To be clear, this means that not only does he want to be a serial killer, but he also cannot even form the desire to not be a serial killer.
There are two levels of compulsion then. Level One is the compulsion to kill, which leaves room for wishing you didn’t have that compulsion. Level Two is the compulsion to have the Level One compulsion, and so you cannot even try to change the Level One compulsion because you’re compelled to want to have it. But, is the fact that Dexter is a serial killer only the result of his compulsion? If it is, then according to Frankfurt we should not blame Dexter. If, on the other hand, Dexter is a serial killer not just because of his compulsion, but also because he wants to be, then Dexter is to blame.
Frankfurt is pretty strict. He’s only going to acquit Dexter if Dexter’s being a serial killer is the result of just his compulsion. But I think Dexter kills not just because of his compulsion. I think he wants to want to be a serial killer. Consider the lesson Dexter learns from his failed attempt at rehab in Season 2. Early in the season, he treats his ‘killing problem’ as an addiction and tries to fight it. This doesn’t last long. Well before the end of the season we find Dexter killing again. It doesn’t seem to be because he succumbed to his addiction. He is empowered to kill. It appears that he wants to want to kill. So he does not have the Level Two compulsion. He is capable of not wanting to be a serial killer, but he does not turn himself in because he’d rather be a serial killer than be in prison, or executed. I recognize that this conclusion is debatable. Some of you may think that Dexter truly does have the Level Two compulsion. Let’s grant for a moment that he does, because this leads to an interesting dilemma.
Any Way You Slice It
If it’s true that Dexter has a severe compulsion, and therefore, even by Frankfurt’s arguments is not blameworthy, it’s because being a serial killer is the result of compulsion—a violation of human will. Serial killers, in general, then would fall into the category of people who do what they do only because of their compulsion. They do what they do not because they want to, but because they have no other option. The fact that they have no other option is the entire reason why they do what they do. Well now, Dexter has a problem. Dexter kills serial killers because they are guilty. They are people who choose to kill innocent people, from his perspective. But if they are also compulsives, like himself—and let’s assume that some of them are—shouldn’t they also be absolved?
If we absolve serial killers, they are in effect innocent. Yes, they kill, but they don’t do it because they want to do it, they do it because their brains are such that they must be serial killers. So not only do they lack the ability to be anything other than serial killers, they are serial killers only because of their illnesses. If this is the case, then, even by Frankfurt’s strict argument, we have to absolve them. This means, though, that Dexter is going around killing innocent people. If that’s the case, then he’s breaking Harry’s Code and is himself a guilty person, and is thereby required by the Code to remove himself from society, whether by killing himself or through some other means.
Well, the other horn of the dilemma is to say that serial killers are blameworthy. There could be many reasons why we say this. We might argue that they still enjoy what they do, or that they have more control than we think they have, or they still do what they do, in part, because they want to do it. If serial killers really didn’t want to kill humans, we would at least see them try some other options. They could go hunting, or play really violent videogames or something else to fulfill their murderous lusts. And we could argue that if they lack the ability to try to do otherwise, they can’t not want to be serial killers. Well then, they still want to be serial killers. So even if that want is not something they can control, it is still a bad want.
If that last argument is true, even in the most extreme case, Dexter can’t control wanting to be a serial killer, but he is still guilty for acting like a serial killer as a result of that want. The want is beyond his control, but it’s still bad, and he, thereby is bad for fulfilling a bad desire. When you think about it, it makes sense. Think of a really good person, someone like Mother Teresa. She probably couldn’t want to be an evil person. Her genetics or her brain or something prevents her from even being able to form the desire to do evil. So when we praise her for being a good person, we’re praising someone who has no choice but to want to be a good person. What really matters is what she does with that want. Does she let herself fulfill her desire to be good, or does she try to hold back for other selfish reasons?
Well Dexter may not be able to control his want, either. He wants to be a serial killer, and he lets himself be one. Now, granted, he does try to fulfill that want in the most productive means possible, but that doesn’t change the fact that he wants to be a serial killer and acts like one too. So from this argument’s perspective, if serial killers are not absolved due to their compulsion, neither is Dexter.
So it seems that Dexter has a dilemma. Either
#1. Dexter agrees that serial killers, like himself, are compulsives and compulsives are absolved of their crimes because they could not even want to do other than they do
or
#2. Dexter agrees that serial killers are still blameworthy because they want to be serial killers, and act to fulfill that want.
If he agrees with #1 then he must agree that he is killing innocent people and if he agrees with #2 he agrees that serial killers are to blame and by the same token he’s also to blame.
Almost Caught!
After months of careful planning Dexter walks into a dimly-lit room at Princeton University. Silently, he walks behind a plush leather armchair, syringe in hand, ready to kill again.
“Sit down, Dexter” says Harry Frankfurt.
Caught by surprise, Dexter freezes where he is.
“You cannot find a way out of this dilemma, Dexter. So you might as well sit down. Killing me will accomplish nothing.”
“Unfortunately, Dr. Frankfurt, you know too much,” replies the unusually perturbed Dexter.
“Well, let�
��s talk about it, Dexter.” Frankfurt’s chair swivels around and Dexter can now clearly see the face of his nemesis. Dexter thinks to himself, “Why not?” and sits down to discuss the dilemma.
“Let’s be reasonable, Dexter,” the Professor says, “we both know that killing me is not part of your usual M.O. In fact, if you kill me you will just be proving my point.
“You mean that if I kill you, given the fact that you are not a serial killer, I am demonstrating the fact that I am not a compulsive who can only kill serial killers, . . . that I have a choice?
“Correct.”
“But, Professor Frankfurt, if I were to kill you, wouldn’t I also be showing that I am a compulsive about being a serial killer itself, that I cannot want to be anything other than a serial killer?”
The professor looks at the syringe in Dexter’s hand and knows he has a problem. Dexter begins to stand up.
“Wait!” Dr Frankfurt implores. “But Dexter, are you sure?” Are you sure that you cannot want to be other than a serial killer? Are you sure that you’re so compulsive that you’re willing to kill anyone who gets in the way of your being a serial killer, like me and Doakes?”
Dexter and Philosophy Page 6