Lecture 22 Racism II: Kwame Anthony Appiah

Lecture 22 Racism and Racialism:

Kwame Anthony Appiah

22.1 Introduction

Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay in the Rachels anthology, “Racisms,” is a good example of the Principle of Charity. The principle is to formulate the strongest version of your opponent’s argument so that you can attack the best version of it. If you deliberately use a weak version of the argument, you are committing the straw man fallacy.

22.2 Problems in Defining Race

Race, as a coherent concept (whether as ethnic identity or biological category) is unsound, and race, as such, does not exist. Racism does exist, however. What does this tell us? The importance of an idea has nothing to do with how good it is. Bad ideas are lethal.

Ashley Montague defines race as a “group of human beings which exist in nature and are comprised of individuals that possess a certain aggregate of characters which individually and collectively serve to define the individuals in all other groups.” More recently, sociologists have defined race as “a concept which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests amongst different types of human bodies.” The Encyclopedia Britannica defines racism as “the theory or idea that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and certain traits of personality, intellect, or culture and, combined with it, the notion that some races are inherently superior to others.” (All cited on p. 21 B. Isaac The Invention of Race in Classical Antiquity).

Note that few racists would bother or be able to articulate what they actually mean by race. To critique racism (like other malignant ideologies) it is often necessary to define the terms ourselves. (But even anti- racist discourse can be confused. Many anti- racism advocates, for example, will insist that racial differences exist, yet will discuss particular ‘racial’ groupings). Benjamin Isaac writes:

A major, but misguided effort was made to define and explain race in nonracist terms by the UNESCO in its "statement on race."⁸⁴ It is misguided because its basic assumption is the existence of races.⁸⁵ Numerous modern authors do not believe in the reality of race themselves, but they still proceed from the assumption that race exists for racists, in the sense that racists are believed to respond to real physical traits of the targets of racism.⁸⁶ Here we are back to the serious consequences of an insufficiently lucid understanding of the essence of racism. I repeat once more, although it should be superfluous to say so, that racism is never caused by the physical characteristics of the other.⁸⁷

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7737.html

p.265: Affirmative Action (defn) Affirmative actionis a policy or a program whose stated goal is to redress past or present discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment

p.265. The methodology of this essay is reconstructivist; Appiah aims to give an account of racism as if racists were rational beings. “My claim is that these theoretical claims (of popular racism) are required to make sense of racism as the practice of reasoning human beings.”

22.3 Racism as a Cognitive Problem

p.266 Appiah concedes that racialism is a cognitive, rather than a moral problem.

(Discussion: are people responsible for any cognitive problems that they may have?)

22.4 Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Racism

Intrinsic racists are, according to Appiah,

…people who differentiate morally between members of different races because they believe that each race has a different moral status, quite independent of the moral characteristics entailed by its racial essence. Just as, for example, many people assume that they are biologically related to another person…. gives them a moral interest in that person, so an intrinsic racist holds that the bare fact of being of the same race is a reason for preferring one person to another. (TRTTD:267).

Call this the family model of racism.

Extrinsic racists, by contrast, point out to alleged racial differences to justify their beliefs in inferiority of other groups of people. Such beliefs require the attribution of characteristics to entire populations. Appiah discusses the family model at length on pages 276- 278.

He argues that it is a bad analogy.

A rational defense of the family ought to appeal to the causal responsibility of the biological parent and the common life of the domestic unit, and not to the brute fact of biological relatedness, even if the former pair of considerations defines groups that are often coextensive with the groups generated by the latter. For brute relatedness bears no necessary connection to the sorts of human purposes that seem likely to be relevant at the most basic level of ethical thought. (Appiah p. 277).

22.5 The Taste Analogy

Appiah considers the idea that racism is simply due to an innate cultural prejudice, like food preference. He gives this short shrift: “a proper analogy would be with someone who thought that we could continue to kill cattle for beef, even if cattle exercised all the complex cultural skills of human beings.” (Appiah p. 275).

22.5 Self- Serving Rationalizations

Many people who express extrinsic racist beliefs are beneficiaries of social orders that deliver advantages to them by virtue of their race…(Appiah p. 268)

Discussion: Could this be true of Aristotle? Hume? Kant?

22.6 Cognitive Incapacity, Narcissism, and Personal Responsibility

An inability to change your mind in the face of appropriate evidence is a cognitive incapacity; but it is one that all of us surely suffer from in some areas of belief: especially in areas where our own interests or self- images are at stake. Appiah p.269

The following is the one clearly moral problem in the essay (racism is not in itself a philosophical problem, for it is so obviously immoral):

we may wonder whether it is right to treat such people [racists] as morally responsible for the acts their racial prejudice motivates, or morally reprehensible for holding the views to which their prejudice leads them. It is a bad thing that such people exist; they are, in a certain sense, bad people. But it is not clear to me that they are responsible for the fact that they are bad. Racial prejudice, like prejudice generally, may threaten an agent’s autonomy, making it appropriate to treat or train rather than reason with them. (Appiah p. 271)

Discussion: Is this correct? Keep in mind that Appiah’s strongest argument against racism is Kantian.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

You should know the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic racism

You should know the distinction between empirical and essentialist theories of racism

DON’T PANIC

Lecture 21 Racism in the Age of Enlightenment

Lecture 21

Race and Racism

21.1 References for these Lectures

Isaac Kramnick, ed. The Portable Enlightenment Reader (London: Penguin, 1995).

Friedrich Nietzsche The Will to Power trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale

(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967)

Frantz Fanon Black Skin White Masks trans. Charles Lam Markmann (Macgimmon and Kee)

James Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy 4^th Edition (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003).

Kwame Anthony Appiah “Racisms”, in James Rachels, ed. The Right Thing To Do (Boston:

McGraw Hill, 2003): 264- 281.

Richard H. Popkin “Eighteenth Century Racism,” in Richard H. Popkin, Ed. The Columbia History of Western Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 1999): 508- 515

Jared Diamond Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (London: W.W.

Norton, 1997)

Michael Levin “Squaring the Circle” (review of Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel)

http://www.lrianc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html

Arudo Debito, “On Racism in Japan: Why one may be hopeful for the future,” presented at Meiji Gakuin University Symposium “International Studies of Our New Era: Immigrants, Refugees and Women,” Sunday, July 17^th, 2005.

www.debito.org/meijigakuin071705.html –

Chris Hogg “Japanese racism deep and profound,” BBC News, Monday 11^th July 2005

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4671687.stm

Professor N. Zack, course outline, PHIL 607 Philosophy of Race, Spring 2004

http://www.uoregon.edu/~uophil/faculty/nzack/zack607.htm

Benjamin Isaac: The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, Princeton University Press, 2004

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7737.pdf

21.2 Pre- Lecture Discussion questions.

1). What is race?

2). What is racism?

3). What is a phenotype?

4). What is a human?

5). What is Kant’s conception of human nature?

6). Why, for Kant, are all humans morally important?

7). Are there any moral issues concerning race in Japan?

8) Can you name any cases of Japanese people as either the victims or perpetrators of

racism?

9) What, in your opinion, is the cause of racism?

10) What are the differences between the Japanese and the Korean people? And are

these differences intrinsic, or contingent (caused by cultural or environmental factors,

for example?).

21.3 Reading Questions.

We will look at three texts from the 18^th Century, written by three of the most important moral philosophers in history- David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Paine.

21.3 a). Reading David Hume Essays, Political and Philosophical (1742)

1). Why does Hume think that ‘Negroes’ (Africans) are naturally inferior to whites?

2). What counterexample to Kant’s opinion does he discuss?

3). Is his discussion of this counterexample adequate?

21.3 b). Reading Immanuel Kant The Difference Between the Races (1764)

1). What does Kant say about Chinese culture? Are these comments fair, do you think?

2). What does Kant say about the Japanese? Are these comments fair, do you think?

3). What does Kant say about African religion?

4). (p. 639). Kant reports on a black man who considered sexual equality foolish. Kant suggests that the black man had said something intelligent, then decides that he was, in fact, stupid. Why?

5). Do any of Kant’s comments on Blacks in this essay contradict his moral philosophy?

21.4 c). Reading Thomas Paine African Slavery in America (1775)

1). According to Paine, how many blacks were enslaved annually? How many were killed after one year of enslavement?

2). It was argued that slaves are simply property, and so their sale and purchase was therefore legal. How does Paine reply?

3). What is the argument from Biblical authority? And how does Paine respond?

4). What does Paine suggest be done with freed slaves? Are his suggestions ethical? Why, or why not?

21.5 Introduction: Rachels: Racism is an Expression of Ethical Egoism

A moral discussion on the topic of race is not a simple matter. This is because, as Rachels notes, there is no moral ambiguity or complexity: racism is clearly immoral and irrational. It is essentially arbitrary. It places moral significance on the morally trivial- that is, skin color. In Rachels’ Elements of Moral Complexity:

The requirement of impartiality… is at bottom nothing more than a proscription against arbitrariness in dealing with people. It is a rule that forbids us from treating one person differently from another when there is no good reason to do so (Rachels EMP: 14).

Later in the text, Rachels gives the following statement on Ethical Egoism, that is, the idea that it is morally correct to consider one’s own interests as more important than those of others.

There is a whole family of moral views that have this in common: they all involve dividing people into groups and saying that the interests of some groups count for more than the interests of other groups. Racism is the most conspicuous example; racism divides people into groups according to race and assigns greater importance to the interests of one race than to others. The practical result is that members of one race are treated better than others. Anti- Semitism works the same way, and so does nationalism (EMP: 88).

(Discussion: what is Nationalism, in this sense? Is a nationalistic attitude ever beneficial, rather than destructive? Note that Abe wants to make national pride a part of state education).

Rachels goes on to define morality in such a way as to define racism (and all other forms of arbitrariness) as immoral:

Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason- that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing- while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does. (Rachels EMP: 14).

Consequently,

Racism means counting the interests of the members of other races as less important than the interests of the members of one’s own race, despite the fact that there is no general difference between the races that would justify doing so. It is an offence against morality because it is first an offence against reason. Similar remarks could be made about other doctrines that provide humanity into the favored and disfavored, such as egoism, sexism, and nationalism. The upshot is that reason requires impartiality: We ought to act so as to promote the interests of everyone alike. (EMP: 193).

For Rachels, racism is nothing more than an aberration of correct moral thinking. Yet, as we know, many of the greatest moral philosophers were, by any definition, completely racist. Why is this? More centrally, was their racism consistent with, or in spite of, their moral theories?

21. 6 Race and Racism before the Enlightenment:

Racist and anti- Jewish (anti- Semitic) views were given religious justifications even before Christianity. Anti- Semitism existed in the Roman Empire, which imposed special taxes on Jews for not recognizing the Gods of Rome or for refusing to work on the Sabbath. In the Middle Ages, Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. Later generations of forced converts (who practiced their religion in secret) were then tortured and killed during the Spanish Inquisition. Jews were forced out of England in 1290, and France in 1390.

With the discovery of the Americas in the 1400’s, and the rise of slavery of Africans, it was widely argued that Africans and South Americans were not fully human and so were not entitled to their land or their freedom. Biblical explanations were offered to justify slavery and cultural destruction:

The accepted view at the time was that all people were descended from the survivors of Noah’s Ark. Europeans had found their origins as descendants of various grandchildren of Noah, dispersed after the building of the tower of Babel. Africans were assumed to be descendants of Ham and his son Canaan, whose skin was reported to have been darkened because they disgraced Noah. But where did the Native Americans come from? The Bible provided no clue. Various theories were proposed in order to grapple with the logistics of traveling from the Middle East to the Americas. Around 1600, some hardy souls suggested that the Indians had an origin separate from the biblical world. Such a view was heretical, since it denied that the Bible was the complete history of mankind. (Popkin p. 509).

This is not to say that Christianity was essentially racist: many early critics of racism were in fact members of the church. A few of the early priests in the Americas considered the Natives morally superior to the Europeans, and in 1537 Pope Paul declared that all the peoples of the world were human. This did nothing to slow the conquest of the Earth by Europeans, however.

21.7 Race and Racism at the Dawn of the Age of Reason: Count Buffon (1702- 1788) and Karl Linneaus (1707- 1778)

The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the ‘Age of Reason’) largely eliminated purely religious explanations for racial difference. Instead, natural, ‘scientific’ (or rather ‘pseudoscientific’) explanations were offered to account for racial difference. Count Buffon (1702-1788), widely considered the greatest biologist of all time, stated that all humans were members of the same species, Homo sapiens. Differences between racial groups were due, he thought, to climate and other factors. He believed that the original skin color was white. He thought that all children begin white, and gradually change color. “Due to climate, nutrition, and education, many people had degenerated from the natural condition to the varieties of mankind that we now find. If these people could be moved into a band of territory stretching from the Caucasus Mountains to northwestern Europe, fed French food, and given a French education, the differences among human beings would disappear. This assumed that all non- European qualities were due to degeneration and that the European person was the best. Buffon optimistically thought that in ten generations everyone would be transformed into Europeans, and then there would be no racial differences among people.” (Popkin: 511).

The Swedish biologist Linneaus (1707-1778) classified mankind into four permanent groups: American Indians, Asiatics, Africans, and Europeans. He defines the American Indians first: note, again, that the best qualities are attributed to the Europeans. (NB: how does his definition cohere with that of Kant? And how does this relate to Kant’s theory of human nature?)

[American Indians:] copper- colored, choleric, erect. hair black, straight, thick; nostrils wide; face harsh; beard scanty, obstinate, only content when free… regulated by customs. (2) Europeans, fair, sanguine, brawny. Hair yellow- brown, flowing; eyes blue, gentle, acute, inventive. Covered in close vestments. Governed by laws. (3). Asiatic. Sooty, melancholy, rigid. Hair black; eyes dark; severe, haughty, covetous. Covered with loose garments. Governed by opinion. (4). African. Black, phlegmatic, relaxed. Hair black, frizzled; skin silky, nose flat, lips tumid; crafty, indolent, negligent. Anoints himself with grease; governed by caprice. (Quoted in Popkin p. 510).

21. 7 David Hume: Empirical Racism

In David Hume and Immanuel Kant we see a distinction between two types of racism. Popkin calls these Empirical and Transcendental racism (Kwame Anthony Appiah, who we will read for the next lecture, calls these extrinsic and intrinsic racism). In his essay “Of National Characters,” Hume writes that

I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all of the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) [1] to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have all still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are NEGROE slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity, tho’ low people without education will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but ‘tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly (in Popkin p.512).

As an empiricist, Hume claimed to be basing his argument on what could be directly observed. As such, he was inconsistent with the basic principle of his epistemology, as there were plenty of intelligent Africans around to contradict his assumptions. The Jamaican that Hume refers to was in fact Francis Williams, a graduate of Cambridge University, who ran a school and wrote poetry in Latin. In Hume’s day there were around ten thousand blacks in London, some of whom were professionals, one of whom was an employee of the writer Samuel Johnson. There were also at least two black professors of philosophy in Europe at the time as well: Anton Wilhelm Amo in Halle, and James Eliza Capitein in Leiden. Phillis Wheatley, an African- American poet, was in fact sent to England to disprove the likes of Hume. A French campaigner, abbé Henri Grégoire (1750-1831), published his book The Literature of Negroes in both English and French for the same reason. Yet for the following century, people would quote “the great philosopher Hume” in defending slavery and the belief that blacks are ‘sub- humans.’

21.8 Immanuel Kant: Transcendental Racism

From Popkin: “Perhaps the strongest philosophical statement of the theory of the natural and irremediable inferiority of blacks was offered by Immanuel Kant. During most of his academic life, Kant gave a course on anthropology in which he accepted much of the explorer and traveler literature uncritically” [recall that Kant never traveled in his life]. He developed a theory that what constituted the conception of humanity itself was based on feeling [and also, that what makes us human is our reason]. He thus declared that the “African has no feeling beyond the trifling,” and that therefore barely his character, is barely capable of moral action, and is a lesser human being. In his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, Kant stated:

Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a simple example in which a Negro has shown talents, and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of blacks who are transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of them have been set free, still not a single one was ever found who presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy quality; even among the whites some continually rise aloft from the lowest rabble, and through superior gifts earn respect in the world. So fundamental is the difference between the two races of men, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color. (In Popkin p. 513).

Kant goes on to reject the reasoning of a particular black man, as he was “quite black from head to foot.” (This is, of course, the Genetic Fallacy). As Popkin points out, Kant is offering, not an empirical, but a transcendental basis for the distinction between blacks and whites. The inferiority of the blacks is beyond any particular observable trait. The German philosopher Johann Gottleib Fichte (1762- 1814) (a follower of Kant), used similar (un)reasoning to explain the essential inferiority of German Jews from other Germans: a Jew can read German, a Jew can write German, but a Jew can never be German.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

You need to know that philosophers are generally amateurs on any subject other than pure philosophy

You should know what Kant and Hume have to say on the subject of race.

You should decide whether the racism of these four thinkers is contradictory, or consistent, with their own moral thought.

You should know the distinction between empirical and ‘transcendental’ theories of racism

Homework:

please read the Kwame Anthony Appiah article in the Rachels anthology.

---

[1] note: against Buffon, Hume describes non- Europeans as other species

What You Need to Know for the Second Test

Lakeland College Shinjuku December 2006

Dr. Geoffrey Roche

Ethics 212-1

Format: Answer any TWO questions, ONLY ONE from each section. Time allowed: 1 hour 30 minutes.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR THE FINAL TEST

Section 1 Virtue Ethics (lectures 11 and 12)

You should be able to explain Aristotle’s notion of Telos (purpose), phronesis (practical reason), Eudaimonia (flourishing), and arête (excellence).

You should be able to explain some of the shortcomings of Virtue Ethics, in particular the incompleteness problem and the egoism problem.
You should be able to explain the question as to whether the wicked can flourish.

Section 2 Nietzsche and Slave Morality (lectures 14 and 15)

You should know what the Genealogy of Morals is

You should know why Nietzsche rejects all normative ethics, in particular Utilitarianism and Kant

You should know about Nietzsche’s morality.

You should know the basic flaws in Nietzsche’s ‘Genealogy of Morals’ theory.

You should think about the implications of accepting Nietzsche’s ethics.

Section 3 Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (lectures 16 and 17)

You need to be able to give a definition of Voluntary Euthanasia
You need to be able to explain the difference between Voluntary Euthanasia and Non- Voluntary Euthanasia
You need to be able to explain the two main arguments in favor of VE: Utilitarianism (both Classical and Preference Utilitarianism) and Deontological (respect for rights).
You need to be able to explain Paternalism and Autonomy

You need to be able to explain the three STRONGEST objections to the legalization or (as in Japan) tolerance of Voluntary Euthanasia.
You should be able to explain the difference between Active and Passive Euthanasia
You should know what the Slippery Slope argument is.
You should know how the situation in Japan complicates the Euthanasia debate.

Section 4 Punishment and the Death Penalty (lectures 18 and 19)

You need to know what Retributivism means
You should know what the standard arguments in favour of the death penalty are
You should know the Utilitarian arguments both for and against the death penalty are
You should know what Rehabilitation is
You should know the ways in which Retributivism is inconsistent with Utilitarianism

You should know the strongest arguments for, and against, the death penalty.

You should know the counterarguments for these arguments.

You should be able to articulate a response to the question “should Japan retain the death penalty?”

Section 5 The Non- Medical Use of Drugs (lectures 20 and 21)
You need to know what the terms Autonomy and Paternalism are.
You need to know what the non- arbitrary distinction is between legal and illegal drugs is, or, if there isn’t one, why not, and what the distinction should be based on.
You need to know what Prohibition in the United States was, and why it failed.

You need to know the strongest arguments presented by Milton Friedman and Bob Bennett, and how each would reply. You need to be able to defend your view on dangerous drugs, whether legal or illegal. (This requires that you can cite and critically discuss AT LEAST THREE counterarguments).

Section 6 Race and Racism (lectures 22 and 23)

You should know the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic racism

You should know the distinction between empirical and essentialist theories of racism

You should know what Kant, Hume, Nietzsche and Aristotle have to say on the subject of race.

You should decide whether the racism of these four thinkers is contradictory, or consistent, with their own moral thought.

Preparation for Lectures 21 and 22: Philosophy and Race

Preparation for Lectures 21 and 22: Philosophy and Race

Reference: Isaac Kramnick, ed. The Portable Enlightenment Reader (London: Penguin, 1995).

Discussion questions.

1). What is race?

2). What is racism?

3). What is a phenotype?

4). What is a human?

5). What is Kant’s conception of human nature?

6). Why, for Kant, are all humans morally important?

7). Are there any moral issues concerning race in Japan?

8) Can you name any cases of Japanese people as either the victims or perpetrators of

racism?

9) What, in your opinion, is the cause of racism?

10) What are the differences between the Japanese and the Korean people? And are

these differences intrinsic, or contingent (caused by cultural or environmental factors,

for example?).

Reading Questions.

We will look at three texts from the 18^th Century, written by three of the most important moral philosophers in history- David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Paine.

a). Reading David Hume Essays, Political and Philosophical (1742)

1). Why does Hume think that ‘Negroes’ (Africans) are naturally inferior to whites?

2). What counterexample to Kant’s opinion does he discuss?

3). Is his discussion of this counterexample adequate?

b). Reading Immanuel Kant The Difference Between the Races (1764)

1). What does Kant say about Chinese culture? Are these comments fair, do you think?

2). What does Kant say about the Japanese? Are these comments fair, do you think?

3). What does Kant say about African religion?

4). (p. 639). Kant reports on a black man who considered sexual equality foolish. Kant suggests that the black man had said something intelligent, then decides that he was, in fact, stupid. Why?

5). Do any of Kant’s comments on Blacks in this essay contradict his moral philosophy?

c). Reading Thomas Paine African Slavery in America (1775)

1). According to Paine, how many blacks were enslaved annually? How many were killed after one year of enslavement?

2). It was argued that slaves are simply property, and so their sale and purchase was therefore legal. How does Paine reply?

3). What is the argument from Biblical authority? And how does Paine respond?

4). What does Paine suggest be done with freed slaves? Are his suggestions ethical? Why, or why not?

Lecture 19: The Death Penalty II

Lecture 19

Punishment and the Death Penalty II

19.1 References:

The handout today is from Victor Grassian Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary Moral Problems (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992). It is a little more complex than Rachels, but I think it is a much better book.

19.2 Preliminary questions

۞ Define the following terms: retributive justice, rehabilitation, lex talionis.

۞ What are the Utilitarian arguments in favour of the death penalty?

۞ What are the Utilitarian arguments against the death penalty?

۞ What, for Beccaria, is the purpose of the justice system?

۞ What, for Kant, is the purpose of the justice system?

19.3 Utilitarian Arguments for the Death Penalty: Analysis

19.4 The Death Penalty Saves Money

19.5The Self- Defense Argument

19.6 Arguments Against the Death Penalty

19.7 The Death Penalty is Inhumane and Anachronistic

19.8 The Death Penalty is Unjustified Retribution

19.9 The Death Penalty is Not a Deterrent

19.10 The Death Penalty is Internationally Reviled

19.11 The Death Penalty is Unfairly Applied

19.12 The Death Penalty is Irreversible, and Miscarriages of Justice are Morally Unacceptable

19.13 The Death Penalty is Barbaric

19.14 Response to 19.8: To reject the death penalty as ‘unjustified’ is a matter of faith

19.15 Response to 19.9: a). not clear either way b). biased sample fallacy? C). beside the point, if you are not a Utilitarian

19.16 Response to 19.11: Fairness is beside the point- the argument appears to presuppose that, ideally, the death penalty could be applied.

19.17 Response to 19.12: This is an acceptable loss

19.18 Response to 19.13: The Death Penalty is not all that degrading; in any case, being nice is less important than seeing Justice Served

19.3 Utilitarian Arguments for the Death Penalty: Analysis

Again, the basic idea of Utilitarianism is the maximization of happiness. Defenders of capital punishment argue that executions benefit society more than not executing them. Whether or not this is true is not a question for philosophers but for those that study society (sociologists or economists). There is no conclusive evidence either way. The question may even be too complex to be answered.

19.4 The Death Penalty Saves Money

It has been argued that the death penalty saves money, as the cost of the trial required is less than the cost of keeping someone in jail for decades. In the United States, at least, this is not the case- the cost of the trial is far greater than that of imprisonment. In countries without such a cautious legal system (China) this argument would not apply.

19.5 The Self- Defense Argument

It has been argued that society is justified in executing murderers in the name of self- defense. “The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the individual is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment. However, for this analogy to be successful, it must parallel the accepted principle that self- defense with deadly force is justified only when there is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term imprisonment).” (Stanford Article, “Punishment”). In any case, the idea that stopping the death penalty will destroy a whole country is preposterous.

19.6 Arguments Against the Death Penalty

In the words of Justice Brennan (cited by Bedau), the death penalty is “uncivilized,”, “inhuman,” inconsistent with “human dignity” and with “the sanctity of life,” that it “treats members of the human race as non-humans, as objects to be with toyed with and discarded,” that it is “uniquely degrading to human nature” and “by its very nature, [involves] a denial of the executed person’s humanity.” Let’s look at these arguments in detail.

19.7 The Death Penalty is Widely Considered Inhumane and Anachronistic

(Bedau, in Rachels RTTD: 240). Of all the democracies, Japan and the United States alone still have the death penalty. It was stopped in France in 1981; in the UK in 1971. Bedau argues that this fact alone makes it morally wrong. Bedau also argues that the death penalty is ‘old- fashioned.’

Discussion: Is this a sufficiently good reason to ban the practice?

19.8 The Death Penalty is Unjustified Retribution

Retribution does not alone justify the death sentence.

Bedau argues that, because all punishment is retributive anyway, a life sentence should be a sufficiently high punishment. (Rachels TRTTD: 238-239).

The Death Penalty is just Revenge

In the words of the Death Penalty Information Center website, “retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.” This is, as discussed in the Nietzsche lectures, the position of Nietzsche.

۞Is all retribution just revenge? According to this logic, even lifelong imprisonment for murderers is ‘just revenge.’ So should all retributive justice be scrapped?

۞ What exactly is the problem with revenge? (Is there a Utilitarian argument against revenge? What about a deontological argument against revenge? Could there be a Christian origin of this notion of love over revenge?).

۞What does ‘mature society’ mean? We practically inherited our entire Western legal system from the Romans- and they would have people killed for the fun of it.

Victor Grassian gives a sharper critique of this idea that justice is ‘just revenge.’

Those with liberal political leanings often dismiss retributivism as nothing but a rationalization for revenge. This is a mistake […] the retributive model may be the only protection a criminal can have against a Utilitarianism gone mad, for this model, unlike the utilitarian one, treats criminals as free agents who have rights protecting them from being completely at the mercy of someone else’s conception of the common good or of what it is to be an adequate human being. Grassian p.353.

That is, imagine someone who is imprisoned for stealing a sports car. The justice system thinks that ‘punishment’ is just ‘revenge,’ and so the court decides to treat the thief with a drug that makes the person, in effect, a different person. Note that this is totally different to the idea of ‘punishment.’ Is it better, or worse? (Anthony Burgess’s novel Clockwork Orange concerns this idea).

The death Penalty is Excessively Cruel

French philosopher Albert Camus[1] argued that execution is in fact a greater crime than the murder itself.

For there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months.

In the same spirit, Bedau states that the Government should not use “premeditated, violent homicide as an instrument of social policy” (Rachels RTTD: 239).

Discussion:

a). Do you agree with Camus? Why, or why not?

b). Suppose that a sadistic killer imprisoned a victim, and told him or her that

they would be killed at dawn in exactly six months. Suppose also that the killer

did in fact kill their victim, and was later arrested and sentenced by a court.

According to Camus’s logic, would they deserve the death penalty?

c). Which is the worse fate? Being killed by a stranger on the street at night, without

even the opportunity to say goodbye to the people you love, or finish your projects,

or being killed by a prison system after several months of waiting?

d). Is there a moral difference between killing a stranger in the street for his wallet,

and the upcoming hanging of Shōkō Asahara? If so, what is it? Are Camus and

Bedau just wrong, then?

Van den Haag’s response: “The difference between murder and execution, or between kidnapping and imprisonment, is that the first is unlawful and undeserved, the second a lawful and deserved punishment for an unlawful act. The physical similarities of the punishment to the crime are irrelevant.” (RTTD:245).

The Families of the Victims Sometime Oppose the Death Penalty

Bedau makes this point (Rachels p.239). There are in fact societies of the families of murder victims who oppose the death penalty. But this is only a small group; in any case, in Japan and the United States many people (including the families of victims) are in favour of the death penalty.

19.9 The Death Penalty is Not a Deterrent

Bedau does not think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. He gives two reasons.

a). A Punishment must be consistently and promptly employed

(Recall that Beccaria had made this point). Bedau notes that only 3 per cent of people sentenced for murder actually get executed. It also takes a long time to be executed, as capital trials are more expensive and complex. It is not possible to speed up the trial process without removing the safeguards necessary.

b). People who commit murder and other crimes do not premeditate their crimes.

Writes Bedau, “persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes…

-When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest and conviction.” Hence, the criminal thinks that he or she is too smart to get caught.

-Most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Bedau: “Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended.” Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox: “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

c). Lifelong imprisonment appears to be just as good a deterrent.

The murder rate in the United States without the death penalty are actually lower than in states with the death penalty.

19.11 The Death Penalty is Unfairly Applied

Racism

See Rachels TRTTD: pp.233-235

It has been noted that the proportion of blacks (African Americans) executed in the United States is out of proportion to the total number of executed murderers. Notes Bedau, since the death penalty was reintroduced in the United States in the 1970’s, about half the people on death row have been black. He concedes [admits, without wanting to] that “the rate is not so obviously unfair if one considers that roughly 50 per cent of all those arrested for murder were also black.” Yet “when those under death sentence are examined more closely, it turns out that race is a decisive factor after all” (TRTTD: 235). He goes on to cite some striking examples of racism in the courts. According to some studies, one is four times more likely to be executed if one is black. Further, if the victim is white, the killer is more likely to be executed than if the victim was black (Rachels RTTD: 235). According to another set of statistics, since 1976, 202 black murderers have been executed for killing a white person, yet only 12 white murderers have been executed for killing a black victim.

Sexism

Women make up 15% of all criminal homicides, but only 1% of people on death row (Rachels RTTD: 235).

Economic Inequality

People on death row are typically poor and cannot afford a good legal defense. The corollary is that wealthy people (O.J. Simpson perhaps?) can get the best lawyers. According to Bedau, 90 per cent of people on death row could afford a lawyer, and not a single case exists of a wealthy person being executed for the crime of murder in the United States. A poorly defended murderer is far more likely to be sentenced to death.

Discussion: What is the real problem here: racism and poverty, or the death penalty? If the racism simply disappeared, and everyone could get a decent legal defense, could the death penalty be fair?

19.12 The Death Penalty is Irreversible, and Miscarriages of Justice are Morally Unacceptable

If someone is executed by a court, and the court has made a mistake, then obviously the mistake cannot be reversed. Bedau states that there have been about four innocent people per year convicted of murder. (He does not state that four people per year have been executed, however). Another source states that 121 people have been released from Death Row since 1973. During the same period, 982 people in the USA have been executed. As one commentator has concluded, that suggests that one executed person in eight was wrongly punished. With the emergence of DNA testing, a number of people have been released for crimes they apparently did not commit, although many people have been found to be innocent because of the work of journalists, not the justice system itself.

Bedau gives several reasons for erroneous judgments: “overzealous prosecution, mistaken or perjured testimony, faulty police work, coerced confessions, seemingly conclusive circumstantial evidence, and community pressure for a conviction [] (Rachels RTTD: 238).

See Rachels TRTTD: 236-237.

19.13 The Death Penalty is Barbaric

William Bowers of Northeastern University argues that the death penalty increases the murder rate, by ‘normalizing’ killing. (Beccaria had made this argument).

19.15 Response to 19.9: The Deterrence Argument

a). Biased Sample Fallacy

If there was a death sentence for smoking on the footpath in Shinjuku, chances are people would not smoke. So why do people think that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent? Victor Grassian criticizes this argument, noting that it may commit a Biased Sample Fallacy. Biased Sample fallacy is an erroneous argument where you base an argument on a sample size that is too small. Example: “ Can I have a cat for a pet?” “No.” “Why not?” “Tigers are cats, and lions are cats, and panthers are cats, and cheetahs are cats. All of these cats are dangerous. So you can’t have a cat, as all cats are dangerous.” The argument does not consider the cats that are not dangerous. Bedau and others who think that the death penalty is not a deterrent seem to make this argument. Murderers typically are either too sure of themselves, or too illogical, to consider the risks of getting caught at the moment of the crime. But what of everyone else? The non- deterrence argument only considers those criminals that were actually caught. Further, if we should stop using the death penalty, on the grounds that it does not work as a deterrent, why not stop using life imprisonment for killers? (See Grassian p.356). Using the same logic, we would stop all punishment, as clearly they did not work on the people that get arrested for those crimes. That’s just absurd.

b). Deterrence does seem to work on even crazy people, or people high on drugs

Grassian notes that deterrence apparently works even on insane people in psychiatric wards (Grassian p.356). As for being drunk, the philosopher Simone de Beauvoir made the following point: alcohol does not make you say or do bad thinks- it merely allows you to do or say what you wanted to say or do. Experiments with vodka have shown that merely thinking that you are drunk will make you more aggressive.[2] In any case, does one not morally responsible for getting inebriated in the first place? If the ‘drunkenness defense’ were universally accepted, if someone commits a crime, it would be advisable to get drunk immediately afterwards.

c). To emphasize the right to life of the murderer seems to neglect the importance of deterring other potential murderers.

Van den Haag makes this point.” Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non- execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers…[] Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others” (TRTTD: 244)

19.16 Response to 19.11 (DP is not fair):

Fairness is beside the point-

Ernst van den Haag calls this the Distribution problem. He argues that it just is not relevant to the argument as to the fairness of how the death penalty is given. To make the argument at all presupposes that there could be an ideal, fair administration of the death sentence.

If capital punishment is immoral in se, no distribution among the guilty could make it moral. If capital punishment is moral, no distribution would make it moral. Improper distribution cannot affect the quality of what is distributed.” Van den Haag concludes that the ‘fairness argument’ is a Straw Man.’ (Straw Man fallacy is merely when a falsely bad version of the target argument is offered, for example “Darwin says our grandparents are monkeys!.” It is not really a straw man fallacy here, but a fallacy of relevance).

Only murderers are executed- the fact that not all murderers are in fact executed does not make executing some of them any less deserving. If the justice system was more fairly applied, the problem would not arise. That is, the argument appears to presuppose that, ideally, the death penalty could be fair. In the words of an Illinois black senator, himself black, who rejected pleas to stop using the death penalty: “I realize that most of those who face the death penalty are poor and black…I also realize that most of their victims are poor and black…and dead.” Cited in Grassian p. 384.

19.17 Response to 19.12: This is an acceptable loss

Ernst van den Haag bites the bullet on this one, even mentioning by name several people who may well have been executed in error. In the words of another commentator, “ we build bridges, knowing that statistically some builders will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk.” Van den Haag: “for those who think the death penalty just, miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice.” (Note that van den Haag combines Utilitarian and Deontological reasoning in a way that is not always clear- cut.

Discussion: Is this analogy valid?

19.18 Response to 19.13: The Death Penalty is not all that degrading; in any case, being nice is less important than seeing Justice Served

Arguably, (if one is a Kantian, of course), execution may be more dignified than being imprisoned for life, in particular if one has freely, rationally chosen to commit murder. Writes Van den Haag, “Does not life imprisonment violate human dignity more than execution, by keeping alive a prisoner deprived of all autonomy?” Of course the problem here is that this presupposes that the murderer is, in fact, rational. But admitting that murdering someone could in fact be rational ought to fly in the face of Kant’s whole scheme. If only drunken, violent idiots commit murder, on the other hand, why would we be respecting their ‘dignity? In killing them’? I have no idea which way to go on this.

19.19 Punishment and the Death Penalty in Japan

I strongly suggest that you look into how the death penalty is implemented in Japan if you are going to write an essay on it. Pure philosophy is pretty useless without some facts about what goes on in the world.

Amnesty International makes several observations concerning the implementation of the death penalty in Japan. 1). The actual implementation of the death penalty is in total secrecy, with not even family members told of when someone is actually killed. 2). The date of execution is not known to the prisoner, who can remain on death row for decades, only to be taken from their cell at a moments’ notice to be hung. This is enough to drive people insane. 3). Many Japanese on death row were apparently insane before the trial. 4). Death is by hanging, which is not typically instantaneous. The longest time to die between 1948 and 1952 was 37 minutes; the shortest was 4 and a half minutes. The average was 14 minutes. Accidental decapitation is not unknown. 4). The conditions for prisoners on death row are extremely harsh- solitary confinement, and nothing to do in a cell too small to lie down in.

Amnesty International report, “Will this day be my last? The Death Penalty in Japan.”

http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA220062006?open&of=ENG-JPN

Amnesty International Report on Prison Abuse in Japan

http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA220041998?open&of=ENG-JPN

Japan File

http://www.japanfile.com/culture_and_society/social_issues/death_penalty.shtml

Charles Lane “Why Japan Still Has the Death Penalty”, Sunday, January 16, 2005; Page B01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11306-2005Jan15.html

19.20 Filmography

The following films deal with issues covered in these lectures:

Stanley Kubrick, director, Clockwork Orange (discretion advised: this is difficult to watch, and is very violent).

Lars von Trier, director, Dogville (The final scene has a brilliant dialogue concerning retributive justice vs. pitying the criminal).

Marc Forster Monster’s Ball (2001)

Tim Robbins Dead Man Walking (1995)

Discussion Questions.

1). Do you think the death penalty is justified? Why?

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

You should know the strongest arguments for, and against, the death penalty.

You should know the counterarguments for these arguments. ]

You should be able to articulate a response to the question “should Japan retain the death penalty?”

Homework: the Non- Medical Use of Drugs

Read the essays on the drug debate in the Rachels text, and identify the main arguments presented. Are they deontological, or Utilitarian? Or is another principle at play?

Also,

-What are some lethal, but fun activities?

-Which ones are illegal, and which ones are illegal, in Japan?

-Which ones do you think ought to be illegal, which aren’t, or vice versa?

-Which ones should have an age limit? And why would you place an age limit on them?

-Look up the terms ‘autonomy’ and ‘paternalism.’

-What does the word ‘drug’ mean?

-What is the distinction between legal and illegal recreational drugs (besides, obviously, being divided into ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’?)

---

[1] I hesitate to call Camus a real philosopher, but then I’d say this about a lot of French philosophers.

[2] Dr David Whitehouse 'Fake alcohol' can make you tipsy Tuesday, 1 July, 2003, 17:46 GMT 18:46 UK. BBC News Online science editor http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/3035442.stm