A Saudi man who paralyzed another man in a physical assault is threatened with the punishment of being made paralyzed. From the story:
A Saudi man convicted of paralysing a fellow countryman in a cleaver attack is being threatened with having his spinal cord cut in a tit-for-tat punishment. The ultra-conservative desert Kingdom enforces Islamic law and on rare occasions metes out punishments based on the ancient code of an ‘eye-for-an-eye’. The case judge in the northwestern province of Tabuk has sent letters to several hospitals seeking their advice on whether it is medically possible to render the attacker’s spinal cord non-functional, local newspapers said.
One leading hospital said that it could not perform the operation, apparently on ethical grounds. The King Faisal Specialist Hospital – a leading medical facility in the Saudi capital, Riyadh – said in a letter of response to the court that ‘inflicting such harm is not possible’. Another hospital reportedly said it is possible to cut the spinal cord but it was not clear whether it is prepared to do so.
This is a contentious crew here at SHS, but I would be stunned if we all didn’t agree that paralyzing the criminal would be an egregious wrong. (Some of us might pretend to disagree, but that is a different thing.)
But why, exactly, would it be wrong to render a spine for a spine? It sure could dissuade others from attacking people with cleavers! Some might say that no doctor should ever intentionally cause a patient harm–and that is certainly true. Or, they might equate it with a physician participating in an execution and note that such acts are not medical. True, too. But why would it be wrong. exactly, for doctors to cause harm or act non medically in a medical capacity? And on the bigger picture level, why would such a severed spine for a severed spine punishment be wrong?
The answer lies in human exceptionalism. Each of us–even the worst of us–has certain inherent dignity that should remain sacrosanct, no matter what we have done. Punishing a criminal by rendering him paralyzed as a matter of vengeance crosses that line and treats the criminal as less than human.
But if humans do not have an intrinsic and universal dignity that prevents certain lines from being crossed, then why not? And while we’re at it, why not sever his spine and then see if stem cells could knit it back together again? Once we give up HE, what we do to each other merely becomes a matter of cultural differences and the attitudes of the power structure.
August 20th, 2010 | 4:08 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: “Spine for a Spine” Punishment In Saudi Arabia Would Violate Human Exceptionalism Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://t.co/Ae1P0yV [...]
August 20th, 2010 | 4:20 pm
This is a very interesting issue from both a human exceptionalism and disability right standpoint. We hate disability so much that we seek to inflict disability as a punishment. And, of course, such a punishment is wrong from a human ethics standpoint-because tit for tat is wrong.
August 20th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
Apparently the Bible encourages violations of human exceptionalism.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Raven: That’s a little unlike you. But those verses sure do, and in any event, they are not followed today in Judaism. If they were, there would be an international outcry. Other verses go in the other direction, such as love your neighbor as yourselves, the requirement of hospitality for the stranger, and in the New Testament, the Golden Rule, etc., the Parable of the Good Samaritan, he who is without sin, cast the first stone, etc.
August 20th, 2010 | 5:20 pm
Me: Apparently the Bible encourages violations of human exceptionalism.
Or, more accurately, God (according to biblical tradition) encouraged these violations of human exceptionalism for millennia (before finally relenting and sending us Jesus).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
And the Romans crucified slaves and non citizen criminals. Native Americans in what is now Mexico engaged in human sacrifice. We have come a long way, I would say. And I think a major reason why is that we as a civil society have come to recognize human exceptionalism and have embraced universal human rights over tribalism, nationalism, and etc.
August 20th, 2010 | 6:34 pm
Do I hear Wesley Smith coming out with a positive statement against capital punishment on ethical grounds? It stands to reason that if causing someone to become paralyzed is an egregious violation of human exceptionalism, so then would be execution since being made dead is worse than being made paralyzed. So then, Wesley, are you unalterably opposed to capital punishment on ethical grounds?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
I don’t think doctors should be involved in capital punishment. But I don’t get into that issue. At the moment, anyway. I see both sides of the issue and respect both sides.
August 20th, 2010 | 6:57 pm
“Do I hear Wesley Smith coming out with a positive statement against capital punishment on ethical grounds?”
Honestly, HW, you outright DISGUST me sometimes. Wesley has NEVER said anything IN FAVOR of the death penalty here, yet you imply that he supports it. Stop misleading people to support your ideological agenda.
August 20th, 2010 | 7:08 pm
Over the centuries the trend in most cultures has been away from corporal punishments. In the US parents used to legally beat children, teachers would spank students, capital punishment was more widespread. Few nations currently practice capital punishment. In the US, until recently, torture was illegal.
As cultures become more liberal the rights of individuals appear to be receive better protection.
Of course it’s immoral to purposely transect the spine of someone as punishment. In addition, execution and torture have no place in civilized cultures. But why? And why now, and not 100 yrs ago? What is the impetus for the apparent inexorable liberalization of cultures with time? Certainly our species accumulates knowledge and communicates it better than other species. Perhaps the liberalization of cultures is related to that phenomenon.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I largely agree with you, Jeffrey, that we have moved in a more liberal direction, at least in the classical sense, which is why I consider myself a Martin Luther King liberal. Too bad elements of the Left is turning back the other way in regards to some areas by denying human exceptionalism.
August 20th, 2010 | 7:29 pm
Hmm.
Seemed like an unnecessary theological digression, I know – but I had always assumed that the focus on human exceptionalism had some kind of theological basis – that it was grounded in the Judaeo-Christian tradition to such an extent that it would never see a later development as flatly contradicting an earlier perspective (rather than being a re-interpretation or reworking of it for modern circumstances). Jesus himself admitted that he had come not to do away with the law but to “fulfil it”. He probably wouldn’t have regarded any of those passages as fundamentally at odds with human dignity – but I’m glad to see that we both agree that Old Testament morality, regardless of its putative origins, is so at odds with our present understanding of ethics that it may conveniently be discarded as primitive and often diametrically opposed to our modern ideals.
But this leaves me confused – for without a theological foundation (some kind of declaration by fiat that “humanity” itself is of ontological importance) it is virtually impossible to defend “human exceptionalism” in the strong sense (which I used to call “Wesleyan” HE until you started calling people like Hawking and Dawkins human exceptionalists). Your usual defensive formulation (that humans are the only creatures capable of moral agency) is more a rhetorical device than an argument. There is no argument for the validity of this criterion (as a basis for moral consideration), for the unwillingness to consider the possibility that some other animals might possess this ability in some rudimentary fashion or for the insistence that equal moral consideration extends to all members of the human species who are, in some sense, biologically alive – even if these creatures are permanently unconscious or single-celled.
There is also the distressing elasticity of the term “human exceptionalism” itself. The punitive measures referred to in the post are indeed Draconian but this is not due to some universal objective standard of human dignity but rather to our evolving cultural sense of what punishments a state may justifiable inflict on its citizens. A thousand years hence it might seem equally perverse to lock an armed robber away from the rest of society for decades. Advocates then may wax lyrical about how these incarcerations violate “human exceptionalism” (or whatever term they choose as a vehicle for their cultural preferences) but all they’ll really be saying would be “these things make us uncomfortable. We feel, for cultural reasons too complex to examine, that these actions are not justified in these circumstances. Here follows our stock philosophical justification . . .”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
I don’t agree it is impossible to defend human exceptionalism without a theological basis. I do in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy. I think it does come out of the Western tradition, which includes strong Judeo/Christian influences. But one need not accept faith. Indeed, Nat Hentoff, the famous civil libertarian and atheist, is totally on board with the need to accept the intrinsic dignity of each human life as a matter of protecting human rights. Heck, even Peter Singer admits in Rethinking Life and Death that the idea of the unique importance of human life is secular today.
August 20th, 2010 | 8:20 pm
I’m aware that the whole “ethic of [human] life” is part of the secular mainstream these days; in the sense that many non-religious thinkers espouse these views for (what they honestly believe are) non-religious reasons – but I am yet to see a coherent non-theological defence of an ethic that necessarily (rather than merely pragmatically) starts and stops with humans.
[And if one accepts the dignity of each human life merely to protect the concept of human rights it hardly seems consistent to describe that dignity as "intrinsic" rather than ascribed]
August 20th, 2010 | 10:09 pm
Raven:
I don’t think it would be difficult to argue a secular defense of human exceptionalism from first principles, and I believe Wesley and others have done it. It’s late, but I’d start from the premise that fundamental rights and duties are best assigned as broadly as possible.
I think the attachment of human exceptionalism to religious doctrine has more to do with its opponents wanting to be able to dismiss it as theology and therefore meaningless.
There seems to be an increasing number of people who need stereotypical ill-informed, unimaginative religious believers to exist – so that they can dismiss their arguments and feel superior to them.
August 21st, 2010 | 4:40 am
SparcVark,
If one started from the premise that fundamental rights were to be assigned “as broadly as possible” why would one limit those rights to humans?
Secular defences of human exceptionalism exist. My point is that non of these defences are coherent (or even come close to being coherent). In a courtroom there is always an argument for each side but not all arguments are equally persuasive or equally supported by evidence. Without some kind of theological imprimatur, the moral line drawn around humanity (to necessarily include all members of the species and exclude all others) is distressingly arbitrary. I have seen attempts at justification but I have never been able to shake the impression that these are just attempts to intellectually validate positions one has come to for largely non-rational reasons.
The non-religious are capable of being just as unimaginative and ignorant as the religious – and my guess is that, after you correct for education, occupation and social class, there isn’t much of a “cognitive gap” between the religious and the non-religious i.e people with postgraduate degrees are more likely to be atheists than people who only have high school diplomas but amongst postgrads themselves the religious are likely to be just as informed and rational as the non-religious.
I am an atheist who happens to be sympathetic towards religion (I like to refer to myself as a Christian atheist). Consequently, I am not averse to arguments which have a theological basis but I like to know when one is being deployed covertly (so I know which game we’re playing).
August 21st, 2010 | 1:44 pm
That’s just the thing, Raven. Wesley has never given the slightest hint of his religious leanings, if any, on this site. He got into activism through Ralph Nader, who is an atheist, and regularly quotes Nat Hentoff, who is an atheist as well. Folks seem to have decided that human exceptionalism is, de facto, a religious argument, most commonly to deny it respect – and no explanation seems necessary. It just seems strange to me.
I’ll try to work out my own argument, but what’s wrong with the idea that a species that has self-awareness, rationality, and a sense of the past and future should have its members respected and given certain rights by membership in the species? Right now that’s humanity, but that’s no bar against other species being found with these qualities in the future. Assigning rights and dignity species-wide also eliminates the need to have “tryouts” and judge which individual qualifies for full “personhood” and who doesn’t.
August 21st, 2010 | 2:49 pm
Safepres: So be disgusted. However you should remember that Wesley, for all his talking about the “culture of death” has NEVER said anything AGAINST the death penalty here either. In his own words: “At the moment, anyway. I see both sides of the issue and respect both sides.” How’s THAT for equivocation?
August 21st, 2010 | 3:53 pm
SparcVark,
Your perspective isn’t “human exceptionalism” (at least not as Wesley uses the term). If it were established conclusively that adult chimpanzees do, in fact, have “self-awareness, rationality, and a sense of the past and future” Wesley would presumably still argue that an extension of rights to their species shouldn’t be contemplated because it would “violate human exceptionalism”.
I have no problem with a species-wide extension or rights and privileges (it is often the pragmatically desirable course of action). I do however object to the summary exclusion of non-human animals, the unwillingness to even consider that they may possess the qualities we consider relevant to moral consideration.
It is this peremptory dismissal that led me to assume (perhaps with little justification) that the idea of HE rested on theological foundations. Obviously the arguments put forward in its defense are entirely secular but so are the arguments advanced in support of Intelligent Design.
It is important to note that I am using the term “human exceptionalism” very specifically here. Although it includes the ideas that humans are intellectually and morally unique, that each individual member of the species should be treated with dignity and that similar rights and privileges should be accorded to every member of the species, it goes beyond this. Each of the aforementioned ideas has strong secular support and if that were all there is to HE I wouldn’t really have much to complain about. However HE goes one step further and says “humans have dignity and rights but we may not even consider the possibility of attributing these to other animals”. It imagines that human beings are ontologically distinct from the rest of the biological world and that is something for which there is precious little support from secular thinkers.
August 21st, 2010 | 5:30 pm
Much of this discussion is based on the tacit assumption that the Biblical lex talionis (“eye for an eye” law) meant that punishment should be a literal physical retaliation. That is a gross misunderstanding of Jewish law. It is not simply that this literal interpretation is “not followed today in Judaism.” The law was NEVER interpreted that way. Biblical law cannot be understood without the Talmudic discussion which fleshed out its details and implications. These dispositive interpretations precede the advent of Christianity by centuries. Some of the reasoning went like this: if the victim had cataracts and the assailant has normal vision, is it truly justice to remove a healthy eye in retaliation for a diseased one? Is the hand of a painter equal in value to the hand of a singer? The conclusion was that the assailant must pay a monetary fine equal to the VALUE of the damaged part. (The details of how that was determined are askew our topic here.)
Thus, we need not conclude (as did Raven) that “Old Testament morality, regardless of its putative origins, is so at odds with our present understanding of ethics that it may conveniently be discarded as primitive and often diametrically opposed to our modern ideals.” Before we discard it, it would be best to understand it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Eric: Now, there’s a novel concept!
August 22nd, 2010 | 2:29 am
Eric,
As you know, the Torah and the Talmud are not contemporaneous documents (with the Talmud being written in the centuries following the birth of Jesus). In fact, the temporal distance between the Torah and the first written versions of the Mishnah (200 CE) is greater than that between the Torah and the first books of the New Testament. While the Talmud undoubtedly contains a record of oral traditions of great antiquity a lot of it nonetheless represents an attempt to reconcile the Law as written to the evolving ethical realities of daily life.
There really is no way to prove your assertion that the law was “never” interpreted as it was written and the discussion you relate about adequate compensation for physical damage indicates, to an unbiased eye, an attempt by the scholars to regulate practices which were, in fact, taking place. The first communities to whom the Law was presented almost certainly did take it at face value and “clarifications” of the sort you describe became necessary as ethical standards evolved beyond this.
There is, of course, ample evidence elsewhere in the Old Testament to illustrate that as a guide to moral behaviour it is, shall we say, far from perfect- but that’s an argument for another day (and another blog).
August 22nd, 2010 | 6:51 pm
Properly understood, the “eye for an eye” concept actually reinforces Human Exceptionalism.
It is about value and respect, and not violating that which is anothers.
Note also, that this kind of exceptional and valued respect and treatment does not apply to animals themselves but only to their owners and caretakers.
August 23rd, 2010 | 7:58 am
What a disappointing series of comments. How do we so quickly dismiss the justice embedded in the Old Testament injunction, while, at the same time, pretending we have “progressed” so far beyond it? Utter nonsense. While I share a visceral distaste for severing another man’s spine, I cannot see any argument here against it which is particularly persuasive. I think Raven is on to something. And I think a serious weakness has been exposed in the “Wesleyan” HE.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:17 am
So, we should rape racists? We should cut off the hands of thieves? I thought civilization had progressed.
August 23rd, 2010 | 8:11 am
[...] the flipside, I wonder what might be a more fitting punishment for this man. There is a discussion of this case over at SecondHand Smoke. As you will notice, I am not so comfortable with the direction of that discussion. What ought to [...]
August 23rd, 2010 | 10:05 am
It has always been my understanding that the “eye for an eye” scripture was intended to set a limit on punishment – that it was common in ancient times to, for example, kill 5 of your neighbor’s sheep in retribution for his having killed 1 of yours. “eye for an eye” was intended to stop escalation. Later, in the Gospels, Jesus said, “”You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say unto you, do not resist him who is evil” (Matt. 5:38, 39) Very, very hard words to live by but, at least for Christians, a “spine for a spine” would be wrong.
August 25th, 2010 | 4:22 pm
DragonLadyAlso: It has always been my understanding that the “eye for an eye” scripture was intended to set a limit on punishment
Yes, people say that a lot – but it doesn’t seem consistent with either the tone or the text of the verses themselves. The passage from Deuteronomy, for instance, begins with the words “show no pity”, indicating that its primary audience, if left to their own devices, tended towards comparative leniency (regardless of what vengeful practices their Near Eastern neighbours might have engaged in).
The law’s apparent harshness was probably meant to emphasize the gravity of crimes against the person. Perpetrators of such crimes would have injuries of comparable severity inflicted on them and this would presumably serve the dual purpose of deterring others from committing such acts and of making the wrong-doer himself appreciate the significance of his actions. [But, as Eric pointed out earlier, the temporal window during which the law was literally interpreted was probably very narrow, if it existed at all.]
Jesus’ statement is often read as a counter-injunction but my feeling is that he was simply urging his audience not to extend the principle of retributive justice to interpersonal relations. With great fortitude we might, as individual Christians, learn to “turn the other cheek” when struck – but it would be sheer folly if the Christian state abdicated its responsibility to “resist him who is evil”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact