Bioedge highlights an apparent ongoing meme in some bioethical and science circles that it was wrong for people to be happy at the death of OBL, that somehow “revenge” is something out of our primitive past that has no place in the modern world. From the article:
In the profusion of articles this week, other writers reminded their readers that revenge was, to a certain extent, biologically determined. In the Wall Street Journal, columnist Jonah Lehrer reminded readers that “we are engineered to get pleasure from punishing those who deserve to be punished”. This claim is supported by a 2004 paper in the journal Science which showed that revenge is literally sweet. Swiss scientists used brain scans to show that revenge activitates a region of the brain called the dorsal striatum which is involved in feelings of enjoyment or satisfaction. So there you have it. Knocking off Osama bin Laden may not have been an ethical decision at all, but one which was determined by atavistic impulses in the brain more suited for speak-brandishing cave-dwellers than civilised soldiers.
I don’t see anything wrong with people being happy about a victory over an implacable and dangerous enemy that acted so despicably and mercilessly against unarmed, defenseless people going about their daily lives. It is the culmination of a long campaign, an intelligence and military victory that makes us all a little bit (not a lot) safer.
Besides, it was an act of war, not an assassination. Assassinations are murders of legitimate political leaders, such as JFK, Lincoln, King, and Malcolm X. OBL was no such legitimate leader. Congress essentially declared war on Al Qaeda after 9/11. That makes his killing no different than when the U.S. military broke the Japanese code during WWII and found out where Admiral Yamamoto would be flying. They shot down the plane and aided the war effort by taking out the enemy’s most capable navy leader. That wasn’t an assassination, either.
I am sure there were cheers that day, too. It’s okay to be happy when you win a victory. It would not have been okay to drag OBL’s body through the streets as some of our enemy have done to our killed soldiers. But toasting the military or our political leaders for jobs well done? Not unethical at all.
May 7th, 2011 | 1:23 pm
My opinion only, but “assassination” is a term we reserve for killing high-profile types, while those less famous are simply “murdered.” The end result is the same, and having watched the Twin Towers fall I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the news that Osama bin Laden got his comeuppance, regardless of what we might call the process by which he departed this life.
I *am* glad he was given a decent burial, and I certainly agree with you that it would have been unseemly to drag his body through the streets or publish pictures of his oozing brain tissue, though some political figures criticized the president for failing to do either. No names, of course, but I think you know who I mean.
It took twelve years and billions of dollars to get bin Laden, but his death is no less satisfying. It’s true, as they say, that revenge is a dish that’s best served cold.
HW
May 7th, 2011 | 1:46 pm
As Wesley notes, “[S]omehow ‘revenge’ is something out of our primitive past that has no place in the modern world.”
Revenge or vengeance is part and parcel of many religions, particularly Islam. The authors Wesley cites need to try to convince the practitioners that “revenge has no place in the modern world”. Good luck with that. We promise the authors of the article that we’ll look for their headless corpses later.
May 7th, 2011 | 1:59 pm
Let me stir the pot . . .
Were Ben Bernanke to be shot and killed by Muslims upset at our invading their countries and killing citizens without provocation, would that be an assassination? You betcha!
Fox News reported in 2001 that bin Laden had died from his medical complications (which were pretty severely severe . . .
The military hinted (they always hint, just in case) that they had nailed him in his bunker (which we designed) in Tora Bora in 2001 with the bunker buster bombs . . .
Benazir Bhutto, before she herself was murdered, claimed that bin Laden was already dead/murdered.
The CIA admitted they made false film takes of bin Laden uttering threats . . . and still they cannot stop—they claim they have another one coming. Other than those films, he never did and still they cannot stop—they claim they have another one coming. Other than those films, he never did anything but financing, and beyond that, he never claimed responsibility.
We needed an Emmanuel Goldstein, and OBL proved perfect for the role.
He claimed he was financing matters, against his own country who had defied their own laws and permitted foreign military (US) within their borders (imagine the outcry if the Chinese established bases in the US—but that won’t faze the zealots); imagine another country coming after Ben Bernanke or Timothy Geithner for financing our adventures in killing folks in other countries.
Of course, the “just war” theory applies, right? Except—we are not at war. Congress has yet to declare any “War on Terror.” They falsely, and unconstitutionally, play (and played) games with the War Powers Act which was likewise, and have yet to fulfill their constitutional vows.
There alone is a real moral dilemma to be investigated, Wes, since when we move in on other countries, thousands upon thousands of innocents die as “collateral damage.” Just war be damned, and a more than superficial look at our own history shows clearly we have been doing this for a long time.
Virtually all of our information is coming from the gummint, which lies which such great regularity that it is expected, and the Lame Stream Media, which is so sychophantic that it can hardly be trusted with “the news.”
Comes <a href="http://karendecoster.com/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth.html"KDC (hardly a crank at all), who puts matters back to square one.
Of course, all of America was diverted from square one by politicians and a malleable press. And before anyone accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist, let me correct you.
There was a conspiracy, there is no theory.
What happened, happened for a very specific, militarily and corporately outlined reason, and it is the Winstons who capitulate to the ultimate reality who must endure the boredom of the cafe.
I refuse. When I step in “it” . . . I call it what it is.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 7th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
I am allowing JB’s comment but will not entertain a debate about the “war on terror” generally. The question is the propriety of happiness at OBL’s killing.
May 7th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
[...] Let me stir the pot . . . [...]
May 7th, 2011 | 2:47 pm
The propriety of happiness at OBL’s killing? I think there are serious theological ramifications attached to that, that have not been discussed at all. Hence my comments re: “just war.” Be precise if you demand fealty to morality.
Hmmm . . . What if it never happened as it has been presented to us?
What if he has been dead ten years.
I wasn’t going “War on Terror” because there simply is no such thing.
Thank you for “allowing” me. You have permitted HW far wider latitude. But I am cool with it all. I lost my axe years ago. I just have fun now. My grinder is worn out.
May 7th, 2011 | 3:27 pm
I think there is a difference between “toasting” (well-deserved respect and congratulations for a job well done) and being “happy” – a personal satisfaction and euphoria for an event, etc.
While I would have preferred a capture alive and a trial on US soil, I do not begrudge a double tap under such dangerous circumstances which could have cost other, more valuable, lives. I was very pleased the killing went swiftly, efficiently, and with minimal collateral damage. I’m not of the opinion that all mentally accountable, autonomous human beings are automatically granted a free-pass to life. Pernicious villains exist, thankfully few and far between.
Toast, yes. But “happy” – not really. A desire for violent revenge seems different than a desire for reasonable safety and justice. I was a little disappointed with US citizens celebrating in a state of euphoria, rather than simply stating gratitude. It seems rather primitive. However, I will grant boozed up college kids a pass, too.
May 7th, 2011 | 7:16 pm
The Obama Administration, executed this plan, brilliantly, and deserves great credit. Considering the suffering, and deaths, bin Laden was responsible for, one would find it profoundly difficult to argue that this killing was unethical.
I am, however, mildly concerned, over the apparent discrepancies, in stories, of our intentions, when we encountered bin Laden: were we to kill him, or take him prisioner? Did he have weapons, or not? These things may be easily explained.
If there intent, was to go, and kill him, I think this was ethical, considering the lives bin laden took.
May 8th, 2011 | 12:36 am
I’ve been wrestling not with whether it was okay to kill bin laden (I think it definitely was) but with my reaction to his death. While I think my jubilation is justified, it’s the first time I’ve ever been happy to here of someone’s death, and the fact that I can feel that way makes me kind of sad. OTH, like I said, good riddance, OBL. Enjoy hanging out with Hilter and Stalin.
May 8th, 2011 | 12:59 am
Wesley: I agree with most words in this article, especially those in the final paragraph.
Was killing OBL unethical? I don’t think so – it was for the (vastly) greater good, and we have highly conclusive (and non-circumstantial) evidence that he was guilty.
May 8th, 2011 | 9:30 am
“S]omehow ‘revenge’ is something out of our primitive past that has no place in the modern world.”
Is there some date at which things from our primitive past cease to have a place in the modern world, or are only the enlightened allowed to know it?
May 8th, 2011 | 1:36 pm
wow, am I really the only person who is neither jubilant nor aggrieved at news of his death?
My only response was a slight annoyance at the too-perfect perfection of the timing of the act. Right as Obama starts his re-election campaign? Really? (Well, it worked for Reagan….)
May 9th, 2011 | 7:54 am
I don’t know Wesley, some of it troubles me, like my local news radio hosts talking about how great it is there is a new “kill Bin Laden” video game. I think it goes beyond the sort of relief and celebration of a victory in war to almost reveling in his death, he’s just one man of many the played a part in 9-11 and future struggles. I (for the most part) agree with David.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact