The Morality of Dexter

[Grayman]

After watching the show Dexter I came to the realization that other peoples sense of morality is largely different than my own.

Many felt that Dexter deserved to be punished including the writer. What is odd is that they feel that he needs to be punished be cause Dexter liked killing. Had he disliked killing but did it out of necessity in order to make the world a better place people would have viewed his actions differently.

Personally I could care less about whether he liked it or not. The only important thing is that he focused his skills, desires, and abilities toward a greater good.

I guess the question is why our feelings are relevant to our morality? Are not are actions the only relevant and observable outcome?

 

[Jennywocky]

After watching the show Dexter I came to the realization that other peoples sense of morality is largely different than my own.

Many felt that Dexter deserved to be punished including the writer. What is odd is that they feel that he needs to be punished be cause Dexter liked killing. Had he disliked killing but did it out of necessity in order to make the world a better place people would have viewed his actions differently.

Personally I could care less about whether he liked it or not. The only important thing is that he focused his skills, desires, and abilities toward a greater good.

I guess the question is why our feelings are relevant to our morality? Are not are actions the only relevant and observable outcome?

I guess it's like trying to say whether a guy in the army likes shooting people or a cop enjoys catching/trouncing criminals. The feelings seem inconsequential to me as well in terms of judging the validity; it's the procedures followed and the behavior itself that matters.

I think Dexter's biggest problem would be the precedent he sets. Certain individuals who undergo procedural training are given permission to catch those who violate the law, and we have established processes in place so that hopefully people can be judged and punished in a consistent and fair manner.

Obviously there are flaws in the legal system and we can argue intensely about whether the process is actually fair in implementation. However, if Dexter is allowed on his own to determine who lives and dies, then there is no real basis to hold anyone accountable for their actions either, if they had a "reason" for doing them even if they were against the law. "He was a bad guy / a criminal, so I killed him." What could be said? Kind of a terrifying place to live, where you could find yourself dead with no recourse if someone else in the name of justice decided they could take you out because you deserved it somehow.

 

[Grayman]

I see what you are saying. I feel I need to point out that he followed a code set upon him by his father. Dexter never broke the code and no one but murderers had to fear him.

Is the law more moral than a personal code? If the required that I stone my wife for seeing another man naked, I would view the legal system as being a product of evil.

 

[Jennywocky]

I see what you are saying. I feel I need to point out that he followed a code set upon him by his father. Dexter never broke the code and no one but murderers had to fear him.

Is the law more moral than a personal code? If the required that I stone my wife for seeing another man naked, I would view the legal system as being a product of evil.

Yeah, that's always a possibility. Hopefully a majority of people would see a particular law as unjust and have the mechanism in place to remove the ones that no longer served the well-being of the culture. Laws always exist in the gray area between individual and collective, personal rights versus social rights.

And sure maybe in terms of "individual ethos," Dexter was not in the wrong, but as part of a collective unfortunately his assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner under the authority of his father (who did not speak for the cultural authority) was a violation of the established process.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Vigilante justice goes against the rule of law, because it views individuals as capable of passing judgment, effectively circumventing the entire legal system.

Though in many cases the legal system allows the public to alter its execution, for example during lynches, or by freeing "unjustly" imprisoned. In many of those cases the participants of such movements are not punished and their alterations are respected as long as it is accepted by the informal majority.

Vigilante justice could be a welcome anomaly to keep the entire system healthy, a useful violation, as it were so.

In a way, most of social movements and proactive societies operate under the assumption that their input, while illegal or legally not recognised, will be appreciated by others and will help the whole and that's where most legal systems are helpless, because the law consistently shuns and discourages the overstepping of set boundaries and yet such things are needed for a bustling and interactive society to healthily exist.

 

[scorpiomover]

Many felt that Dexter deserved to be punished including the writer. What is odd is that they feel that he needs to be punished be cause Dexter liked killing. Had he disliked killing but did it out of necessity in order to make the world a better place people would have viewed his actions differently.

Albert Camus made this point in his short story L'Etranger. The main character shoots another man soon after his mother's death. At the trial, the prosecution's case is that he killed the man out of pure malice, without any care for the man's life, because he doesn't care about other people at all, as proved by his lack of tears at his mother's funeral. The jury agreed with the verdict, and the hero is convicted of murder because he didn't shed tears at his mother's funeral.

I guess the question is why our feelings are relevant to our morality? Are not are actions the only relevant and observable outcome?

People rely on Bounded rationality to make decisions. When making a decision, they also evaluate how long to spend on making the decision, based on how important it is to them. If they are buying a house, many take it very seriously, as if it goes badly, there will be serious consequences for them. If they decide that a person deserves to die but is actually innocent, if it's someone they care about, many will be over-cautious and will defend their loved one even when it's obvious that he's guilty. If it's someone they don't care about, many will prioritise their own worries that if that person was freed, they might possibly hurt someone they care about, and will favour incarceration, even when it's clear that the person had to be innocent.

When it comes to deciding people's future intents, many people rely on the principle that if they have the desire, they have the possibility of doing it, if they don't exercise self-control. But if they don't have the desire, then many people reason they won't do it anyway, even if they lack self-control, as they don't have a motivation. It's much quicker to observe if they express a desire, than to actually do the research.

It's also why people get scared when someone talks about hypothetical methods to murder someone.

 

[Intolerable]

@scorpionmover - thanks for that post. It adds up to a lot of what I point out in other threads. I agree with your position on this.

 

[FlorisV]

After watching the show Dexter I came to the realization that other peoples sense of morality is largely different than my own.

Many felt that Dexter deserved to be punished including the writer. What is odd is that they feel that he needs to be punished be cause Dexter liked killing. Had he disliked killing but did it out of necessity in order to make the world a better place people would have viewed his actions differently.

Personally I could care less about whether he liked it or not. The only important thing is that he focused his skills, desires, and abilities toward a greater good.

I guess the question is why our feelings are relevant to our morality? Are not are actions the only relevant and observable outcome?

Why you did something should matter not, what you did should. Who really cares about intentions...some guy wanting to be a "good" muslim can lead to detestable actions.

Agreed that it should not matter that Dexter liked killing. Hell, I'd have liked to kill some of the scum he puts down. There's 2 types of people, ones that are familiar with their dark side and people in denial of it.

Morals are just one factor and there are others to weigh in.There is being perfectly moral vs. practicality...sometimes evil can only be defeated by evil. I believe there are many problems than cannot be solved in a civil, neat, clean manner. Have to get your hands dirty sometimes if you want shit done. I'd love to have a clean up man like Dexter in the big city as long as he sticks with the code (he does kill innocents at some point and thus breaks it in the show).

 

[QuickTwist]

Enter Boondock Saints. Same principle. The difference is that in that movie there is not the emphasis that the two brothers enjoy killing, but do it as a duty to society to rid the world of "evil men".

The problem I think a lot of people have in the subject liking killing evil men is that it is a very slippery slope. How do you measure exactly who is evil and who is not? There would have to be some tally for how many wrongs one must commit in order to kill them, without it, if the person has a taste for that sort of thing, how are we to tell whether that person simply gets swept up in their passions and just start killing random people? Also it ends up looking an awful lot like a serial killer who just works with a sort of code of conduct rather than something that more resembles a sense of justice. Then, you very well could end up with a Dexter's Dexter, so to speak. A guy killing guys who kills guys who kills guys.. errr... yeah.. The two brothers father ie. the Duke in Boondock Saints could be an example of one such controversy. (I never did watch the sequel.)

 

[FlorisV]

The problem I think a lot of people have in the subject liking killing evil men is that it is a very slippery slope. How do you measure exactly who is evil and who is not? T

I don't see a slippery slope there as long as you'd stick to heavy, violent criminals who'd normally get a sentence of at least 20 years prison. Murderers of innocent women and children or human traffickers.

Liking to kill them could even be a good benchmark...if you really liked it, they must have deserved it really bad. That is the only reason why I would ever like it. Of course for Dexter this is not the case he has hunger and NEEDS to kill from time to time...

and another thing with killing is...it's power and that is addictive.

Watch this film The Chamber, DA gives new targets to a contract killer, it seemed like a good system, except you'd probably need to start over with new people from time to time.

 

[Sly-fy]

No one is God, but God himself.

 

[Reluctantly]

God is everything, so everyone is God.

 

[Grayman]

God is everything, so everyone is God.

God is everything; therefore God is also nothing; therefore nothing is God; therefore God does not exist.

 

[Caelum]

Ya I'm no deontologist either. *shrug*

 

[Sly-fy]

God is everything; therefore God is also nothing; therefore nothing is God; therefore God does not exist.

Only God can decide who lives or dies. And, if there is no God, then no one should be able to decide that (is my point that I feel I`m unsuccessfully presenting so far, not due to the opinion being flawed but due to my lack of ability to articulate it convincingly.)

 

[FlorisV]

Only God can decide who lives or dies. And, if there is no God, then no one should be able to decide that (is my point that I feel I`m unsuccessfully presenting so far, not due to the opinion being flawed but due to my lack of ability to articulate it convincingly.)

This is the beauty of the Dexter solution. He's not God, just a criminal like the others. But smart enough to get away with it. We know he's a bad boy and shouldn't do what he does. But kinda feel good he kills off all the scumbags that ruin our society. He fits perfectly into the system that simply can't catch all the criminals. You can't prove what he does so you can't put him in jail and you have to let him keep doing what he does so well. Morally it's wrong what he does, yes, but so what? What exactly is the problem in a practical sense? Why would clean-cut morailty weigh more than the many innocent lives Dexter saved?

If only we could solve all problems in a clean and morally acceptable way. We can't. As long as the system and humanity itself doesn't dramatically improve, it's one thing (being a good boy and letting the criminals win mostly) or the other (fight evil with evil). I find the latter by far the lesser of two evils, since it would save so many more lives, but know most people disagree. I see it as principality vs. practicality, I choose the latter to be more important, I prefer solutions to actually work rather than merely be morally 100% acceptable.

 

[000x0]

I see many points here..

I would say is a bit of what have been told.

Ain't like we can say for sure whats right. It goes from situation to situation.
Dexter was a guy that had urges, so is a must to do. So what you gonna do?
You gonna do with anyone ? or train to cope in a less "bad" way.

His dad knew this questions and took his option and made a beast like he mentions once. He could had let the boy fry himself in a soon future when he lacked ability to hide and go to prison or die, would be a fast end, but he choose otherwise to keep him alive, so there is a emotion going on also.

The fact of not supporting, is like, common, we know how tv affects people, if they even by distance, accepted as ok thing to do, you would have by the night hundreds of wannabes. People get influenced, so just because was on tv, it is certain that any kind of criminal activity would be supported, from contracts to writer's opinion.

Every damn time there is a "the right answer here" discussion I don't know what side to take. So will keep this.

But personally I would take any day dexter's position... but with higher stakes, way higher!