a free page

There has been a lot of talk about violence lately, and the incessant repetition of violent deaths of all kinds in the media has reached an extreme level. It seems like killings are happening more than ever nowadays. The value of human life is continuously undermined and emphasized as being worth nothing. However, not only is death an integral part of life, but so is killing.

Let’s consider what killing is. It involves ending the life of any living being. I often kill ants that wander around my kitchen. But aren’t they as alive as I am? They have limbs, they move, engage in activities, have eyes, a digestive system, an excretory system, a vascular system, a very good sense of smell, and a nervous system. They are born, they grow, they live their ephemeral lives, and ultimately, they die. What is the difference then, between them and me? Spiritualists would say that we have souls. Let’s skip this unlikely assertion. Humanists would claim that human beings are noble animals. We shouldn’t hold onto this biased judgment, which is clearly a product of the human mind (if an ant could express itself, it would say we are prejudiced, wouldn’t it?). A biologist would point out the obvious difference in complexity between the two beings. That is certainly true, however, this difference is a matter of magnitude, not essence. After all, life is life.

When I kill an ant, I am killing. I am interrupting a life that would continue if it weren’t for me. Even though the ant may not have a complex enough nervous system to experience happiness or love – these are just words and could be used as correlates of ant behavior. Killing, in fact, and this is where I want to get to, is quite common in nature. Predators kill their prey; it is the most well-known association. Animals (and even plants) compete for the same environments, eliminating competitors. The most adapted animal survives and passes on its offspring, while the less adapted perish.

To feed our babies with meat soup, we have to kill. When we delight in barbecue, we are consuming meat (similar to our own), muscles that have once moved spontaneously in a living animal. I look at my arms and see very similar muscles. Killing seems to be something very natural. Animals have developed various strategies for it: teeth, claws, strong muscles, aggressiveness. Among social animals, like our simian ancestors, this capacity for violence seems to have a special role. For us, human beings, this ability may have been important for survival in primitive times. Our Homo sapiens sapiens ancestors had to exercise their aggression to survive and likely massacred the Neanderthals, taking their place. Death has always been by our side.

Modern neuroimaging techniques show that human beings activate brain areas related to pleasure and reward when they witness scenes of other human beings being punished. Are we all sadistic? I would say that we can be, but I still believe in the existence of free will in this regard. So, if killing is so close to our daily lives, where is the limit of what we accept, what we consider natural and untroubling (like chewing on what used to be the tenderloin of a beautiful calf), and where does what scandalizes us begin (like the recent case of the boy dragged by a car and torn apart to death by assailants)? What is the difference? It seems obvious, but not so much. If killing is an integral part of the experience of being alive, where does the limit lie? When does killing become intolerable?

One could say that the cruel suffering of the mutilated child would be the differential factor. In fact, however, calves also suffer, even more so because their deaths are not surrounded by ethical considerations. Isn’t it interesting that the bioethical norms we explicitly create to protect, for example, laboratory animals, are not clearly valid in a slaughterhouse? Moreover, what a suggestive (and informative about our approach to the subject) name: SLAUGHTERHOUSE. Surely, cruelty should not be the sole differentiating factor. Another recent example to consider: within a span of 1 year, the media reported the deaths of 2 infants who were “forgotten” inside cars by their parents. In both cases, the babies were left inside closed cars, under the sun, and died with severe heat-related injuries. The babies were “cooked” alive. I know it may seem cynical to compare the cruelty of these deaths to each other, but doesn’t it seem even worse than the first case mentioned? Detail: the mutilated child sparked intense social outrage, but the “cooked” babies only caused perplexity, far from the same collective emotion as the first case. Clearly, in the second case where the parents were “acquitted” by the public and the justice system, the intense cruelty of the deaths was not the determining factor. So, where is our limit? Was intentionality the difference? In the first case, after an armed robbery, the criminals fled with the stolen vehicle, leaving the passengers on the road. However, a 6-year-old boy, trying to free himself from the seatbelt to get out of the car, got entangled in it. As the criminals sped away with the car, they dragged the child, who died dismembered on the road. Horrible, isn’t it? But is it less horrible to cook months-old babies strapped in a car seatbelt inside a closed car under the sun until they die with third-degree burns? Regarding intention: did the assailants initially intend to mutilate the child? Probably not. Were they aware of what was happening? It seems so, but they didn’t care. For them, escaping and saving their own lives was more important. This reaction, of saving one’s own skin, despite demonstrating cruelty, is very common in human beings, whether they are criminals or not. The romantic image of mothers and fathers sacrificing their own lives to save their children is an exception in most cases of acute threat of death. Otherwise, why didn’t the companions of the mutilated child risk their own lives to FIRST remove the child from the car and then get out themselves? In reality, they all got out first under the threat of the criminals, and the child got tangled up trying to get out alone, getting trapped in the seatbelt. They tried to help him, but it was too late, the criminals were already driving away. Did they make a mistake? Not at all, but what they felt, the urgency to save themselves, was analogous to what the criminals felt, whether we like it or not. And what about the cooked babies? Did the parents (always the parents, never the mothers) intend to kill them? Of course not. Were they aware of what was happening? Apparently not. BUT HERE’S THE THING: how can a father forget about his own baby? Don’t we have a deviation of volition and perhaps character there, if not as intense, similar to the deviation that allowed the criminals to ignore the child they were dragging?

In other words, the difference between the cases is not obvious. It’s not about suffering, cruelty, or intentionality. I point to the real difference, the one that unconsciously affects us, the one derived from our heuristic judgment, the one whispered in our ears by the Neanderthal that resides within us. I’m talking about the SOCIAL ROLE of those involved. On one side, socially excluded criminals, of uncertain behavior, from whom dishonesty and threats to us and our homes are expected. On the other side, family-oriented parents, with defined professions and constructive social roles, useful to society, loving parents and spouses, and perhaps, religiously devout as well. In Frank Herbert’s novel “Dune,” a techno-mystical fable, there is the ADAB, the memory that manifests itself on its own. Well, this was an instant, unconscious, heuristic judgment made by society as a whole and based on SOCIAL ROLES. The main discussion regarding the case of the mutilated child was about violence and impunity, while in the case of the “cooked” babies, the discussion revolved around lifestyle. Recently, I read a columnist’s opinion stating that it was wrong to attribute criminality to the environment and socio-economic conditions, that being a criminal was always a choice, despite what the “leftists” believed (I didn’t know that social science was all “leftist”). Well, in this case we’re discussing here, it seems to me that the parents of the “cooked” babies relied on the benevolence of a “lifestyle.” The justice system considered that they had already been punished by the loss of their children. The criminals, obviously, did not receive such leniency in judgment.

Are we wrong? I don’t believe that this is an easy question to answer. It may not even be the right question to ask. Perhaps we should ask ourselves: aside from concepts and judgments, what are we doing in practice that will have a proven effect on the violence that disturbs us? Contrary to what right-wing journalists think, distributing a profusion of weapons on the streets, in the hands of the police and “law-abiding citizens,” does not correlate with a reduction in violence. On the other hand, a real improvement in education, healthcare, employment, and personal satisfaction of the population, which are truly associated with less violent societies, does.

However, we have not answered the initial question: when does killing become socially intolerable? The answer, perhaps uncomfortable but more appropriate, would be: when it goes against the socially internalized standards within us. In other words, sometimes we consider killing to be natural, and sometimes we don’t. In other words, the old Neanderthal still chooses, in the end, who lives and who dies. In the Ice Age, the family survived, and the enemies died. That’s why, despite everything, I am still against the death penalty. Human beings are not ready to apply it with blind and impartial justice in any existing society.