Hyena Ethics: When Harming Others Feels Righteous and Pleasing

by Daniel Gauss

Free image from Pexels: courtesy Balasz Simon

Metaphorically, if hippo ethics is the impulse to respond to suffering with compassion, hyena ethics is the impulse to enjoy, justify or morally authorize suffering.

Harm toward another person has been morally justified when it is an act of deterrence and this is, in fact, a rationale for legal punishment. By punishing individual wrong doers, we feel we can reduce the degree of harmful behavior in our society as others may be restrained from similar behavior if they know punishment will follow. We feel that limited harm may prevent greater harm, and it is harm inflicted out of necessity, not out of glee.

There is, however, another type of harm which is much darker and more sinister. It is harm we inflict because it gives us a sense of personal satisfaction and even pleasure, and it is often confused with moral action. This type of harm is so commonplace that it is often not questioned or challenged. It is at the core of much unnecessary human suffering on a personal, societal and international scale.

It is the harm we cause because we feel the other “deserves” it purely because the person is different from us, has upset us and/or we simply enjoy the idea of harming them because we no longer see that person as a human being deserving of our respect or kindness.

What makes this act of harm so insidious is that many of us do not even recognize the irrational impulse behind it, because, in part, it is couched in neuro-chemicals that “hide” it from our moral investigation and make it seem unquestioningly right. It is harm which is morally wrong but which feels right to us. We harm others thinking we have every right to, when, upon closer inspection, we do not. We want to hurt the person we consider to be a bad guy, but it turns out that we are the bad guy. Read more »

Monday, December 20, 2010

Murders, Monsters and Mirrors: The Ethics of Killing and Cannibalism

‘Murder’ differs from ‘killing’ – and must differ for the words to have their moral impact – because killing is a neutral term. Surprising as it may seem, it is most helpful for discussions on killing if we recognise that the word itself is mostly and simply ‘the taking of organic life’. It is another matter whether it is all or certain forms of organic life we are concerned with.

‘Murder’ falls within the category of ‘killing’, in that the organism in question is killed but did not want to be killed. How we assess this is also another matter, but for humans we can infer in most instances whether or not someone willingly wants to die. If she does not wish to die, but still has her life taken away – violently or not is beside the point – then she was murdered.

Armin-meiwes I say this because I think we need clarity in the case of infamous German cannibal, Armin Meiwes. In March 2001, Meiwes killed and ate a willing, consenting man, Bernd Brandes. Meiwes had advertised on online chat-rooms, without euphemism or innuendo, his seeking a “young well-built man, who wanted to be eaten”. Brandes was a year older than his killer, but this didn’t seem to faze Meiwes who held auditions for the position. The other potential candidates thought that “being gobbled up” was a metaphor concerning sexual-actions. Four candidates travelled to Meiwes’ house, but eventually were told the seriousness of the description. Meiwes “let them” leave and was not impressed with another, who he found sexually unappealing.

After finally meeting Brandes, they started up the ritual that would lead to Brandes’ death and devouring. Brandes had drawn up a will and testament, where his money and estate would go to his live-in partner. Also, Meiwes video-taped both Brandes whilst alive and later, after his death. After all these final sentences of conscious human experience were given their appropriate full-stops and commas, Brandes ingested sleeping-tablets. Meiwes cut off Brandes’ penis, cooked it, and ate it with Brandes (eventually it was given to the dog apparently because of a poor recipe choice). Eventually, Meiwes killed (not “murdered”) Brandes, chopped him into pieces, and ate him over several days.

Read more »