Tonight is Sunday, meaning that one of my favorite television shows is on: Dexter. For those of you who do not watch, Dexter Morgan is a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Metropolitan Police Homicide Department. However, Dexter is not the lab geek he portrays himself to be in front of his family, friends, and coworkers: he is in fact a ruthless serial killer*. Why the asterisk? Because Dexter is not like most serial killers. He has a code that he applies to his potential victims to assure that he is killing people "worthy" of dying.
The video above explains the Code of Harry: a set of guidelines created by Dexter's father Harry that ensures he kills only bad people. As his father says, "there are people out there who do really bad things, and the police can't catch them all." So the basis of Dexter's killing is predicated on the fact that the justice system is inadequate and inept at catching all the people that deserve to die. Seems like a tough pill to swallow, but often times his victims allude the law due to circumstantial evidence, forensic oversight, or the necessity of something like a search warrant (a liberty Dexter takes upon himself, often times picking the locks of his victims homes). Dexter stalks his victims to learn their daily routine so he can plan when to strike at the most surprising time.
By getting his hands dirty, Dexter ensures that his victims can no longer harm innocent people by a sort of vigilante justice. But do the ends really justify the means? Is it okay to kill a bad person because the justice system cannot do anything to stop the bad person? Dexter is inclined to believe so.
At the end of the sixth season of the show, Dexter's sister Deb, the lieutenant of Miami Metro Homicide catchs Dexter in the act of killing. This point of the show marks the first instance in which someone has found out that Dexter is a serial killer and has lived to tell the tale. Deb is placed in a very precarious position with this revelation as she has a professional and moral obligation to turn her brother in but a family obligation to protect her brother. Dexter's face sums up the debacle pretty accurately.
 |
| The classic "Oh crap, my sister knows I'm a serial killer" face - http://www.tv.com/news/dexters-season-7-premiere-yes-29693/
The dirty hands debate becomes even more intricate for Dexter as he must now balance Deb knowing his secret and compromising her job now that she has been made an accessory to his crime (Deb helps him burn the guy with the knife in his chest in the picture above). Now that he has involved someone innocent in his killing, Dexter has endangered the moral integrity of the Code of Harry. Dexter provides a unique example of the dirty hands problem in that Dexter's action are portrayed as noble and protective, but the actual crimes he is committing are deplorable in any civilized society.
In our society, so much thought, rhetoric, and argument is put into the justification of morally objective acts. It is interesting to think about the ethics of an unmanned Predator drone firing missiles at terrorist suspects in locations where civilian causalities are likely to be experienced and reliance on intelligence is our only affirmation that the target is there. Think of the uncertainty that President Obama faced in Operation Neptune Spear, in which intelligence reports only indicated a 50% certainty that Osama Bin Laden was actually in the compound targeted. He allowed for Seal Team Six to execute the mission nonetheless and ultimately succeeded. But that decision making process was likely primarily dictated by the prospect of killing the most wanted man in the world, while the safety of the members of Seal Team Six was probably secondary.
I like to think that Dexter's means are justified by his end but I also must account for the damage Dexter brought upon those close to him. Deb was not the first family member jeopardized by Dexter's murders: his wife Rita was killed by a serial killer that he was attempting to kill himself. The harm that Dexter's homicidal behavior brings to others like Deb and Rita, not to mention his son Harrison, in my opinion delegitimates the justification behind the Code of Harry. Be that as it may, you can rest assured that I will be tuning in tonight to see where Dexter's exploits take him next.
|
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThis has to be my favorite post ever. Mainly because Dexter has to be my favorite show EVER. I think that Dexter's acts are just as justified as Operation Neptune Spear. In that operation, they had a 50% certainty that Osama Bin Laden was actually in the compound target. Dexter on the other hand, usually is 100% sure of his victim if he follows the "code." What Dexter and Operation Neptune Spear have in common is that it's both for the greater good which justifies the act.
Dexter's homicidal behavior does bring harm to others but I think that it only delegitimates the justification behind the Code of Harry but does not delegitimize the dirty hands debate. The reason that is because just like the operation, they new their priorities and they new that others may be harmed which was OK as long as their main target was taken care of. That applies with Dexter also, as long as his victims are taken out for the better good, it is justified by the dirty hands debate.
John,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post. Great job! I thought it was very intriguing how you compared Walzer to Dexter. When I read your article, I struggled to decide if it was a case of dirty hands or not and what Walzer might say had he read it. There are strong arguments for both sides. Murder in the case of dirty hands is very tricky, because although Dexter does it for the good of society, it is still cold hearted, premeditated killing.
When Walzer discusses murder he says that, “Nevertheless, the sheer power to which politicians aspire, the kind of power they want to wield, and it may point to the roots of our half-conscious dislike and unease. The men who act for us and in our name are often killers, or seem to become killers too quickly and easily.” From this sentence it seems as though Walzer thinks negatively of murder, no matter if it helps the greater good of the people or not, because he hints that politicians are turning into murderers and that there’s a difference. But at the same time, he writes that many of the politicians we respect and allow to lead us become or already are killers and we accept this in society.
I think what Walzer is saying is that it depends on the person and the situation. Personally, I agree with your comparison. Dexter is a case of dirty hands, because although what he does is morally wrong, he is helping to save multiple lives by taking one. Had Dexter gained fame and popularity from this, I would argue differently, but few know of his actions. Therefore, he does not receive personal gain from dirtying his hands except that he is also living in a safer society in result. It does put others in harms way, as your talked about Dexter’s wife’s death, but it also protects many others that could have been killed had Dexter not killed them first. Overall, it was a great post that really makes you think about what Walzer would truly say about Dexter’s serial killer ways.