A Morality Test

[Husker_x]

One of my favorite currently-running shows on TV is Showtime's Dexter series. The novels, in my humble opinion, or at least the first one (which was all the further I got), were drivel and poorly written drivel at that. But never underestimate what talent can do when the core of the product is solid. One of the main reasons I enjoy the show is that it features an anti-hero, in this case a very morally complicating one. The moral dilemma of Dexter is very simple: Is Dexter good or evil? The show deals with this up front but never corners itself by answering it. For the purposes of getting a result, but not at the expense of discussion, I'm going to formulate a morality test with two and only two options.

 

Read the following and answer the poll to participate, and of course feel free to expand.

 

You're walking around town one night, not heading anywhere in particular, and you come onto a street with several abandoned buildings. One of them has a light on. Curious, you approach the window and to your complete surprise you find Dexter Morgan is standing over another human being who is bound to a table in plastic wrap. Beside them is a kit of knives and carving tools. Judging by Dexter's pace, you assume that if you were to call the police now, they would have enough time to respond before anything violent happened. But there's a catch. You recognize the person strapped to the table. He is a multiple felon who recently made headlines by walking from a murder case where the preponderance of evidence showed him to be guilty, but he was let go on a technicality. Not only this, but he is heavily involved in gang activity and is likely to hurt or kill someone else if given the opportunity.

 

The moral question: Do you call the police, or walk away and allow Dexter to finish his work?

[rawhide]

Dial 911 in Ca. I ain't carryin'

 

If I'm carrying, whole different scenario. But since you said there is plenty of time for the proper authorities to show up, waiting for them is the more prudent move. But I also have to ask myself: self? what are you doing there? fool, you're an RN, not some banger lookin' for an energy drink. just sayin'

 

 

GBR

[huskerjack23]

I'd say walk away but of course I know Dexter's situation and you tend to root for that guy because of back story and what not. If you knew nothing else other than the situation at hand, you'd know that you see a serial killer out there, regardless of he's a huge criminal or not.

 

What the guy was doing was sick and twisted.

 

I would add another question. Is there a place for vigilantes? Would you prefer them to be like Dexter provided you never found out how he did it?

 

There's some really great heroes that center around vigilantes. Peter Pan is one, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Dexter is killing people back. Balancing the world's good and bad. We need these people or else there'd be nothing to hope for, because god sure as sh#t isn't doing anything about it.

[AR Husker Fan]

Call the police. There is enough ambiguity in the facts that there is no way to be certain that the person about to be killed is, in fact, deserving of it. It may be probable or even likely that he is, but there's no way to know. Absent that certitude, you have to report it.

 

I'm not familiar with the Dexter program - I know the premise, but not details. Assuming that Dexter develops evidence that makes it clear that his victims are, in fact, guilty, is it sufficient to hold up in court? If so, then he could achieve justice by anonymously providing that information.

[Husker_x]

Call the police. There is enough ambiguity in the facts that there is no way to be certain that the person about to be killed is, in fact, deserving of it. It may be probable or even likely that he is, but there's no way to know. Absent that certitude, you have to report it.

 

I'm not familiar with the Dexter program - I know the premise, but not details. Assuming that Dexter develops evidence that makes it clear that his victims are, in fact, guilty, is it sufficient to hold up in court? If so, then he could achieve justice by anonymously providing that information.

 

Hey AR,

 

As fans of the show know, Dexter's 'Code' as he calls demands a standard of evidence coming upon absolute certainty. Form himself he has to confirm that the person is guilty of at least one previous homicide and is almost certain to do one again. The trouble is, his 'projects' often involve B&E to gain the evidence. He is a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Metro PD, so generally the evidence he collects is blood-related.

 

I suppose I should have made that part clearer for the purposes of the test. Dexter knows the people he's killing are guilty (the show tinkers with this concept later on but for the sake of argument we'll stick with that.)

[Minnesota_husker]

Knowing the back story of Dexter(my favorite show on TV) i would walk away. But i dont know if i could just walk away if i didnt know the back story.

 

 

This is one of those very sticky situations.

 

 

Dexter does what we all want to do. he cleans the muck up. sadly our legal system lets a lot through and he just fixes it.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Walk away and allow him to put the dog down.

 

Also a fan of the show btw. Not opposed to vigilantes in general.

[AR Husker Fan]

Call the police. There is enough ambiguity in the facts that there is no way to be certain that the person about to be killed is, in fact, deserving of it. It may be probable or even likely that he is, but there's no way to know. Absent that certitude, you have to report it.

 

I'm not familiar with the Dexter program - I know the premise, but not details. Assuming that Dexter develops evidence that makes it clear that his victims are, in fact, guilty, is it sufficient to hold up in court? If so, then he could achieve justice by anonymously providing that information.

 

Hey AR,

 

As fans of the show know, Dexter's 'Code' as he calls demands a standard of evidence coming upon absolute certainty. Form himself he has to confirm that the person is guilty of at least one previous homicide and is almost certain to do one again. The trouble is, his 'projects' often involve B&E to gain the evidence. He is a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Metro PD, so generally the evidence he collects is blood-related.

 

I suppose I should have made that part clearer for the purposes of the test. Dexter knows the people he's killing are guilty (the show tinkers with this concept later on but for the sake of argument we'll stick with that.)

Ah, I see. That does complicate things on a moral level. Not sure I'd change my answer, but it does give one a far better basis for selecting the "Walk away" option.

[MCAT800]

Well here in Alaska we all "carry" so I probably would have killed both of them and then went to bed.

[zoogs]

That'd be sort of like coming across one criminal gang member taking out a member of an opposite gang. You don't know the backstory; all you see is one bad guy about to be killed by another bad guy. I suppose I might give it a minute or so of hesitation, and call the police.

[Landlord]

I would call the police. Whether the person is guilty or not, I can't make a choice that has the power to end a life. Sure, by calling the police, the murderer, having been let free on a technicality, might murder again, and to an extent my choice has an effect on that, but if I call the police then the man himself and the judicial system are the real factors.

[huskertim]

Interesting dilema.

I'm pro vigilante and I believe that sometimes we have to brake the law (or rules if you prefer) to live with our selves despite the consequences. Still, I make the call, not to do so would be tantamount to committing the murder myself and I'm generally opposed to that.

[Husker_x]

I suppose now that everyone else has gotten their chance I'll answer it as well.

 

My response was option 1, call the police to prevent the kill. As enjoyable as Dexter is as a show, and as strangely thrilling as it is to root for someone who is a serial killer who identifies the sole reason he does what he does is because of an inner darkness, not any sense of justice, the impulse to allow a perceived failure of the justice system to morph into an extreme form of vigilantism is unacceptable.

 

To root for a real life Dexter is to essentially say the following: 'When justice fails, the only solution is to deem one man the power of life and death over someone else, to ignore the rights of privacy and property, to disregard the chain of custody when dealing with evidence, to reject any concept of impartiality or of a jury, and generally grant absolute authority to a single individual.'

 

Essentially this amounts to totalitarianism on a small scale. Of course the problems won't become evident unless you yourself happen to be a serial killer on Dexter's radar, but that mindset, that justice must be served at the expense of all rights, has the potential to make a beeline for dictatorship.

[kansas husker]

I voted call the cops but if it results in his show getting cancled I would change my answer

[Army Husker]

I voted to call the police. I'm not familiar with the show, but never fully bought into the concept of vigilante-ism. It might make for great television, but is there really room in society for vigilantes to run wild?