Compare Dexter & Meursault: Who is More Moral?

[Math Is Hard]

I was recently watching the first season of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_%28TV_series%29" , and I couldn't help but notice a parallel to Mersault, the main character in The Stranger by Albert Camus.

It's been a while since I have read it, so I went back to look at the "cliff notes" on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel)

Dexter and Meursault share a lack of empathy and are detached from social norms. Both are murderers.

What I have been thinking about is that Dexter is possibly the more "moral" of the two. Meursault killed at a random opportunity; Dexter follows a moral code.

The problem is that the moral code that Dexter follows is not his own - it was given to him by his father. He kills, but only those who "slip through the cracks" and probably deserved to die. Does the adoption of someone else's code make him somewhat "moral"? Or if he is just employing it as an excuse to scratch his itch, does it negate that entirely?

Does it matter if Dexter is following the code out of respect? That seems more emotional than rational and seems to have a little tinge of moral sense to it.

I find this interesting because I tend to want to root for Dexter, but Meursault, not so much. Dexter gets some "good" done-- Mersault does not. Both ultimately have rotten motives. Meursault was cranky and overheated, Dexter has an overwhelming urge to kill.

I should probably have more sympathy for Meursault. He wasn't feeling well. But I find myself more focused on the outcomes than the motivation.

 

[abiyo]

I personally favor Meursault. His depiction is a person who has no real sense of what is going.
You could see the way he acted when his mum died. If he really didn't care about his mother, why do we think he will care for a random person?

Also I think Meursalt is more independent. He seems to ignore others and follows what he feels. He has no dedication to a group, organisation or specific people. I respect that and would pity him for his actions.

But I guess this question rolls down to motives/outcomes but I was more emotionally involved with Meursalt than Dexter.

 

[Q_Goest]

Hi MIH,

What I have been thinking about is that Dexter is possibly the more "moral" of the two. Meursault killed at a random opportunity; Dexter follows a moral code.

The problem is that the moral code that Dexter follows is not his own - it was given to him by his father.

You say that Dexter follows a moral code that isn't his own, that it was given to him by his father, but don't we all follow a moral code given to us by others (such as our parents, society, or religion)? Or is there a moral code that is intrinsic to nature in some way? I think both characters you refer to don't have the inhibitions that 'normal' people have to inflict pain on others. But is this inhibition people feel that prevents them from running around killing people at random, a basis for moral code? What makes one set of actions moral and another set of actions immoral? I think any viable argument that morality is intrinsic to nature somehow, must address such things as how morality can be applied to killing other living creatures for food for example. References would be great too!

 

[Math Is Hard]

Hi MIH,

You say that Dexter follows a moral code that isn't his own, that it was given to him by his father, but don't we all follow a moral code given to us by others (such as our parents, society, or religion)? Or is there a moral code that is intrinsic to nature in some way?

I think both characters you refer to don't have the inhibitions that 'normal' people have to inflict pain on others. But is this inhibition people feel that prevents them from running around killing people at random, a basis for moral code?

Howdy Q,

Possibly both on the internal/external source of morals, IMHO. I think that if a particular action is against a person's morals, even if the idea originated from some external source, it has to be internalized in a such a way that thinking of carrying out an action causes a bad feeling, and hence the inhibition. It has to be a particular kind of bad feeling, something like guilt, shame, or remorse, although those are feelings that seem to come after an immoral act is committed. Just the fear of getting caught won't qualify.

What makes one set of actions moral and another set of actions immoral?

I think that can only be answered by the individual. Of course, there is overlap in what a group of individuals feel is right or wrong, and then it becomes ethics. If honesty is morally close to a person's heart, they might favor Meursault. It's the sense of justice that rings my bell in the Dexter stories, and that's where I think I screw things up, because while it appeals to my moral sense it says nothing about his own.

To try to back up and make a case for Dexter's moral sense:

Dexter follows a moral code when he chooses a victim. However, these aren't his own internalized morals, they are an adopted set of rules given to him by his father. In this regard he is just rule-following. But why does he follow them? There has to be a reason behind his adhering to the rules, some sort of sense of loyalty and/or respect for his father. Possibly, this honoring of the father's wishes, could be considered a sort of moral sense?

I think any viable argument that morality is intrinsic to nature somehow, must address such things as how morality can be applied to killing other living creatures for food for example. References would be great too!

Marc Hauser may have addressed this. I have seen him lecture on this, but unfortunately I have not read his book. His theme, from what I recall, is that we possesses a natural scaffolding for constructing morals, similar to Noam Chomsky's ideas that there are natural rules of grammar that are hard-wired into the brain for developing language.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060780703/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Anyway, that's probably a whole 'nother topic on it's own.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I personally favor Meursault. His depiction is a person who has no real sense of what is going.
You could see the way he acted when his mum died. If he really didn't care about his mother, why do we think he will care for a random person?

Also I think Meursalt is more independent. He seems to ignore others and follows what he feels. He has no dedication to a group, organisation or specific people. I respect that and would pity him for his actions.

I give him points for honesty.

But I guess this question rolls down to motives/outcomes but I was more emotionally involved with Meursalt than Dexter.

I suppose I've just been trying to sort out why I felt the opposite way.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Hi MIH,

You say that Dexter follows a moral code that isn't his own, that it was given to him by his father, but don't we all follow a moral code given to us by others (such as our parents, society, or religion)? Or is there a moral code that is intrinsic to nature in some way?

I don't believe those are the only two alternatives. Most people take the moral codes of their parents, society, and religion, as well as their own experiences and create a personal moral code from those. No, we do not all follow a moral code given to us by others.

I think both characters you refer to don't have the inhibitions that 'normal' people have to inflict pain on others. But is this inhibition people feel that prevents them from running around killing people at random, a basis for moral code? What makes one set of actions moral and another set of actions immoral? I think any viable argument that morality is intrinsic to nature somehow, must address such things as how morality can be applied to killing other living creatures for food for example. References would be great too!

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know Meursalt, but Dexter seems designed so that we'll like him. He's like us; he has family, he has awkward social situations, he has feelings through which he makes decisions: he's very much someone anyone could identify with, even killing badguys (which nearly every modern hero does anyway, just without the ceremony.)

 

[Nicodemus]

Dexter has a much better sense of humor, and he's very good at what he does. I vote Dexter, because a serial murderer adhering to any moral code and showing foresight automatically wins.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't believe those are the only two alternatives. Most people take the moral codes of their parents, society, and religion, as well as their own experiences and create a personal moral code from those. No, we do not all follow a moral code given to us by others.

Agreed.

Not killing your own "kind" is pretty innate for the majority of a population (from an Antrhopic/Evolutionary perspective, this is simply because that's a successful trait for survival... which makes sense).

Sociopaths can result from brain trauma (or defect/disease) and abuse coinciding, and of course we can associate loss in social functionality with particular regions of the brain. (Jim Fallon) And of course, agreeing with MIH, sociopaths don't have appropriate fear responses, so they tend to have less inhibiting morals (or so their behavior would say).

To me it seems that we settle into a moral code based on a combination of our genes and environment (I feel like I'm stating the obvious, though).

 

[Nicodemus]

With Dexter you also have knowledge of how he came to be the monster he is. In the books especially his, "dark passenger" is more than just a metaphor. He's sold as a sociopath, but he doesn't act like one; Dexter acts like a serial killer who does have some emotional connection. Obviously the connection is sick and distorted, but given his history as it's shown, he's more like a casualty of war than just randomly viiolent.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'd like to bring up a third killer, a real one. Also a sociopath and an opportunist.

A highly lucid and perceptive individual so I think he offers valuable insight. To me it appears, sometimes, as if he doesn't actually lack empathy, but learned to actively inhibit it. He seems to allude to it several times.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5740692213665972395#

The Iceman Confessions

 

[Nicodemus]

I'd like to bring up a third killer, a real one. Also a sociopath and an opportunist.

A highly lucid and perceptive individual so I think he offers valuable insight. To me it appears, sometimes, as if he doesn't actually lack empathy, but learned to actively inhibit it. He seems to allude to it several times.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5740692213665972395#

The Iceman Confessions

He seems more like an organized-type serial killer motivated by rage, and less like a sociopath. Scary as hell though... he truly did kill in a fashion that some would percieve as random when it wasn't for 'work'.

 

[octelcogopod]

One thing that always seemed to bug me about Dexter was how he struck me as unrealistic. From what I can gather from watching all seasons of the show, he has a very striking lack of anger or disdain, even for his victims. The creators of the show want us to know that he experienced trauma from seeing his mother being killed, but in reality the only thing that seems to be driving his killing is the craving he speaks of, but the craving isn't rooted in anger, rejection or any other normal psychological trait. We can see that he has troubles empathizing even with his own family and friends, yet he speaks to them in a completely normal manner. He's even lacking narcissism, grandiosity and sarcasm, which to me is very weird.

As far as the morality stuff goes, Dexter has some innate moral code, like not killing children, which he's very adamant about on certain occasions. He has also killed innocent people so he doesn't always follow his dads moral code.

 

[Nicodemus]

One thing that always seemed to bug me about Dexter was how he struck me as unrealistic. From what I can gather from watching all seasons of the show, he has a very striking lack of anger or disdain, even for his victims. The creators of the show want us to know that he experienced trauma from seeing his mother being killed, but in reality the only thing that seems to be driving his killing is the craving he speaks of, but the craving isn't rooted in anger, rejection or any other normal psychological trait. We can see that he has troubles empathizing even with his own family and friends, yet he speaks to them in a completely normal manner. He's even lacking narcissism, grandiosity and sarcasm, which to me is very weird.

As far as the morality stuff goes, Dexter has some innate moral code, like not killing children, which he's very adamant about on certain occasions. He has also killed innocent people so he doesn't always follow his dads moral code.

I don't know, it's a fairly profound expression of rage to saw someone into pieces, sometimes while still alive. He's not screaming and raving, but he does take a sadistic pleasure in his ritual, including dismemberment. He does all of this while working for the police, and uses department resources to target and cover his kills.

He's not saying it, but to happily butcher someone takes a degree of certainty about what is right, wrong, guilty, innocent, and cruel that reflects incredible grandiosity and narcissism. He doesn't kill children, but he also doesn't show any concern for how his selfish attempt to mask his nature with Rita's family effects those kids.

Above all, he lives a life that is centered around feeding a completely selfish desire by playing god: how much more narcissism and grandiosity do you want? He's supposed to be a serial killer, not psychotic.

 

[Werg22]

Dexter likes to ponder and reinterpret the things he sees and hears; Meursault is much more passive, I don't remember him ever pausing to speak his mind. And while Dexter is rarely emotional, Meursault is totally emotionless it seems: unmoved by the death of his mother and almost indifferent to his imminent execution.

 

[Nicodemus]

Dexter likes to ponder and reinterpret the things he sees and hears; Meursault is much more passive, I don't remember him ever pausing to speak his mind. And while Dexter is rarely emotional, Meursault is totally emotionless it seems: unmoved by the death of his mother and almost indifferent to his imminent execution.

Dexter is a serial killer and not a born psychopath; Meursault is a true psychopath in his total lack of emotional experience and display. I think that's why we can like Dexter, Tony Soprano, and other "not really sociopaths" sociopaths, but why portrayals of the real deal is so very chilling.

Hannibal Lecter in the first movie anyone?... shark eyes and no remorse, no capacity for remorse, and no real concept beyond the intellectual what such a thing would be anyway. Serial killers, as weird and driven as they seem to be, are not always sociopaths.

 

[octelcogopod]

I don't know, it's a fairly profound expression of rage to saw someone into pieces, sometimes while still alive. He's not screaming and raving, but he does take a sadistic pleasure in his ritual, including dismemberment. He does all of this while working for the police, and uses department resources to target and cover his kills.

He's not saying it, but to happily butcher someone takes a degree of certainty about what is right, wrong, guilty, innocent, and cruel that reflects incredible grandiosity and narcissism. He doesn't kill children, but he also doesn't show any concern for how his selfish attempt to mask his nature with Rita's family effects those kids.

Above all, he lives a life that is centered around feeding a completely selfish desire by playing god: how much more narcissism and grandiosity do you want? He's supposed to be a serial killer, not psychotic.

There's a difference between how an act may be perceived by others and what the actual intent of the act is. My point was I had a hard time coming to a rational explanation for Dexter's behavior, especially since we know a lot about him through his thoughts/narration in the show, and how he perceives other characters on the show. From what I have read most people who kill for sport like this have either anger, abandonment, social, narcissistic or grandiose issues, and other related problems. If you take away this unexplained 'craving' that Dexter feels when he wants to kill someone, what other psychological traits does he have that fit a killers description? It is true that he is portrayed as having an empathy disconnect, but at the same time it's very hard at least for me to attribute this to anything that is relatable, even with his childhood trauma I feel it would at least manifest itself in relation to other people somehow.

 

[Nicodemus]

There's a difference between how an act may be perceived by others and what the actual intent of the act is. My point was I had a hard time coming to a rational explanation for Dexter's behavior, especially since we know a lot about him through his thoughts/narration in the show, and how he perceives other characters on the show. From what I have read most people who kill for sport like this have either anger, abandonment, social, narcissistic or grandiose issues, and other related problems. If you take away this unexplained 'craving' that Dexter feels when he wants to kill someone, what other psychological traits does he have that fit a killers description? It is true that he is portrayed as having an empathy disconnect, but at the same time it's very hard at least for me to attribute this to anything that is relatable, even with his childhood trauma I feel it would at least manifest itself in relation to other people somehow.

A serial killer is something of a unique thing, in that they are not usually motivated by a particular personality disorder, although they certainly have them. Rather, you see the desire to dehumanize their victim, and use them as a prop in the ritual they act out over and over. It's that very aspect of what they do, and their motivation that makes them serial killers, and not mass murderers or just sociopaths.

Generally serial killers have a sexual component to their crimes, and while the psychology is complex and debatable, there are common themes that allow for amazingly effective profiles. That is simply because serial killers represent a tiny number of multiple murderers, and seem to share some kind of common damage to the PFC/FL.

Your average sociopath just acts without regard for consequences, or care for others; they're not driven to kill, just completely amoral and dangerously uninhibited. You're right that often the 'play' acted out by serial killers has some root in their upbringing, but there are cases where that seems not to be the case. This is a case, in my view, of a continuum of frontal lobe dysfunction from the very minor (ADD and other attention disorders) to the profoundly crippling (sociopathy).

What's important to remember is that not all serial killers are sociopaths, and most sociopaths aren't serial killers. There is plenty of overlap, but in the context of so much dysfunction who can tell what is the major cause?