Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy (15 page)

We may also learn something about the moral universe of the movie by thinking about the reasons given by the other characters for why Blonde’s treatment of Marvin the cop either is or isn’t a cause for concern. If we look at the perspective of the characters for whom it is not a problem, we may find that their acceptance of his brutal behavior has larger repercussions for our understanding of real-world philosophical problems. In particular, we may discover that some of the “gratuitous” attitudes toward violence displayed by these criminals are not all that different from some of the attitudes that underlie certain widely-accepted theories of justice and punishment.

In contrast to some film critics and philosophers of film, I maintain that Blonde is a far more complex character than someone who just enjoys shooting—and presumably killing—people. The naive belief that Blonde is nothing more than a psycho torturing for the fun of it stems from the critics’ assumptions about the correct theory of punishment. Given a different theory of punishment, we can make better sense of Blonde’s actions.

Let’s look at two theories of punishment: the utilitarian theory, probably held by the critics who misunderstand Blonde’s actions, and the retributive theory, which makes those actions appear more understandable.

But first, what is a theory of punishment?

A theory of punishment attempts to provide a justification for an authority to inflict some penalty on a person for a wrongdoing. Any theory of punishment requires:

First, the person or entity administering punishment must have the proper authority to do so. Governments have the legal authority to punish citizens for committing crimes, and parents have the moral authority to reprimand their children.

Second, the
form
of punishment administered should be appropriate to the crime: for example, minor moving violations might draw a fine, whereas murder might incur the death penalty.

Finally, the punishment should be proportional to the wrongdoing—that is, the amount of punishment inflicted, in whatever form, should not exceed, or fall short of, the degree of the original infraction.

Punishment can be defined in a
negative
or a
positive
way: that is, it may involve either the intentional deprivation of some good, right, or privilege belonging to a person, or the requirement of some restitution or compensation to make up for a person’s wrongdoing. If Smith is arrested for driving drunk, a judge may revoke his driver’s license or send him to jail, whereas if Jones is caught stealing merchandise from a store, she may be required to do community service or pay a fine. Of the two theories I will describe, the utilitarian theory emphasizes a positive approach, whereas the retributive theory emphasizes a negative one.

The utilitarian theory of punishment justifies punishment if maximizing people’s general happiness is a likely consequence of carrying out the punishment. One version of the utilitarian theory, which has probably influenced critics who condemn the violence in
Reservoir Dogs
as gratuitous, may be stated as follows:

The utilitarian theory of punishment is a forward-looking theory rather than a retrospective one because it justifies punishment based upon the consequences that follow from the wrongdoer’s actions, rather than focusing on the wrongdoer’s actions.

The utilitarian position as stated above may seem plausible, but there are objections to it. For example, if a person holds high political office or is otherwise influential in the community, then punishing that person may have undesirable effects. It may compromise the well-being of the commonwealth or even start a riot. Since this would not maximize
social utility, the pure form of the theory outlined above would seem to dictate that we ought not to punish the influential person, or at least not as severely as others. Most fair-minded persons in our own society would probably agree that social status ought not to be a consideration in an acceptable theory of punishment.

The utilitarian theory may also seem to justify harsh penalties for minor offenses and light penalties for major offenses if these penalties have the best effects generally. For instance, imprisoning or even executing a person for violating speeding laws might deter others from speeding, but harsh penalties for minor offenses and light penalties for major offenses are unfair because the penalty doesn’t fit the crime. Again, most persons would agree that the amount of punishment ought not to be given according to the effects it will actually produce; instead, the amount of punishment ought to be determined by the seriousness of the crime.

These objections and others like them are easily addressed with a few modifications, and in fact most contemporary versions of the utilitarian argument are sophisticated enough to fend off such objections. The more fundamental objection out of which these specific ones emerge, however, is the one that leads us to our second theory.

The objection runs like this: according to the utilitarian theory, some good must be gained to justify punishment. But if the punishment depends for its justification on some future good—on the likely effects it will produce—then it seems to lose sight of the crime that has been committed. We shouldn’t punish a person only if it will be advantageous for the community; instead, we should punish a person because he or she has done something wrong, and therefore
deserves
it.

This brings us to the retributive theory of punishment.
⁷⁰
Whereas the utilitarian theory uses the foreseen consequences of punishment (the good or bad effects) to argue that some sanction is
morally justified, the retributivist says that we are justified in punishing a person simply on account of the fact that the person has done wrong. According to the demands of justice, wrongdoers deserve to suffer. John Rawls writes:

If the retributive theory is correct, society has a moral duty to punish wrongdoing, not just a practical interest in doing so. The retributive theory is retrospective or backward-looking, in that it doesn’t depend on the outcome of some action to justify punishment. Two problems vex the retributive theory. We have to decide who deserves to be punished, and the theory has to be defended against the charge that it is nothing more than a form of retaliation.

According to retributivism, only wrongdoers, those people guilty of doing something wrong, may be punished for their actions. Rawls says, “What retributivists have rightly insisted upon is that no man can be punished unless he is guilty” (p. 7). Therefore, on the retributivist’s view, moral culpability is both a necessary and sufficient condition of liability to punitive sanctions.

Some retributivists maintain that we do wrong if we don’t punish the man who has done wrong by doing the same to him. Retributivism can then be seen as a form of retaliation (
lex talionis
, the law of retaliation or ‘an eye for an eye’). According to
lex talionis
, criminal acts should be punished by like acts. The classic early modern (1797) statement of retribution as
lex talionis
is by Immanuel Kant:

Kant insists on equivalence of punishment not only in quantity but also in quality of punishment. Such equivalency seems to justify retaliation or revenge.

All retributivists hold that punishment should be graded in proportion to desert, but they’re not all committed to any particular penalty as being deserved. So,
lex talionis
is not something common to all theories of retributivism.

Mr. Blonde’s violent behavior is best understood as exacting a form of retributive justice upon his enemies. He punishes his enemies because—according to his judgment—they deserve it. Blonde’s actions, from the perspective of the social code he observes, are within the confines of a consistently retributivist approach to punishment. Unlike the utilitarian, for whom some gain in human happiness justifies the violence of punishment, Mr. Blonde does not need to justify what he does in terms of subsequent consequences. Blonde punishes Marvin because Marvin has attempted to thwart his plans and is thus “blameworthy.”

In addition, the cops killed Blonde’s collaborators. An implicit moral rule or principle is that no one should harm another. This is also known as the
harm principle
and it was most clearly articulated by John Stuart Mill. Mill writes, “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”
⁷³
The cops violated the harm principle
when they killed Blue and Brown. For Blonde, it could be that the persons who violate the harm principle deserve punishment. So Blonde believes he is justified in punishing the cop.

On these two accounts, Blonde’s actions appear to be retaliatory rather than strictly retributive. The first interpretation argues that Blonde is justified in punishing the cop because his plans were thwarted. Anybody’s plans may be interrupted, but that doesn’t warrant torturing a person. Blonde’s getting back at the cop is not righting a wrong. Similarly, on the second view, Blonde’s torturing the cop is the result of the harm done to his fellow burglars. The difference between revenge and retribution is that the former is done for an injury or harm, while retribution is done for a wrong. What we have to show is that Blonde’s actions aren’t done because of a special tie to the events as these two interpretations suppose.

It might be objected that the cop doesn’t deserve what Blonde does to him, that slicing the cop’s ear off and trying to set him on fire is too harsh. This objection is about the proportionality of Blonde’s actions.

One complicating factor cannot be dismissed here: Blonde is clearly sadistic. Even some of his colleagues seem convinced of this. At one point, Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) remarks, “this guy’s a fucking psycho.” Not only does Blonde kill without remorse people who get in his way, he seems impervious to human suffering and he even takes delight in inflicting pain and terror. He jokes and dances as he taunts Marvin. He tells Marvin that he doesn’t care if he “knows anything” (the original pretext for holding Marvin captive and beating him up is to attempt to find out from him who tipped the police off to the robbery), but that the thought of torturing a cop “amuses” him. After cutting off Marvin’s ear, Blonde speaks into it mockingly before tossing it aside. Marvin’s pleas that he has “a little kid growing up” are answered with callous disregard (“You through?”) as Blonde douses him in gasoline and lights a match (“Have some fire, Scarecrow”). If it were not for Mr. Orange’s intervention (in the form of a bullet that blows Blonde away), Blonde would not hesitate to burn Marvin alive.

Is Blonde’s sadism relevant? There is a distinction between acting on a principle and acting in accordance with a principle. One might, for example, act in accordance with a moral law without being motivated buy the moral law. Consider the case
of someone who refrains from committing a violent crime solely because they fear the consequences of getting caught. Such a person would not be acting on a moral principle, but would be acting in accordance with a moral principle (such as “do not harm”). Similarly, if one has a great deal of evidence for some proposition, but believes that proposition on the basis of something a fortune teller told her, she would have justification for her belief, even though she wouldn’t be justified in holding her belief (as her belief was formed in a dubious way). The same general point can be made about Blonde’s actions. Clearly Blonde is acting on his sadistic urges, but his actions can (at least to some extent) be justified by retributivism, even if he is not personally acting on a retributivist principle.

Mr. Blonde’s actions do accord with a pure retributive theory of punishment. But pure retributivism is susceptible to serious problems. Do Mr. Blonde’s actions accord with a more defensible version of retributivism? Let’s look at a version of retributivism presented by James Sterba, incorporating ideas from H.L.A. Hart and John Rawls.

In the 1960s, the famous legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart developed a modified form of retributivism.
⁷⁴
Hart says that punishment is only justified when inflicted on someone who has committed an offense with
mens rea
.
Mens rea
is a legal term meaning ‘guilty mind’. In other words, no one is to be punished unless they freely chose to do something unlawful, with knowledge of the circumstances and the consequences. Hart also insists that punishment must serve in the reduction of crime generally. So in Hart’s account, in addition to retribution, a social utilitarian aim must also be furthered for punishment to be justified.