Is there a bioethical angle to the killing of
Osama bin Laden on Sunday? There is not much scope for analysing targeted
assassination in terms of the well-known principles of health care ethics. Justice,
giving each his due? Possibly, but who defined what was due? Informed consent?
Um, a bit of a problem there. Beneficence? Towards a terrorist? Non-malificence? In war?
But what if the killing were something that the US government is neurophysiologically programmed to do?
American took this lead and highlighted the evolutionary value of revenge. It interviewed
evopsychologist Michael McCullough, of the University of Miami, and author of the 2008 book Beyond
Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct. Dr McCullough believes that
revenge is an evolved instinct “designed” to deter others from imposing harms
after they have already harmed us. He feels that the killing of Osama could
possibly be described as biologically-determined revenge. Whatever it is, it is
"You'll hear people say things that sound right: it's to "balance the scales," or
"right a wrong," or "serve justice," but those don't really
meet the level of achieving a function that biology cares about."
In the profusion of
articles this week, other writers reminded their readers that revenge was, to a
certain extent, biologically determined. In the Wall Street Journal, columnist Jonah Lehrer
reminded readers that “we
are engineered to get pleasure from punishing those who deserve to be punished”.
This claim is supported by a 2004 paper in the journal Science which showed
that revenge is literally sweet. Swiss scientists used brain scans to show that revenge
activitates a region of the brain called the dorsal striatum which is involved in feelings of enjoyment or
So there you have it.
Knocking off Osama bin Laden may not have been an ethical decision at all, but
one which was determined by atavistic impulses in the brain more suited for speak-brandishing
cave-dwellers than civilised soldiers.