Is Eli "immoral"?

[pristidae]

I'll include this topic in the film section, as I am just starting to read the book. I see that there has been much discussion on Eli's motives and character in the story, and I wanted to distill this down a bit. The fundamental question is: are Eli's actions immoral?

Most societies tend to perceive that there are certain "natural" moral laws in the universe: prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, etc... I would argue, though, from an historical perspective, human law, whether conceived of as "natural" or manmade (the distinction here is what is morally "right", versus what is legally "prohibited") all human law is merely a device imposed to facilitate social cohesion, minimize conflict, and curb self-interested actions that impair the functioning and success of the "group". We tend to view law as "real," we internalize it, so that individuals who do not follow its strictures are viewed as more than just non-conformists, but "immoral" actors and dangerous.

But, think about circumstances where the legal norms we take for granted don't apply-- like soldiers in war. Granted, military actions are both socially-sanctioned and subject to its own set of rules, but these rules are starkly different than those back home, and certainly not subject to same scrutiny as law stateside. Soldiers may accidentally, or with full knowledge, cause the injury or death of innocent civilians -- so called necessary collateral damage, and so long as these actions were undertaken with appropriate authority, there are not normally negative consequences for the individuals causing the injuries and deaths of innocents. What happens in Afghanistan, stays in Afghanistan. I'm not being flippant here, nor political, but merely observing that there are circumstances where members of society might kill innocents, and such acts will be not generally be viewed as immoral, but a necessary evil (i.e., we had to detroy the building to get Taliban leaders, despited the fact that 40 civilians also live there).

Similarly, if a person is compelled to injure or kill an innocent person by threat of force of another (i.e., you are kidnapped, and the kidnapper threatens to kill you if you don't kill another), the law of many jurisdictions will not hold you accountable for the slaying. Certainly the kidnap victim here has a choice -- he could allow himself to be killed so as to prevent participating in the homicide himself. Conversely, though, many nations condemn and outlaw suicide -- why? -- a common argument is that suicide is socially disruptive (to one's family, due to loss of a productive worker, through loss of morale by those hearing about it), and thus individual liberty is curtailed for the common good.

Also, there are circumstances where individuals may pose a mortal threat to others, such as when a person contracts a dangerous pathogen. Does the law force the infected person to submit to government control, for compulsory suicide/killing and cremation, so as to contain the disease and prevent it's spread? No-- normally, at worst the CDC can obtain judicial approval to involuntarily quarantine the infected person for isolation and treatment, despite the continuing threat. Clearly, even where a person poses a mortal danger to others, we (society) do not compel individuals to kill themselves for the greater good.

So, on to Eli. I argue that Eli is not immoral in her actions, because she exists outside of society. Society failed him/her by allowing him/her to be brutally castrated, infected with vampirism, and failing to medically or socially assist him/her. She kills reluctantly, remorsefully and because not doing so would mean suicide. We do not morally demand that persons with AIDS, drug-resistant tuberculosis, or Ebola kill themselves to protect the greater society, despite the fact that the infected persons can directly cause the death of others – I do not think that it is an immoral choice, therefore, for Eli to choose to live and not commit suicide like Virginia.

Eli did dismember the bullies at the pool house, but this was arguably deadly force in the defense of another in mortal danger, circumstances where most nations’ laws would deem justified homicide (she spared the bully not participating).

I also do not see Eli as immoral for enlisting Hakan to assist her get blood. He/she obviously hates having to kill to live, but the only other choice is suicide. He/she does not “use” Hakan, in my view – Eli bargains with him, offering money or intimacy, desperate to feed without having to prey on people himself. Eli doesn’t (to my knowledge) ever threaten Hakan, or prior helpers, “bring me blood, or I will take yours!” Eli respects human life, and respects social norms where he/she can (not using her ferocious predator nature to terrify others into helping her, for instance).

However, Eli is clearly outside of society, and society cannot ease her plight. She by necessity has to revert to what I think is the more “natural” human nature – action in self-interest, not necessarily moral or immoral (as morality, I propose, is merely a “guilt trip” employed by human societies to make self-interest that injures third persons distasteful), merely to survive… The Latin root of the word “moral” means common practice – not “correct, right” (i.e., natural law).

Does Eli have a moral obligation to prevent deaths? I would argue not. I remember reading many years ago that there were like 60,000 highway deaths annually in the U.S., and that by changing the speed limit universally to 25 mph, these deaths could be virtually eliminated. Do we, as a society, do all in our power to prevent 60,000 family-members from being killed due to our collective need to get to our destinations rapidly? No – we callously speed off to our jobs, dates, and the grocery store, unconcerned that collectively, and at times individually, this velocity kills a lot of people. And these deaths are socially sanctioned. A driver’s speed alone in a high speed highway crash will not be a basis to hold him criminally liable for an accident, if he was driving at the societally-approved speed limit.

I have never viewed Eli as a “monster” – whatever that means. To me, describing a person as a “monster” infers that the individual has callous disregard for human life, and purposefully inflicts pain and death on others. Eli is not sadistic, cruel, nor murderous. I do not care that she sprouts a predator’s raptorial fangs and claws (or membranous wings). These are merely body-bound tools for subduing prey. Are all predators “immoral”? I’ve certainly encountered people who think so (you feed your dog tofu?!?). Tigers and sharks are part of nature, and that they eat meat and kill to do so, whereas antelope and deer eat grass, is not a moral issue. Modern society evolved from agriculturalists, who demonized predators as competitors and mortal threats to settled life. A shrew is a voracious (and venomous) little predator, but because they pose no threat to humans, they are viewed solely as a symbol of smallness, and maybe emotionally distant females, and not seen as immoral predators.

The bullet-points of the following rambling post would be:

1) I do not think that Eli is a “monster”, or immoral in nature, simply because he/she is compelled to kill humans to survive – she kills out of necessity, not out of cruelty, malice, or hatred;

2) The whole notion of ascribing moral value to a person’s actions presupposes that they are a member of one’s society;

3) I think “natural” law prohibitions against murder are a societal construct to assure group cohesion and minimize conflicts that could jeopardize the group;

4) Eli necessarily exists outside of society, because society failed to protect him/her, and continues to do nothing to ease her suffering or cure her condition, and therefore, it is unfair to assume that he/she is circumscribed to operate under mankind’s legal rules;

What do others think about the morality of Eli’s actions?

[covenant6452]

I think you've pretty much nailed it on the first try. I don't think you can blame someone for something that has been forced upon them, as it was on Eli. So no, I don't think Eli has acted imorally as far as we've been told in the book or film, and doesn't seem the type to act immorally. A problem I see is, society or humanity, considers itself top of the food chain, would most likely never countenance co-existing with predators such as Eli in our midst. Someone would always be out for Eli's blood, poor child.

[Skoo]

Since all animals feed on other living beings, I cannot consider Eli immoral. And yes, she was forced into it, there was no choice. We start talking about immorality when we think of ourselves as superior beings, the only species that needs no excuse for what it does, but can do anything to other species: it is justifiable, it is for the good of mankind. Not to mention the superior race concept.

Eli is a sympathetic character and, like Oskar, most viewers/readers will, in some way, fall in love with her (not him). That's why when it comes to her, her actions are justifiable, but when it comes to Hakan or other characters, they are not justifiable anymore. They had a choice! Or is it because they are not outside of society?

[lombano]

I was going to post a thread called 'Eli on trial' to discuss this, but I've beaten to it...
I broadly agree with the OP, with some exceptions/other points:

-That Eli is outside society and that society has failed to protect him are separate points - we should distinguish between society's rules and moral arguments. Someone outside society would have no particular duty to obey society's rules, but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from all moral (as distinct from legal and societal) considerations.
-Unlike the examples mentioned, where the risk to others of the individuals continued existence is fairly small, or can be made so with adequate precautions, Eli's existence has directly required the deaths of a large number of people, and will continue to do so if he's left to his own devices. I would say that killing one person for your continued survival is one thing, but killing hundreds or thousands is another. Thus I don't consider Eli wholly guiltless - but I would add, to use UK legal language, 'diminished responsibility on account of mental age.' We don't hold children to the same standards as adults, and thus Eli's guilt I would judge to be less than that of an adult who made the same choice. Eli owes some measure of atonement, but is not deserving of the death penalty (it would be a tragic necessity if society had no alternative, but a blood bank would resolve the issue - society would have options, Eli doesn't).
-The issue of Hakan is separate - Eli is turning someone who at least was innocent of murder into a serial killer. There are mitigating circumstances, but I would not say Eli is non-culpable. Killing Hakan I view as moral, since he offered himself willingly and it was essentially a mercy killing.
-Eli doesn't choose victims in moral terms. This in itself is morally debatable; should Eli play God and pick victims that are as evil as possible (or who, like Hakan, offer themselves willingly) or should he be an 'equal opportunity' predator? I'm inclined to say Eli should choose, but inevitably this implies the death penalty for minor crimes (she's not going to run into Pol Pots every day), not to mention issues about which criteria should be used.

The nearest parallel I see to Eli's situation is murdering and eating someone in a time of famine, to avoid starving to death. And doing so over and over.

[TheVoxHumanus]

Morality, whether you like it or not, is as fluid and dynamic as the society that holds those truths to be self-evident. There is no grand moral arbiter, and morals are a function of group social dynamics and exist only within the society that deems them necessary to, but they're treated for teaching purposes as existing without that society and being imposed on it.

That being said, people internalize "morals" as, paraphrasing what the OP said, being a kind of over-arching instinctual law that people must abide by in order to function, and are usually punished if they do not (and if they're caught). (This goes hand-in-hand with our sense of "God" and everything that does for -- and to -- us.) This is useful to a point.

However, our minds function in such a way that self-sufficiency and the survival of immediate family members, friends, your immediate "tribe" trumps nearly always the survival of the group. Your sense of "group maintenance" or that sense you have of "society at large" or "community" cannot pass on its genes via a mate. Your sense of community is an idea, just an idea, and while ideas are very important to our social evolution they're still based on the survival of the biological organism and still need that organism as a vector to carry on. "Morality" can very easily be ignored to ensure your own personal survival, or the survival of the people you love.

I have no idea if this is "wrong" or "right", or even if terms like that can comfortably be applied to it (are we allowed to pass moral judgement about morals themselves? )-- but I do know that's the way it works.

Eli does what she does because she has the instinct to live, as do all living things (regardless of whether or not they can actually reproduce -- her mind doesn't...know she can't.) So I think the question of whether it's moral or not might be ignored in favor of a much bigger statement: life exists because it has a will to and can adapt to ensure its own survival.

[a_contemplative_life]

I think a primary question to be answered before reaching any decision is whether you view Eli as a human with a very unusual illness (which is how she describes herself in the book), or a creature so different from us that she does not enjoy the legal protections of being human. If one concludes that Eli is so different that she is not truly human, then she could legally be treated like an animal. Of course, she would not be guilty of murder, but could be treated like a dangerous shark, and destroyed. In other words, the question of whether she was "moral" or not would be pointless.

When one thinks of the traditional factors that make us human--the capacity for abstract thought and higher reasoning, use of language, the ability to appreciate art and music, the ability to believe in a divine god, the capacity for love and empathy, and others that I am sure I've left out--then I think that Eli can only be considered human, as surely she is capable of all of these things.

Thus, if you agree with Eli's view of herself, then she is human; and if that is the case, then the fact that she was made into what she is against her will, and before she became an adult, must be front and center in our evaluation of her morality. This fact alone would make her unique in history, because I can think of no accused who has ever been biologically altered so that their sole source of nourishment must be fresh human blood. That being said, the analogy to people with a grave illness, like HIV, doesn't quite fit. Those illnesses don't require the person who is sick to go out and kill others in order to stay alive.

I think there is a serious question of whether Eli truly has volitional control at the time she commits her killings. When a person has a seizure and harms someone else, we don't consider that person guilty of murder. Between that scenario and the clear case at the other end of the spectrum, i.e., the person who is "with it" mentally, and deliberately chooses to kill someone else, there is a range of behavior that the law has developed to respond to. For an example of a case more in the middle of the spectrum, consider the person who has a drinking habit and then kills someone while driving drunk. That person, although perhaps an alcoholic, is still penalized because he or she was aware of the drinking problem, but still chose to get behind the wheel, and was aware that there was great potential for death or serious injury to other motorists.

How do we analyze Eli's situation from this perspective? Like us, she is driven by a biological need to consume in order to live. That impulse is one of our central drives and is extremely strong. But unlike us, who can eat plants or animals (and live in a society in which someone else can do the slaughtering, in the latter case), Eli has to do it herself. This fact, again, would make her case unique. We are not talking about a person who is deluded into thinking that she must do this--she actually must do it to live.

Another point is that even if Eli is very old from a strict chronological perspective, she has been denied the ability to mature into an adult, and therefore that she would might to be judged as a juvenile. Even in states that have the death penalty, few condemn juveniles to death, as they are not seen as having the full capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Neuroscience and neuroimaging have confirmed what the law (and parents) have long understood, since it has now been established that the frontal lobes, which are responsible for most of our executive decision-making capacity, do not fully mature until we reach our 20's. Essentially, Eli is a very old 6th grader. While she has much life experience, it is not experience that has been etched into a mature mind.

Where does all of this lead? I think ultimately that Eli would be imprisoned so that she would not harm other people, but would not justly be condemned to death.

I do think that Eli's enlisting of Hakan, though, was immoral. She knew he was a guy who was vulnerable because he was an alcoholic who was down and out on his luck. She chose him to come with her because she needed someone to help her. If she had any expectation that he would eventually kill for her, I believe that her actions were immoral. The fact that you must kill others to live does not give you the right to influence or manipulate other people existing in a state of weakness to participate in murder.

[drakkar]

Hi, just pops in to say hello!

I bought the dvd just three weeks ago, and it hit me so hard that I immediately got the book and film score CD.
LTROI had much stronger impact on me AFTER watching it than WHILE watching it, than any other film I've watched.
Which tells me that it very possibly is the best film I've ever watched.

The first hit was when I felt really strong sympathy for Eli. That puzzled me very much, because I already had figured out (s)he must have killed (or caused killing) about ten thousand times. By 1982.

Searching for discussion fora I stumbled upon this one, which by far is the most intelligent among those I've found. Being a slow starter I have enjoyed reading the board discussions on several topics that I pondered on - like this one. So thanks for enligthening me!

To me, Eli is not an immoral person. (S)he is very much a child, acting like one. I cant stop feeling that Eli's moral standards are quite high compared to the rest of the gloomy character menagerie presented in the story.

[Wolfchild]

Hi, just pops in to say hello!

I bought the dvd just three weeks ago, and it hit me so hard that I immediately got the book and film score CD.
LTROI had much stronger impact on me AFTER watching it than WHILE watching it, than any other film I've watched.
Which tells me that it very possibly is the best film I've ever watched.

The first hit was when I felt really strong sympathy for Eli. That puzzled me very much, because I already had figured out (s)he must have killed (or caused killing) about ten thousand times. By 1982.

Searching for discussion fora I stumbled upon this one, which by far is the most intelligent among those I've found. Being a slow starter I have enjoyed reading the board discussions on several topics that I pondered on - like this one. So thanks for enligthening me!

To me, Eli is not an immoral person. (S)he is very much a child, acting like one. I cant stop feeling that Eli's moral standards are quite high compared to the rest of the gloomy character menagerie presented in the story.

Another Norwegian! Welcome!

[drakkar]

Oh! ..for once we are more than one!?
Strange feeling (no wonder I sympathize with Eli )

[pristidae]

A problem I see is, society . . . would most likely never countenance co-existing with predators such as Eli in our midst. Someone would always be out for Eli's blood, poor child.

I totally agree -- regardless of whether, academically, it is true that Eli's actions are moral or not, society would never tolerate her existance among them, once people became aware of her nature. I imagine the atmosphere would be not unlike the witch hunt of several centuries ago in Europe and America, or in some parts of Africa today.

a_contemplative_life: I agree that the disease model is deficient, in that an infectious person does not kill intentionally. I also do not know any analagous circumstance where a person has to kill others regularly in order to survive.

The disease model is interesting though, in that the true origin of the belief in vampires (at least in colonial times in America) was based on the observation that after a person died, it often happened that others in the household then fell ill and/or died. Nowadays, we know that this was due to infectious disease, and that the illness that killed the decedent, was often spread to the family. Faced with new deaths and illness following a funeral, the famly would dig up the family graves/tomb, and see which corpse was (1) still intact, and (2) had moved from its burial position, indicating that he/she was leaving the grave and feeding off the living. The fact that some corpses remain intact for years longer than others, in reality, was based on differential preservation, where an older corpse might stay intact longer due to less acidic soil, less water intrusion in the grave, etc..., and the phenomenon of corpses rolling around in the grave occurs sometimes due to bloating during decomposition. A vampire corpse appeared bloated with blood, and intact. Upon discovering a "vampire" corpse (i.e., one exhibiting uncanny lack of decomposition, and evidence of moving position), the family would "kill" the vampire by beheading it and/or burning it. Unlike the movie portrayals, "real" vampires could appear during the day, and were recognized by their reddish palor, and puffy appearance. One excellent source on the topic is: Barber, P. (1988). Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

So vampirism, it seems, was merely a personification of peri- and post-mortem disease transmission. Makes Murnau's "Nosferatu" film that much more poignant.

Fear of your own dead loved ones would be a hell of thing to deal with, I would think. I remember reading an account of a father's "killing" of his dead young daughter's vampire corpse from colonial times in America. It was heartbreaking...