Recently, I listened to a podcast that discussed a startling statistic: over 90% of people have, at some point in their lives, thought about killing someone. According to this study, there is no significant difference between men and women in this regard; both genders have entertained such thoughts. In the film No Country for Old Men, the character Anton Chigurh, a cold and calculated killer, murders numerous people in pursuit of a bag of money. His killings seem emotionless and ruthless, lacking clear justification. This statistic, along with Chigurh’s senseless acts, reveals the complexity of human nature and the latent potential for violence within many individuals. It raises the question: why do we kill?
This inclination can be explained through multiple factors. Chigurh’s behavior may be understood in light of dark thoughts and complex desires. His rational killings may point to deeper psychological conflicts and yearnings. The darker side of human nature goes beyond overtly evil actions; it includes internal struggles and nuanced desires that drive people toward violence. This includes sadistic and masochistic tendencies, as depicted in films like Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom by Pasolini, where individuals derive pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering. Chigurh’s murders can be seen as an external manifestation of such intricate inner conflicts.
Suffering is also a vital factor in understanding why humans kill. People often respond to their own suffering with violence, either as a defense mechanism or an attempt to regain control. Although Chigurh’s backstory is not thoroughly explored in the film, it is plausible that past trauma or suffering shaped his violent tendencies. Such suffering can damage the psyche to such an extent that it creates a character like Achilles, who, even after killing his rival Hector, remains unsatisfied and expresses his rage by dragging Hector’s body around the city of Troy multiple times.
Fear of death and the will to power are also strong motivators for violence. In existential philosophy, as articulated in Hegel’s master-slave dialectic, awareness of mortality and the desire to exert power over others can drive individuals to assert control over life-and-death situations. This dynamic is reflected in Chigurh’s coin-toss rituals, where he leaves the fate of his victims to chance, illustrating his complex relationship with death and a perverse fascination with it.
All of this demonstrates that the reasons humans kill are profoundly complex. It also raises important questions about moral responsibility and theories of punishment. For instance, if Chigurh’s actions stem from a psychological disorder, is he fully responsible for them?
This complexity regarding human nature and the capacity for evil has become a central topic in criminal justice. Some courts argue that individuals with abnormal brains or bodies should bear less responsibility for their actions. One example is the case of John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. His defense argued that he suffered from a severe mental illness that impaired his judgment, resulting in a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
However, broadly accepting such claims risks denying the existence of truly evil individuals, like Hitler or Stalin, and may lead to disturbing scenarios envisioned by Dostoevsky. In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky explores the idea that certain individuals believe they have the right to operate above the law if it benefits society. He warns of the dire consequences of such thinking and the dangers of arguments that absolve anyone of responsibility for human life or death.
The existence of figures like Hitler and Stalin proves that some forms of evil do exist in the world. A stronger counter-argument comes from Sartre, who believed that we are fully responsible for all of our actions – even our emotions – because they reflect our freedom and intentionality. Sartre rejected the idea that emotions are merely reactions to external stimuli; instead, he argued that emotions are intentional acts, always directed toward something in the world. By viewing emotions as intentional, Sartre emphasized our responsibility for them. His approach provides a stronger framework for understanding human actions and moral accountability.
From Sartre’s perspective, Chigurh’s actions – though seemingly emotionless and deterministic – are choices he makes within his perception of the world. His calculated murders and rational justifications are strategies he employs, reflecting his engagement with freedom and responsibility. Therefore, even in the face of seemingly deterministic factors, humans are free to choose and are thus accountable for their actions.
Undoubtedly, such a view of human responsibility offers a more effective tool for grappling with the complex human relationship with death. If the inclination to kill is so widespread, then a strong mechanism must exist to remind individuals that their actions carry severe consequences, because they are accountable for all of them. Sartre’s philosophy reinforces the idea that people are responsible for their choices and provides a vital moral compass that can act as a deterrent against violence.