Confusing an Explanation for an Excuse

Confusing an Explanation for an Excuse

Kimberly Baltzer‐Jaray

When I suggested that Mother’s death had no connection with the charge against me, he merely replied that this remark showed I’d never had any dealings with the law […].

“Gentleman of the jury, I would have you note that on the next day after his mother’s funeral that man was visiting a swimming pool, starting a liaison with a girl, and going to see a comic film.” […]

“Is my client on trial for having buried his mother, or for killing a man?” he asked.

There were some titters in the court. But then the Prosecutor sprang to his feet and, draping his gown round him, said he was amazed at his friend’s ingenuousness in failing to see that between these two elements of the case there was a vital link. They hung together psychologically, if he might put it so. “In short,” he concluded, speaking with great vehemence, “I accuse the prisoner of behaving at his mother’s funeral in a way that showed he was already a criminal at heart.”

Albert Camus, The Stranger

Albert Camus summarized his infamous book, The Stranger, in 1955 by saying paradoxically: “In our society any man who does not weep at his mother’s funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death” (in Carroll [2008], 47). The plot of this novel demonstrates many fallacies, none so clearly though as the confusing of an explanation for an excuse. This fallacy occurs when there is an uncritical assumption that an explanation given for an action or event is an attempt to justify it. The prosecutor in Camus’s story is doing just this, he is taking the fact that Meursault didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral, along with other events that occurred in the 24 hours after her death (i.e., his fun with Marie), and using this as justification for the claim that Meursault was guilty of the murder of the Arab on the beach that occurs later.

An explanation offers an account of why something happened. A justification argues that an action was acceptable; an excuse concerns whether the person should be blamed or held responsible for it. The same information can bear on more than one question, but the connection needs an argument. A person’s mental state, for example, may help explain their actions and may bear on responsibility. A diagnosis alone does not settle that question.

Other times, we see this fallacy committed intentionally when someone is attempting to use an explanation of facts as some kind of justification or proof for an action. This intentional use of the fallacy is really what the prosecutor is doing in Camus’s story; he is taking a fact and using it as justification for convicting him (i.e., a man who does not weep for his dead mother is a monster who is cold enough to murder), a trick not uncommon to the courtroom. He uses the lack of tears to paint Meursault as a cold‐hearted, callous monster.

When Meursault is questioned by the magistrate why he paused between the first and second shots fired (he fired five altogether, one and then four together), he has no excuse, and this infuriates the official severely: facts are not enough, he wants to know why Meursault did this, what justified this pause. He is further frustrated that Meursault feels no remorse for the murder. The book, in fact, is filled with more explanation than excuses, and this is part of its unsettling and provocative nature, since we as humans seem to desire both the facts and the justifications for events – we want to know why someone felt the need to shoot another person, not just that he did it.

One of the best ways to avoid this fallacy is simply to ask someone if she is stating facts or justifying some event or action. Sometimes it can be unclear what someone is saying or how she is using certain statements, so it is best to ask. Don’t just assume. If a co‐worker tells you that “George won’t be at work today because he was in a car accident,” we can take this as an explanation of events. However, this explanation can form the foundation of an excuse if it is meant to serve as justification for his absence – George should be allowed to miss work today as he has valid reason. In this case, it is best to ask, for example, “Will he be missing work due to the accident and for how long?” just to have things clear.

Another way to avoid committing this fallacy is to listen carefully to what someone is saying, especially when the argument is rather emotionally charged. For example, two friends are discussing the issue of terrorism in the United States, and one friend says, “Politicians like saying that terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms and way of life, but really it seems to be more about American foreign policy,” and the other responds, “I can’t believe you are defending the terrorists! How dare you! You’re saying the 9/11 attacks are justified?! So we made them attack us?!?” The first friend offered a causal explanation. That explanation could be disputed, but offering it does not by itself endorse the attacks. The second friend could ask what evidence supports it and whether any moral justification is being claimed, instead of assuming the two claims are the same.