Determinism is nonsensical, an ideology that suggests we are all products of our upbringing, that we cannot make decisions (that the mere concept of choice does not exist) because our personal belief system already dictates our action/reaction, just rejects the complexity of the human psyche and social relations. Also, with philosophical notions aside, 'those who carry out horrendous crimes' is too vague a description when referring to the perpetrators of crime. Every event of crime involves different circumstances and characters, and these differences need to be taken into account during the development of an emotional reaction and moral action. In this circumstance I feel compassion towards both the victims and the perpetrator, because any event which involves the taking of human life is saddening for me. Just to clarify I don't think my reaction has a philosophical basis, as much as it has a personal and spiritual basis. I feel every spirit is worth the same as another, and the loss of this to human tragedy like suicide and murder is deeply saddening.
Sorry to interject: this is the most basic fact in psychology. Determinism - so far as I understand it - is the idea that a person's personality is the product of pure mathematics, and that humans are little more than pre-programmed machines. I don't believe it, so I am not the best person to ask.
That's extremely obvious. What I meant by that, is that determinism suggests that it is only our environmental influence that sculpts us and 'programs' our behaviour. We are taught by our environment how to act and react, and thus we are unable to make choices. Determinism is highly mathematical yes, however, the fact of the matter is there a dichotomy between mind and brain, which is what makes cognition that much more complex and hard to understand.
But if you reject determinism (and I would suggest that you’ve misstated what it is) then that means that humans have free will (which I doubt, but that doesn’t matter here because, as a thought experiment, we’ll assume that humans are free). So, if you are of the view that humans have free will then that means that you must, logically, accept that some people choose to kill random strangers. If they have freely chosen to do so—as they must have done if you reject determinism—surely it is immoral to show compassion towards the perpetrator? The perpetrator, either as a lump of conscious meat or a spirit, chose to do what he did. He could have chosen not to but decided against it. Why does he deserve compassion if he was free to choose?
I'm not sure I understand what your point is. Where is the "lack of human feeling." The danger of not showing compassion, at least for what they went through that lead up to that moment, is to let it happen over and over again. Showing that we understand, and recognize that they did suffer a lot, doesn't mean that we have to act like it was okay for them to do it. It would be wrong to dehumanize them, just act like they are evil. It was wrong for these people to do what they did, but to say that they should just kill themselves before they have done anything wrong is sick. I don't know the details of the events that started these threads, but I do know a lot about the childhoods of many school shooters. They needed help, pure and simple. The Columbine shooters and Kimveer Gill needed a friend, someone to show them that the world is not as bad as they think it is. If you listen to the interviews their of classmates, it's pretty obvious that nobody tried. Yeah. It's stupid not to consider why someone commits any crime. We feel bad for someone who steals because they will starve to death and don't know any other way. We feel bad for the woman who has suffered years of abuse from a husband and eventually kills him because they didn't think they had any other way out. Well, many of the murderers we're talking about now were abused by society.
To be honest the notion of choice isn't as simple as 'to do or not to do, right or wrong', especially in this case where there were significant underlying factors to the perpetrators motivation; the primary one being that he was obviously a psychologically tortured individual. Also, since when it is immoral to show compassion for someone who committed an immoral act? How is that immoral? I am not showing support for the crime that they committed. I am not condoning the crime that they have committed. The most I am doing is sympathizing (in this specific case at least), with the the fact they have suffered, and have put others through suffering with them.
It's never immoral to have compassion. However, you can get so caught up in seeing the tortured soul that we become complacent to the act. "It's okay. He was a torured soul, and could not help himself." Bullsh!t. He made a choice, and destroyed lives. Every time he squeezed the trigger, he made a choice to kill. And kill he did, and wound, and terrify. He harmed people wo were never in the sights, too, friends, relatives, and children of those he murdered or wounded. Where is the compassion for them? By all means, seek out the reasons for this murderous spree. But do not excuse the act, or the selfishness of the perpetrator. He does not "deserve" compassion, whether or not you choose to give it.
Who is excusing the act? Nobody is. Who says we don't have compassion for the people they killed? Nobody is. Who says he didn't make a choice? Nobody is. Who said it was okay? Nobody is. This quote up hear says to me that you don't think they deserve to live even before they have done anything, that it doesn't matter what they've done. You're saying that my brother and thousands of kids like him should have just commited suicide and didn't deserve any help to prevent such tragedies. You are the reason these people exist Cogito. You say it's okay to seek out the reason, but you also say that they should just off themselves anyway. You tell us not to argue, but you're the only one who's not listening here.
Did you even read my post? No where did I say I CONDONE the act, nor SUPPORT the act. Nor did I deny compassion for the victims, and the friends and families. Oh, and I also never said he DESERVED compassion. If this man had not killed himself and been arrested, I believe the consequences that were to come to him would have been justified. You commit a crime, and you are caught, it is only moral that you are punished accordingly. It is sad. It makes me sad - but it is necessary.
I have to largely agree with Cogito's sentiments. It's a near-certainty that this guy was suffering from an emotional upset. He certainly wasn't acting "normally" by his standards or by anybody else's when he went on this killing spree, but he still exercised a high degree of choice in what he did. I've certainly felt angry and frustrated in my life, but there's never a chance in hell of me making innocent people pay for my problems in such a drastic way. We can debate whether this atrocity actually makes Derrick Bird "evil", but it was certainly an evil act, that has claimed a lot of innocent lives and ruined many others whose own lives will now be forever diminished through the senseless loss of their loved ones. I truly feel that we should save our compassion for those who were the victims here, both directly and indirectly, rather than the murderous perpetrator who decided that it was his moment to call "time" on his life, and elected to take several innocent souls with him, whether he was "thinking straight" or not.
Eoz: Your difficulty is that you’ve rejected determinism. You can’t therefore rely on determinism (the underlying factors that you mention, psychological torture) as possible reasons for what he did. They are all irrelevant if you reject determinism: he was free to choose. It’s for that reason I’m suggesting such a criminal does not deserve sympathy. Surely sympathy must be deserved? How can it be deserved though if you reject determinism? Rei: The point I’m making about the lack of human feeling is this: if one argues that we live in a deterministic universe without any free will, then, logically, nobody deserves to be punished. If I go out and kill someone, why should I be punished if I were not free to choose any differently? On the face of it, trying to understand the reasons behind the crime seems to be the compassionate thing to do. But is it really if the result is that the perpetrator isn’t properly punished? When determinism is taken to its logical conclusion, it’s difficult to see why anyone should be punished. And if no one is punished, if humanity is just reduced to the science of cause and effect, doesn’t that mean we lose any sense of genuine human compassion? It would be logical, but not companionate to the victims, if humans were never punished (unless you reject determinism in all its forms).
Rei, I disagree. What I said was that if you are going on a killing spree and saving the last bullet for yourself, take the first bullet instead. I am not the reason these people exist. That's just absurd and insulting. My statement is to condemn the choice of taking down other people with yourself. There is NO justification for that kind of selfishness and malice. I will not be a hypocrite and claim a compassioin I do not feel for a person who makes that choice. He is responsible for his choice, and he kills himeslf to free himself of that responsibility. I despise that kind of cowardice. Of course it is better if the person seeks help instead of stockpiling ammo.
Nobody is saying that what they did is okay, but we should still recognize that the person suffered. We also have to realize that the degree of suffering was much worse that the average person. We also have to recognize that there was an underlying mental illness that make them different from us. To just condemn them and act like all they were was this terrible act dehumanizes them and allows it to happen again because we won't be able to see people at risk of getting to that point and stop it from happening again. And Cog, you're still saying that they should just off themselves before they have even done anything, and therefore they don't deserve help when they haven't done anything. If they are have the gun, but haven't hurt anyone, wouldn't it be better to stop them and help them, realize that they have suffered and are ill?
Look. The man made an immoral choice, which lead to an immoral action. He murdered innocent people and then he killed himself. I am, thus, sorry, and sympathetic, towards him and, especially, the victims he killed. Perhaps I am using the wrong word even. Maybe it is not compassion that I am feeling/ giving towards the perpetrator, but pity? Maybe I am feeling/giving pity towards the perpetrator, but compassion towards the victims? Anyway, I'm over this debate. I am saddened by the tragedy. I see no benefit trying to justify myself any further.
I think you debated well and liked hearing your views. Cog, are you saying that suicide generally is an act of cowardice?
I know you weren't asking me, but suicide is and isn't. It really depends on the situation, what motivates them, and if they know what help is out there for them.
You are not listening. If they have armed themselves and set out to kill and to die, that IS an act of violence. What I am saying is IF you are determined to kill and to die, OMIT the other victims. Do not put words in my mouth. Whiffet: I was speaking of murder-suicide, and yes, that is an act of cowardice. I won't discuss the larger issue of suicide in general here. This thread does not need any more controversy.
All Cog is saying is that it's better to kill oneself instead of oneself + a bunch of innocents. I would find it very hard to believe if you didn't feel this same way. Of course it would be better that they get help before any crime is commited- I don't think that Cogito is disputing that at all.
I don't care if the gun is loaded. They still haven't hurt anyone, and therefore why should they die instead of getting help?
At that point he has rejected the choice of getting help. If you think you can change his mind, go for it, and I wish you success. But wear body armor. Because by then, he is a killer, regardless of whether he has yet taken his first victim.
You don't want me to put words in your mouth. Don't assume what people are thinking. Don't assume anyone is beyond help.
In fairness, I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue against the premise that it would be better to apprehend this man before he has killed anyone, and then set the wheels in motion to ensure that he receives the help that he needs. And that includes those last moments when he has loaded his weapon and is preparing to embark on his killing spree. We can all feel sorry for whatever happened to Derrick Bird that took him to this place but I have to admit that my sympathy for him ends in that moment when he trains his sights on his first victim and pulls the trigger.
True, none of us have been in that place, and therefore don't know what would happen. I just don't think it's right to make assumptions about those people and to give up on a human who has suffered and hasn't done anything wrong yet. Except for perhaps illegal weapons possession, and theft to get the gun in some cases.
I do know one thing, though. If someone was holding a gun or weapon against my little girl's head or advancing on her threateningly in what I feel is intent to harm or kill, but hasn't actually fired a shot, they technically haven't commited murder yet. Technically, they aren't "beyond help." I would shoot them in the head without hesitation.
