Moral Sense Test

4.8

3.6

3.4

I find this interesting. Think about the terrible events that have just taken place in Montreal. I just listened to a great conversation on the CBC where sociologists discussed the motivations that led to the murderer’s actions. The sociologists moved towards a discussion on intention. What happens in society when we use such phrases as, “i’m so angry, i could kill someone”? What about all the humor in popculture which revolves around pain and hurt?

Some would argue that aggressivity is inherent and that it stems from prehistory. I’m skeptical. I’d kill to survive, but i’d never kill for pleasure – i’d also never want to intentionally hurt or inflict pain.

I received a very high score on this morality test because I believe it is absurd to ever want to hurt someone, or ever to think about hurting a person. The thought never crosses my mind. Since writing the test, i have started many conversations about hurtful intentions. Do you ever have such thoughts? Some have been brave enough to tell me yes, they have, and thus I am surprised, (but appreciative of their honesty).

For myself, my only exception is in self-defence. When found in a sketchy area I have reflected, ‘if someone comes and grabs me, I’m gonna ___ and then ___’ and then I feel secure – yes, I intend on hurting the person. But i would never want to harm anyone. I have absolutely no tolerance to thoughts or humor which hurt. And honestly, I am surprised that anyone would ever want to cut someone’s ear, or slam a ball into their nose, or… whatever.

Pop culture’s tolerance of violence has to end and maybe it can happen once we become more careful about our humor and language, but also when people’s intentions are for empowerment, support and peace.

black-eyes, I understand your comments about pop culture, and it’s entirely predictable that media commentary is really going to go on and on about it: violent video games, television shows, and movies. The Sun’s Michael Harris was all over that today:

Not long ago, kids amused themselves shooting baskets in the park. Now millions of them are shooting the all-too-human characters that populate the strangely addictive world of videogames.

How can there be a game about Columbine or the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

How can there be a product where the consumer gets to amuse himself by gunning down police officers?

Sadly, the art that life imitates is not always what it seems. The journey from killing time in front of a computer to killing people in front of a school may be shorter than most people are willing to admit, especially when it comes to outsiders on the fringes of existence.

But I don’t think pop culture is to blame here. In Michael Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine, he shows how Marilyn Manson – an intelligent, articulate person – is criticized as an influence on the perpetrators of that crime, while the nearby manufacture of weapons of mass destruction at a nearby armament factory goes unnoticed.

The point he made there is that rather than look to pop culture as the inspiration of violence, we should look at real life. I think the point is a good one.

We are constantly shown that violence is acceptable, primarily because the state constantly reverts to violence to solve problems, to exercise control and to express its wishes.

Commentators in the media decry pop culture violence one day, and advocate sanctions against Iran the next. Few seem to recall that the near-genocidal sanctions against Iraq killed hundreds of thousands, mainly children, and that by advocating sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program they are essentially calling for thousands of needless deaths: ultimate violence in the form of starvation and disease.

Commentators decry violent video games one day, and press for expanded military roles in countries like Afghanistan and Lebanon the next: ultimate violence in the form of explosives and missiles.

One can argue that the life of a Taliban fighter isn’t worth that of a Montreal teenager, but it’s more difficult to make that case about teenage Afghan civilians, some of whom are surely dying at the hands of Canadians overseas. Nor can one forget that our chief allies, the Americans, have chalked up a long and bloody list of needless killings these past few years. We show who we are by the friends we keep.

That’s just for starters. We also live in a society with endemic violence against women, with a justice system that seems to take such violence lightly. And it must be more relevant that the killer had a love affair with guns than a fondness for video games.

I could go on, but you get the picture: there is plenty of inspiration for violence all around us without turning to pop culture as the culprit. I would even argue that pop culture is, perhaps, merely reflecting our society. The violence we see in pop culture, then, is just a glimpse of ourselves in the mirror.

There is a sociological term that I think applies in the case of Kimveer Gill; anomie. It is used to describe a sense of “rootlessness” that occurs when someone is unable to find their place in society. Violence in the media may or may not have played a role in the shootings at Dawson College. I believe, however, that there is a larger issue at the source of this incident. After reading over his blog I think that this man was not the insane muderous killer which the media made him out to be. Rather he probably spent many years unable to identify with the society he lived in, causing him much pain and angst. This most likley continued until he lost touch with his own reality and commited as, alevo writes “a protracted suicide.”