Rampage in Virginia...

[galtgulch]

How utterly lacking in respect for another human being manifest in the actions of the killer. It suggests he has no respect for himself and a profound envy of others who must seem to him to have whatever it is he lacks. I think he had his own suicide as a goal and suspect he experienced hatred and envy toward others in the past but knowing he was going to kill himself and hence not suffer the consequences of his murderous rampage methodically indulged his desire to kill others first.

No wonder this subject is not being talked about on this forum unless I missed it. I sympathize with the victims and their parents, siblings, friends, classmates and anyone who knew them.

galt

[Matus1976]

How utterly lacking in respect for another human being manifest in the actions of the killer. It suggests he has no respect for himself and a profound envy of others who must seem to him to have whatever it is he lacks. I think he had his own suicide as a goal and suspect he experienced hatred and envy toward others in the past but knowing he was going to kill himself and hence not suffer the consequences of his murderous rampage methodically indulged his desire to kill others first.

No wonder this subject is not being talked about on this forum unless I missed it. I sympathize with the victims and their parents, siblings, friends, classmates and anyone who knew them.

galt

I think it's very difficult for objectivists, or even people who love life, to wrap their head around what could possibly motiviate someone to kill another human being, let alone 30+ of them. We could come up with many guesses, maybe he had a painful life and wanted to hear others, maybe he just snapped, we'll never really know unless he wrote a clear note detailing his reasoning. If he wanted to kill himself why take 30 other people with him? I can't think anything but he is a scumbag and an embodiment of evil, I can't forgive him because he was lonely or molested or any of that crap, he killed 30 people, many with a 2 hour break in between. He was methodical and motivated. It sucks, what a tragic event.

[Darrell Hougen]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A person who does not place any positive value on his own life cannot place any positive value on the lives of others. That is why suicidal people are dangerous. I'm not sure that is what was going on here, but I don't think there is anything mysertious about suicidal people killing other people first.

Darrell

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A person who does not place any positive value on his own life cannot place any positive value on the lives of others. That is why suicidal people are dangerous. I'm not sure that is what was going on here, but I don't think there is anything mysertious about suicidal people killing other people first.

Darrell

The percentage of suicidal people who try to kill other people is small. I don't know how small, but in my own personal knowledge of people who committed suicide -- I'm speaking either of persons I knew or of friends, family members or acquaintances of people I know; surely over a hundred cases if I'd try to enumerate them -- not one made any attempt to kill anyone else. Most went off in private somewhere, though maybe just the garage of the house (where they turned on the motor of the car in the enclosed space) when no one else was home. Although a certain number of suicidal people are also homicidal, it simply isn't true that any and every suicidal person is dangerous to others.

Ellen

___

[BAMF]

I never really understood the whole killing other people and then killing yourself thing. I know there's more to it, but I've always thought that if I wanted everyone to die so badly I would just kill myself. (Because once I'm gone, everyone else is, too. They're gone to me, I mean).

I suppose a lot of them are just still angry, bitter, and suffering, so they want others to feel what they've felt or they want to show everyone, "Hey, I was suffering and y'all didn't do anything. Now look!" Ellen, I've never known anyone who committed suicide who also took someone else with them; however, I knew someone who was anorexic (obviously having a very poor body image) and he killed himself by hanging from his weight bench.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Kori

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This thread actually belongs elsewhere, not in "Ethics," but I want to leave it here because there is a HUGELY important ethical consideration for Objectivism involved. Before I address this, I wish to point out to galt that this shooting was mentioned in other places on OL: starting here and following, and here (I don't know if this last was before or after your post, but the tone suggest that Elizabeth had not read your post).

Now on to the ethical problem: evil. In Objectivism, a person is condemned for not using reason—for evading. This is considered as the source of evil. Now, no one could possibly classify what this young man did as anything but evil. Pure naked evil. Even the newscasters on TV are using this word "evil" to describe his act. I have seen this on both CNN and Fox News. They rarely use this word as their own evaluation in reporting the news.

As I watched the TV news, a forensic profiler was interviewed (sorry, I don't remember her name) and she emphasized that this act was committed by a person with a strong desire to control and, from the competent manner in which it was performed, this was rehearsed over and over in his mind countless times during days if not weeks before the killing. She stated that the main carnage event was this person's single goal in life, which was why he had no friends and hardly anybody knew him.

What we have here is a conscious choice of a goal, a highly reasoned method and plan for achieving that goal and even rehearsal and practice to make sure it comes off correctly. So the "to think or not to think" argument falls pretty flat. All of those things (choosing goals, choosing methods, mentally practicing, etc.) are acts of reason.

It could be argued that the choice of the goal was based on the choice of not to think (about metaphysics or something), but that sounds like nitpicking and hairsplitting even to me. This man chose his goal while in full possession and use of his rational faculty. How he carried out his plan was fully rational in terms of achieving his goal. He consciously and rationally chose evil. I say this regardless of his emotional drives (envy, rage and whatnot).

He is concrete proof that rational evil is highly destructive and effective.

So I think we need to refocus the Objectivist concept of evil. It is not outright wrong, but it is terribly unfocused and incomplete. If does not fit the kind of example this carnage represents. But this issue is more complicated than it seems. Even saying that the attempt to destroy human life is evil constitutes a gross oversimplification, just as non-initiation-of-force is. In the first case, punishment based on justice is a perfect example of where destroying human life is not evil. In the second, this man needed to be stopped—and I mean by force—way before he started. Anybody who perceived the evil and initiated force against him at that stage to restrain him would have been more than moral, even if this happened days before the event.

The problem comes in defining evil. There are some heavy premises that need to be checked here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to add a thought to my last post. I have been doing a bit of surfing around the Internet to see the reactions and I noticed a very curious reaction in Objectivism-land.

Those Objectivists who are very quick to call Islam "evil," other Objectivists "evil," Christianity "evil," altruism "evil," well, you get the picture, that are predominantly saying something to the effect that this guy "snapped," as if he had no moral choice involved.

What I have seen so far is that this guy did not snap at all. He coldly and rationally planned a carnage (and suicide) over days or weeks and he carried it out with ruthless competence.

I wonder why all the evil-mongers cannot recognize naked evil right in front of them, but are quick to condemn non-evil things (using this carnage as a standard) as evil. I don't want to pick on them or turn this into a partisan issue. But this thing is important.

Really, really important.

Michael

[PalePower]

Michael,

Good thoughts. A further investigation into his mentality can be found here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/. These are two plays that he wrote, and turned in, while in school. Please don't read if you are easily affected by disturbing content.

Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind.

I recently wrote in a post on "The New Cult of Darkness" that I can't fathom true evil, because for me it must carry intention of committing evil consciously. It is undeniable that the murderer fully intended this havoc. Did he consider it evil, though? Right now I'm almost too sickened to carry on some philosophical conversation about his possible state of mind. As can be seen in his plays, his characters have some sort of motivation for good, however twisted - feelings of injustice. But that would contradict itself - if he's aware of injustice, he would fall under that category. I said before I couldn't believe in the true existence of evil. Now I'm not so sure. He knew what he was doing. That's what I don't understand.

~Elizabeth

[BaalChatzaf]

Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind.

~Elizabeth

Bad thoughts are not actionable. Only bad deeds are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

Good thoughts. A further investigation into his mentality can be found here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/. These are two plays that he wrote, and turned in, while in school. Please don't read if you are easily affected by disturbing content.

Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind.

The Marquis de Sade had a very sick and disturbed mind. He -wrote- terrible things. He was never convicted for actually doing any of the things he wrote about, yet he was imprisoned many years. Do you think this is right? Just because de Sade wrote snuff porno, he goes to jail?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade for details.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Victor Pross]

Elizabeth,

Does the existence—or an identification of evil—call upon the subject themselves declaring themselves such? Who cares if Hitler regarded himself a great liberating warrior and the Jews as evil? He was evil, period. I just don't understand why it is such a troubling intellectual puzzle to you unless these people declare themselves evil—along with everybody else—so as to make it intellectually simplified. By their deeds, so shall you know them.

-Victor

Edited April 18, 2007 by Victor Pross

[PalePower]

Elizabeth,

Does the existence—or an identification of evil—call upon the subject themselves declaring themselves such? Who cares if Hitler regarded himself a great liberating warrior and the Jews as evil? He was evil, period. I just understand why is because such a troubling intellectual puzzle to you unless these people declare themselves evil—along with everybody else—so as to make it intellectually simplified. By their deeds, so shall you know them.

-Victor

That is a good point. I guess it's the very nature of evil that it's senseless, unjustified. I knew that before but I couldn't picture it happening - there has to be some sort of understandable motivation. But this doesn't make sense. At all. And I guess it doesn't matter what the motivation is. I don't know, I'm not being very coherent - sorry.

The Marquis de Sade had a very sick and disturbed mind. He -wrote- terrible things. He was never convicted for actually doing any of the things he wrote about, yet he was imprisoned many years. Do you think this is right? Just because de Sade wrote snuff porno, he goes to jail?

Also good points. And, apparently, I just found out, action had been taken. Private tutoring, suggesting therapy - a teacher even called the police. What else can you do?

~Elizabeth

Edited April 17, 2007 by ENonemaker

[Chris Grieb]

I don't know what anyone means by snapping but this guy didn't snap. The guns were purchased several before the events of yesterday. I believe he purchased the ammo at a different time. There was a long period between the first killings and the ones at the classroom building. Whatever happened I don't think you can call it snapping.

[Mike Hardy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A person who does not place any positive value on his own life cannot place any positive value on the lives of others. That is why suicidal people are dangerous.

Do suicidal people typically fail to place any positive value on their own lives? Auto-euthanasia can be done by people who would want to continue living if they could bear the pain. -- Mike Hardy

[Judith]

I never really understood the whole killing other people and then killing yourself thing. I know there's more to it, but I've always thought that if I wanted everyone to die so badly I would just kill myself. (Because once I'm gone, everyone else is, too. They're gone to me, I mean).

It's quite common for men to kill their families and then to kill themselves. The rationale given by psychologists is that the men want to obliterate themselves, and they don't see the members of their families as separate entities, but as extensions of themselves. "MY wife. MY son. MY daughter." Creepy.

Judith

Edited April 18, 2007 by Judith

[Judith]

A further investigation into his mentality can be found here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/. These are two plays that he wrote, and turned in, while in school. Please don't read if you are easily affected by disturbing content.

Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind.

Um -- actually it sounds like a typical junior-high or high school teenager to me. That someone in college would still write it is a bit immature, but it wouldn't really set off alarm bells for me. When I was 13 or 14 I read young adult fiction not much different from that.

Judith

[BAMF]

A further investigation into his mentality can be found here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/. These are two plays that he wrote, and turned in, while in school. Please don't read if you are easily affected by disturbing content.

Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind.

Um -- actually it sounds like a typical junior-high or high school teenager to me. That someone in college would still write it is a bit immature, but it wouldn't really set off alarm bells for me. When I was 13 or 14 I read young adult fiction not much different from that.

Judith

My thoughts exactly, Judith. I went through a period in my life (actually, me and the boy who killed himself went through this period together) when I was completely fascinated by gore and all that jazz. I read all kinds of shit that was WAY filthier than what Seong wrote, and I was FASCINATED. In fact, what he wrote was not necessarily disgusting to me, because I often make jokes like some of the stuff in those plays. I mean, like saying, "He's a motherfucka," and the thing about the teacher shitting. Those things made me chuckle because I don't take that kind of thing seriously. I'm mostly poking fun at those who say things like that and are serious. Then again, this is me now. I used to sort of take it seriously when I was younger. I think that I could have just as easily turned out like one of those school shooters or done something else just as crazy and I often wonder just WHAT it is that separates me from, not necessarily Seong (because I'm not evil), but my friend who killed himself. What is it that finally pushes someone over the edge? What is it that makes them stop caring about their own life? Baffling. No matter how close to the edge I have been, I've always had something to hold onto. Something to look forward to and something to cherish. What is it that demolishes hope? Or what is it that causes pure evil?

Edited April 18, 2007 by Kori

[BAMF]

The Marquis de Sade had a very sick and disturbed mind. He -wrote- terrible things. He was never convicted for actually doing any of the things he wrote about, yet he was imprisoned many years. Do you think this is right? Just because de Sade wrote snuff porno, he goes to jail?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade for details.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well, I'll be damned. I never realized that the man didn't actually do those things. That's completely outrageous that he went to jail for merely writing what he did. I recall reading a book that had a list of the 100 most evil people. Among them? Why, de Sade, of course. The things he wrote were like (to use a stupid cliche) a trainwreck. I just couldn't look away/stop readin'.

[BAMF]

Michael,

Good thoughts. A further investigation into his mentality can be found here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/. These are two plays that he wrote, and turned in, while in school. Please don't read if you are easily affected by disturbing content.

Personally, I am astonished that nothing was done before in regard to this man. This is obviously a sick and disturbed mind.

I recently wrote in a post on "The New Cult of Darkness" that I can't fathom true evil, because for me it must carry intention of committing evil consciously. It is undeniable that the murderer fully intended this havoc. Did he consider it evil, though? Right now I'm almost too sickened to carry on some philosophical conversation about his possible state of mind. As can be seen in his plays, his characters have some sort of motivation for good, however twisted - feelings of injustice. But that would contradict itself - if he's aware of injustice, he would fall under that category. I said before I couldn't believe in the true existence of evil. Now I'm not so sure. He knew what he was doing. That's what I don't understand.

~Elizabeth

Liz, I think I sort of understand what you're saying. For me, it's hard to "fathom true evil" because I am NOT evil. Not that I cannot imagine having the desire to kill someone, maybe in an instant; however, I have never taken a freefall into true evil and actually considered killing someone (or myself). It has never made sense.

I know that evil exists. It's out there. BUT, it's just hard to understand WHAT makes someone evil. How could you have such disregard for your own life and the lives of others? It reminds me of being a very small child and learning about atoms for the first time. WOW! How can this be? Now, of course, I feel this to a much greater degree.

Evil? How can this be?

Edited April 18, 2007 by Kori

[galtgulch]

As I understand it virtually every state in the country has laws which justify involuntary hospitalization for people who are "mentally ill.", meaning they fulfill the criteria for an Axis I psychiatric diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual DSM of the American Psychiatric Association APA, and are considered to be a danger to themselves, suicidal, or a danger to others, homicidal. or are unable to care for themselves.

It is curious that non mentally ill folks, including folks with an Antisocial Personality Disorder, who have served out their sentence for whatever crime they committed, must be released once they "wrap." A high percentage of these folks will reoffend.

But a mentally ill person can be held for successive recommitments, usually one year at a time, in a psychiatric prison hospital, even after their sentence is done, if they remain "mentally ill" and are considered t be dangerous because of their impaired judgment, delusional thoughts, paranoia, even though their index offense occurred years before with no subsequent aggressive or assaultive behavior.

Too often hospital staff fear recommending release of such folks even to State Hospitals, because they worry they will be held responsible if such people were to reoffend.

It is too bad that fellow students did not act to help this fellow feel he belonged. No one befriended him in all the years he spent at this college as he was a senior. His behavior was evidently offputting. Colleges should identify such kids early and have a program to help reach out to them using professional staff rather than to rely on fellow students, which latter would be preferable.

But my point is that for the safety of society it is possible to hospitalize someone where there is suspicion of "mental illness" and danger to others. At least such folks could be evaluated. Courts can also order treatment if someone is deemed not competent to make such decisions. This tragedy could have been averted.

galt

Edited April 18, 2007 by galtgulch

[PalePower]

It is too bad that fellow students did not act to help this fellow feel he belonged. No one befriended him in all the years he spent at this college as he was a senior. His behavior was evidently offputting. Colleges should identify such kids early and have a program to help reach out to them using professional staff rather than to rely on fellow students, which latter would be preferable.

In the recent news reports, numerous students have recounted how they attempted to befriend Cho and failed, but it was evident that they did indeed try to reach out to him.

It is also tragic that action was taken against this man -- but stopped midway. His English teacher, for example, even went so far as to report him to the police as a suspicious person.

The thing that gets me the most, though, is the two-hour lag between the shootings, when nobody knew what was going on. That is disgusting.

~Elizabeth

[Dodger]

How utterly lacking in respect for another human being manifest in the actions of the killer. It suggests he has no respect for himself and a profound envy of others who must seem to him to have whatever it is he lacks. I think he had his own suicide as a goal and suspect he experienced hatred and envy toward others in the past but knowing he was going to kill himself and hence not suffer the consequences of his murderous rampage methodically indulged his desire to kill others first.

No wonder this subject is not being talked about on this forum unless I missed it. I sympathize with the victims and their parents, siblings, friends, classmates and anyone who knew them.

galt

I think it's very difficult for objectivists, or even people who love life, to wrap their head around what could possibly motiviate someone to kill another human being, let alone 30+ of them. We could come up with many guesses, maybe he had a painful life and wanted to hear others, maybe he just snapped, we'll never really know unless he wrote a clear note detailing his reasoning. If he wanted to kill himself why take 30 other people with him? I can't think anything but he is a scumbag and an embodiment of evil, I can't forgive him because he was lonely or molested or any of that crap, he killed 30 people, many with a 2 hour break in between. He was methodical and motivated. It sucks, what a tragic event.

The part in bold is what caught my attention. I havent read the whole thread but I do want to make a point.

I think it is very possible for people to wrap their heads around these types of situations. It isnt that it is a difficult thing to do, its just that most people do not WANT to accept the fact that human beings are capable of such acts.

This kid's anger was unproductive. He was angry at those who had more, those with more money, power, control, whatever. Generally speaking, he hated those with more than him. This drove him to the point where the only reason to end his anger would be to take as many of them out as possible and then end his own life. If you've read Hamlet, you should think of the 'To be or not to be' passage because this kid did the opposite of what Hamlet did. He ended his life and other's lives to solve his problems.

Now, from his perspective, this was a perfectly rational thing to do. He closed his mind to all other choices he could have made and made a decision--sadly, his decision wasn't the best solution to his problem.

Whether or not you want to believe it this kid did what he did and he felt justified by doing it. No one should feel any hatred for this kid, or not forgive him for his actions. Perspectives differ, and people solve problems differently. Now dont get me wrong, Im not trying to justify what he did and explain it to you all, but I am trying to get you to understand that in his mind this was his only option, and being angry, hateful, sad, depressed, or any of these emotions that you could spend on this topic are a waste of time. Sympathize with those who lost friends and loved ones, and move on.

Remember, do not let your feelings control your character. Rather, define why you feel the way you do and decide whether or not it is a waste of time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whether or not you want to believe it this kid did what he did and he felt justified by doing it. No one should feel any hatred for this kid, or not forgive him for his actions.

Dodger,

I am usually very tolerant and benevolent, and I do think forgiveness is vastly underrated in Objectivism, but I hate everything about how this kid thought and what he did. This was pure raw naked evil.

I do not forgive him. Not this one. He even checked out before he could reflect and repent. His goal and purpose was pure destruction of life at all levels.

How I have contempt for this kind of soul! I wish there were a hell so he could rot and suffer in it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me supplement what I wrote above.

I hold the same conscious appraisal and feelings for suicide bombers as I do for this jerk. I despise them with every ounce of my being.

This might seem at odds with my attempts at reaching the good in people. It isn't. I love the best in all of us and spend most of my life nurturing this in myself and others. But everything in life has boundaries and points of no return. That's reality. These people cross one such line.

My position about them is not ideological or tribal, except in the most general and distant terms.

It's intensely personal.

Not subjective.

Personal.

Michael

[PalePower]

Now, from his perspective, this was a perfectly rational thing to do. He closed his mind to all other choices he could have made and made a decision--sadly, his decision wasn't the best solution to his problem.

Mitchell, NBC has aired some excerpts of material Cho sent them in between the shootings. The material included a "manifesto" of his rationale behind the violence. His reasons included hatred for the affluent, those who "have everything," and those "who have never felt an ounce of pain in their lives."

And yet his shootings did not include specifically targeted people, those certain persons who had individually sparked that hatred within him. He went on a rampage, shooting at every body that moved, regardless and ignorant of their backgrounds and personal philosophies.

He raved against those who never felt pain, and one of his victims included a Holocaust survivor.

Mitchell, this man was killing people simply because they were alive.

This man's act was, without dispute, evil.

And yes.

I hate him.

And no, I do not, and never would, forgive something like this. The idea is utterly repulsive to me.

I am intensely concerned with understanding people's backgrounds, their psychology. I don't consider myself a condemning or overly judgmental person. I consider that integral to the good of a human being - and if that is one of the components of the good of a human being, this man, Cho, is desperately defficient. Did he understand his victims? Did he debate whether or not, they, individually, merited some sort of punishment? Did he take into consideration that they might not actually be working for his specific destruction, that they possibly just wanted to live and love and enjoy life - or even if he could not wrap his mind around those concepts, did he stop to consider that perhaps they did not indulge in that behavior to which he was so opposed?

His was a premeditated, concentrated act to instill pain in other people.

My forgiveness and understanding extends only to those motivated out of a value for life.

I have no tolerance for those working from any other motivation.

~Elizabeth