RE: An Experiment in Empathy - 5 SBD to the Winner(s)
Since morality is not a relative thing, I'll make no attempt to just-ify the violence so calmly executed in the example. The problem with attempting to create empathy for someone in connection with an act of violence can leap out when the word 'violence' is defined. It is a violation of the rights of another being, or violates the free will of another, and is not a right that anyone possesses, morals or not. The murderer might have had the right to use force if it were a matter of self-defense, but obviously the victim of the murder was placed in a passive position in a chair, apparently minding his own business, and not currently violating anyone.
From a moral standpoint, no individual has the right to violate another, and here the word 'right' comes into play, contrasted dramatically against what must be considered 'wrong'. Of course modern society has been cultured and conditioned to 'justify' (attempt to make just something that is unjust) violence when it is a matter of revenge, and the Hollywood version of revenge is made to look so satisfying and delicious that we see it as right and honorable to kill under certain circumstances, to make a wrong feel right, even if it's wrong. Such cultural conditioning works hand in hand with the military propaganda that is piped into the world daily.
This of course is not a valid entry into the contest, as I've made no attempt to force even the slightest empathy from anyone towards the character in the example. From a personal point of view, I know that I have the right to defend myself and my family using vicious force if needed, while knowing that I never have the right to violently take away the free will of another. I'm neither passive nor aggressive, and try not to be passive-aggressive, but I am a warrior and a defender, so if that had been me sitting at that table, the story would have ended differently!
This is a very valid point, and you have actually made me question whether to continue this. I too believe everything to be black and white, and I see now why this could be perceived as me trying to portray it as grey.
I will say though that I can't agree with the concept of right. I embracing the belief that someone else can determine what you are allowed to do is a deterrent to self-reflection. People get lazy and don't feel the need to look inside to discover what is right and wrong when they believe someone else should decide for them.
I think if we ever want to get to that world we both envision, where there is no confusion over what is right and what is not, we will first have to realise that the truth of morality is written within the human experience, and can only be realised through thought and reflection. That means we have to stop letting others dictate what is right.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this now that you have made see it through it a different perspective, but I think you should trust that if I do continue it, it is for a good reason. I haven't spent so many hours on this just to make a dollar, or spend a few of them I should say. If I proceed, by round three I suspect you will see what I am trying to accomplish.
Thanks again for the wisdom though, Paul. It is always welcome.
I'm not trying to ruin the contest! I spent some time trying to imagine a scenario that would invoke empathy, but every one required a jury that could make grey areas in morality, and I decided to write about that instead.
When I refer to a 'right' I usually am thinking of the natural tendencies of people to possess an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong, and not so much a behavior that is learned through coercion from some authority-- I think that at least 95 percent of humanity is born with empathy as a default setting.
I look forward to seeing how this progresses, thanks for offering this chance to write about such important topics as this.
Permit me to butt in here. I don't think an argument for or against morality should arise from this post/contest. I'm a simple guy trying to be a good creative writer whose works would one day be read far and wide. So I see this for what I think it really is: a writing exercise meant to sharpen the minds of would be writers and help us improve on our skills. Some probably think the same way too.
In writing, the question of right or wrong shouldn't decide what you write or don't write. If it were so, then I think humanity would have missed out on so many great works of literature by now.
I hope my argument was in line. Thanks.
PS: I belief there are so many other scenarios that could be painted with this thread and not necessarily one of revenge as you seem to have stereotyped already.
If you can, check out my own version below.
The topic of morality, and even a discussion of the concept of right and wrong might well be encouraged here by the story that is presented. Instead of intentionally creating argument, I reviewed the contest, considered the idea of morality which led to right and wrong, and decided to write about it here without any prescribed constraints. Was if wrong for me to do so? As you said, "In writing, the question of right or wrong shouldn't decide what you write or don't write." I agree.
No, you weren't wrong. It's actually good we have this intellectual discourse once in awhile. I think we all could learn from each other. Thanks.