Justifying a Cold Act, or Excusing it?

No, it’s not fine.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/22/florida-school-shooting-timeline.html

One thing most of the people I encounter have in common is feeling the need to understand and justify as an excuse that everything that roams the Earth, whether that be thoughts, people, or actions.

Some people feel inclined to understand why a certain person or group of people do things in a specific manner, or why when someone says ‘no’, we’re ‘entitled’ to know why, or when something is slightly different or out of the ordinary, we need to know why and use it as an excusable act.

Why. Why. Why.

And similar to this feeling of wanting to know, many of us become frustrated with not knowing, and instead of understanding, we attempt to reenact what was done to at least have some sort of experience of knowing why it was done. We can call this vengeance or sympathy by putting ourselves in that person’s shoes.

And I feel like much of this became significant and popular in the media’s reaction towards Nikolas Cruz shooting and killing 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018.

Before anything is discussed, I must say that the event was devastating and morbid to learn, hear, and know about.

But because of this remarkably significant event, there came an important question amongst all the debating, fussing, and arguing of what stance and point one should take when analyzing it. And that question seems to meet at, “Who’s fault was it?”

Many argue that it was Nikolas Cruz’s. Or it was his mental illness. Or it was the loose restriction on gun laws. Was it the bullying? Or was it white supremacy. Or, or, or.

But I’m asking you, having read and looked at all the information on the event, to think about who’s fault it was. And now that you have, do you have any opinion on who or what deserves the punishment? With your answer, do you ever think about your mentality being so embedded to this idea of a “creditor” and “debtor” relationship?

What do I mean by “creditor” and “debtor?”

On the Genealogy of Morality, Friedrich Nietzsche, page 40. Nietzsche identifies this relationship of “creditor” and “debtor” relationship as an ideal example of “equalizing” injury, the damage that is done-what we try to understand why- and its relation with pain, what is caused and left.

And I feel like this “creditor” and “debtor” relationship is further highlighted in this event of Nikolas Cruz shooting and killing 17 students. The media debates and fusses over the creditor, in this case Nikolas, and the debtor, the 17 students who were killed, and the rest who were victimized and relate it to how because of Cruz’s ‘mental illness’, ‘history of bullying’, ‘bad past’, that these 17 students were in debt of Cruz’s pain.

So I relate this back to how many of us, the media being a perfect example, attempt to justify every time we see or hear about any horrid, inexplicable, out of the ordinary event that occurs. We justify, or argue about justifying why Cruz felt to the need to be “credited” for all the debts of pain he endured in his past.

Not only am I asking you to analyze why we box the entirety of events like this one, ones we do not understand why they occur, but I’m also asking as to why we feel inclined to even create a “creditor” and “debtor” relationship.

My opinion comes into place when before such instances like these occur, coming to the general agreement that morality encompasses good and bad, how is it that we don’t question it? I’m not really asking why don’t we question it, but asking how is it that we distinguish that good is good, and bad is bad, but when it’s time to judge, we turmoil it into endless explanations and justifications that alter our beliefs of what is good and what is bad.

And no, I’m not questioning why your previous experiences lead you to act and think the way you do. I’m asking why some of you feel the need to create this sort of fantasy-like or personal reason for yourself to believe things are a certain way or happen because of so and so.

Maybe Nikolas Cruz acted the way he had because of x, y, z. But I don’t believe we should keep indulging this idea that because of x, y, and z, it’s okay or justifiable for one to act that way.

After instances like these, where people act coldly and indifferent to evil-like acts, I hope and encourage people to keep questioning why they happen. I encourage and indulge people to study these instances immensely and deeply.

But what I do not encourage in a very strong-minded manner is to use these questions, interpretations, and ideas to justify the continuity of excusing these cold-like events.

It’s enough that we live in a world, specifically this society, of being afraid and curious of what goes on in someone’s mind or acts because we’re never in control of what someone else does. But it’s something more complex and severe when we have to live in a society where these occurrences serve to remind us and indulge this idea that yes, because of x, y, and z, it’s okay that these things happen.

Due to this “creditor” and “debtor” relationship ideal, many believe that it’s okay to justify and allow these acts. But this ideal needs to be deconstructed from within. Acknowledge that it happened, analyze and question why it happened, but don’t accept it as a norm. Instead, stick to morality and keep advocating for a change.

In reality, what I’m really trying to put out there is that good exists as much as bad does. And unfortunately, hence this horrid school shooting, we can’t change the evil existing of nature. I’m asking you to remember that some thing is at fault, but justification can only do so much to the prospective coming.