Casmin Week 5: The Trolley Problem
Death is such a complicated topic. How humans determine whether they celebrate or mourn a life doesn’t sit right with me. Typically, we carefully examine the person’s beliefs, manners, and decisions to properly feel sympathy for them. But those decisions of “choosing a side” like a yes or no question is such a complicated task to do, as ironic as it is. We even have our own court system to determine these choices for us because of its controversy. But why is the topic of death and mourning so complicated?
As we all probably know by now, the assassination of Charlie Kirk last month has greatly divided America’s political parties into two sides (if they were not separated before): those who mourn Charlie and those who don’t. Most people expect left-wing supporters to celebrate Charlie’s death as a win for the Democrats and the right-wing to feel saddened by his death. But this is where complications come in. From my knowledge, Charlie Kirk spent his entire political career advocating controversial topics: banning abortion, limiting LGBTQIA+ rights, and many more. He was also known to spread his political movement and popularity through hatred by creating toxic environments in his rallies and online platforms. People who completely disagree with him should at the very least have no opinion on his assassination, right? Even though I do not stand for his beliefs, I can’t help but feel sympathy for the man, especially because his death was so graphic (and if you support Charlie’s beliefs, I’m curious to know how you feel about the situation). The fact that his wife and kids at the rally witnessed him die is such a traumatic experience, especially for a child. But… he contradicts my values! If I’m being completely honest, I am confused and torn between what to say when someone asks me what I think about the Charlie Kirk assassination. My brain draws a huge question mark. Where do people draw the line of “right” and “wrong,” is it possible for one to mourn another person when their values do not align, and will these parties ever stop conflicting and continue to be divided as the world still talks about Charlie Kirk?
I find these moral situations intriguing, and to see everyone else’s responses vary is an interesting topic to discuss. Such as talking about the Trolley problem, morally, it has no right or wrong answer, and it always gets my brain going when someone explains their reasoning for their choices. I found that same curiosity while reading ICB when Capote goes in-depth on Perry’s character, and we were able to see how the townspeople viewed Perry versus how we viewed him knowing his background and trauma with his family.
All things considered, I do feel sympathy for Kirk’s family since no one deserves to see their husband or father die in such a brutal way. As for Charlie himself, my brain still draws a blank. It’s not that I have no opinion of him. Just having a concrete answer of “yes” or “no” does not fit.
I think trying to streamline such a complicated issue into a binary of “yes” or “no” is inherently reductive and fosters polarization; as someone who does not align with Charlie Kirk’s beliefs (and likely never will), I find myself thinking about the circumstances and context that led to his death. I totally agree with your view of feeling sympathy for Kirk’s family, but my own views on Kirk are much more complicated. On one hand, political assassination is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. However, since Charlie Kirk’s platform was always based on hate, was an event like this inevitable? The best outcome to hope for is probably that a larger discussion is started surrounding issues like gun violence and the need for a wider societal change that addresses the gaping chasm between the two dominant parties in America.
ReplyDeleteHi Casmin, this blog was very thought provoking. Understandably, the extreme polarization of American politics has led to extreme actions, unfortunately culminating in loss of life. I believe that it’s more than okay to not come up with a binary answer to such a complex question—after all, most questions of such sort simply do not have one. In this particular case, I believe it is important to discuss the circumstances that allowed this to happen and work on ensuring that future such events are prevented, so that what has happened in Dallas, in Oxnard, in Sonora, in SF, in Chicago, in Uvalde, in Phoenix, in Utah, and in many, many more places does not happen again.
ReplyDeleteHi Casmin! When hearing about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I definitely had a similar reaction. I have never aligned with his beliefs in the past, and I will never align with his beliefs in the future—and yet, like you, I cannot help but feel heartbroken at the fact that his family had to witness such a traumatic event. Society will always be divided by people having conflicting beliefs, whether those beliefs are political, religious, etc. That is one constant that we can always count on. That being said, I do not believe that anyone deserves to die for their personal beliefs, as our own opinions are the one thing in life that we are entitled to.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of ethical dilemmas like the Trolley Problem, I have a love-hate relationship with them, because even though I love the challenge, I feel like I can always find arguments for each side, and I eventually am faced with too much imaginary guilt to make a decision. In my English 10H class last year, I remember how difficult it was to tackle the lifeboat situation. The Trolley Problem in particular is a moral situation that has always fascinated me. The common choice to do nothing as five people tied to the tracks suffer a brutal death is an example of the psychological concept of diffusion of responsibility: if people don’t have to be directly in acts of cruelty, then they are less likely to intervene or feel accountability for the situation.