Tuckerfan, a simple question, if you will:
Do you regard monstrousness as a binary quality? i.e., an act either is or is not monstrous?
Or do you hold that of two acts that are undeniably monstrous, it it possible for one of the acts to be more monstrous than the other?
The answer to your question is: Both. If a person murders one person, that is a monstrous act, if a person commits genocide, that is a more monstrous act. Killing another human being is not necessarily a monstrous act, it all depends upon why the person was killed. Was it for sport, profit, hatred? If so, then it’s monstrous. If it’s self-defense (in the sense that I am someone minding my own business when some lunatic decides to attack me and I end up killing him in the process), then it is not a monstrous act.
Very well. You have conceded that two acts do not have to be equal for both of them to be monstrous. The way I read the positions of the people you were challenging, above, they were asserting that celebrating the death of a human being is a monstrous act, and as such, should be eschewed by people who do not wish to perform monstrous acts.
If you would like to submit an argument that celebrating the death of a human being is not a monstrous act (caveat: not an argument that is it not as monstrous; an argument that it is not monstrous at all), now would be the time to do so.
Well, whom does such a celebration harm? The dead person? No, of course not. Their surviving friends and family (assuming they had any)? Perhaps, perhaps not. They might very well have realized that said person was a monster, and that the world is better of with him/her dead. They might feel some emotional suffering, of course, perhaps they even deny that the dead person was a monster, it is of little consequence. If they were in denial about the person being a monster (in that they claim said person didn’t do the horrible things, not that they thought “Johnny was a good boy, he just did some bad things.”), then they are quite possibly accesories in the monster’s actions, whether from aiding in a cover-up or in simply not turning said monster over to the proper authorities.
If the surviving friends/family mourn the death of a monster, but accept the fact that he/she was a monster and this was the only possible solution to the problem, any pain they experience by witnessing folks celebrating the death of the monster will be only temporary and emotional in nature, unlike that experienced by any of his/her victims.
Of course, that assumes they would experience any feelings of loss. They might join in the celebrations because they too are happy that the monster’s dead.
Am I harming myself? I fail to see how, I am committing a life affirming act. Am I expressing an emotion that the monster him/herself might have expressed at some point in their life? Yes, but I’ve also expressed the same kinds of emotions as the monster when I’ve expressed love for another person. I eat, piss, shit, fart, and put my pants on the same way as they do. If those actions don’t lower me to his/her level, then how or why should the others do so?
Many people seem to have the belief that there is a “higher order” to things. In that, someone or something, has come down from on high, and laid out immutable rules for how societies should be constructed. They’ve produced writings and artifacts to support their point, but AFAIK, haven’t produced anything as convincing as gravity is when I drop something. Even then, accepting that there is the possibility that there is a “higher order” to things, people have chosen to edit, rewrite, and ignore some of the tenets that they cite as being part of the higher order for various reasons. If we say that dancing on the grave of a monster is a deplorable act, it is a deplorable act because we say it is.
In recent years, we have decided that the slaughtering of non-combatants is a bad thing, and yet, for most of human history, it was considered to be a good thing, since you didn’t have to worry about the survivors coming back to extract their revenge upon you. The mores and beliefs of a society are constantly in flux. At this moment, we’ve decided that genocide is a bad thing, a hundred years ago or more, we felt that it was acceptible in the case of Native Americans. We may yet change our minds about genocide again, and the debates on the matter will be filled with arguments about how this “proves” our morally superior position to those who lived in the past. None of this makes any of it true, of course. Things simply are and we chose to label them as we feel. A rose by any other name, after all…
Well, your argument seems reasoned and calculated, perhaps a bit too much so for my taste.
Do you dismiss out of hand Donne’s thesis that the death of any man diminishes us all (not to be condescending, but as a reminder: Send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee)? To the extent that this thesis is valid, the monstrousness of celebrating the death of a human being stems from the same truth.
So reasoning and calculation are bad things?
**
Assuming that the thesis is valid. It could just simply be an assortment of words that Donne put together because it sounded good. Just because it sounds good doesn’t make it accurate or practical.
Artful phrases are wonderful things, and I enjoy them as much as anyone, but often as not, they have no bearing on the real world. Donne may have believed that human beings were some near-divine creations. The belief does not make it so.
Oh, and let me provide this thread for perusal. In it, I relate my seething anger at one of my ex-girlfriends and what she had done to me and what I felt like doing in return. No one in that thread said, “Tuck you need therapy, because those thoughts are totally unhealthy and if you don’t get therapy, you’ll wind up becoming what you fear.” So, how is it that wanting to rip someone to shreds (and I did want to, more than anything I’ve ever wanted anything in my life) is “Okay,” but celebrating the death of someone who was infinitily more vile than my ex is wrong?
You’ll never hear me saying they are. I’m not persuaded, however, that they are the only things, particularly when matters of metaphysics are under discussion.
And I note that you did not actually answer the question I asked. Here it is again: Do you dismiss out of hand Donne’s thesis that the death of any man diminishes us all (not to be condescending, but as a reminder: Send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee)?
Here’s another direct question: Do you maintain that the thesis is not valid?
Regarding your subsequent post: I read it, and applaud you for your guts in bringing it up. I can imagine what it must have cost you to be reminded of the incident. In answer to your question
I would say because one is an emotion (like everybody was saying in your thread) and the other is an action.
And may I add my good wishes for the easing of your pain to theirs (I kind of have the notion that doing so will be good for me ;))?
Do I dismiss out of hand Donne’s thesis? No, but I do consider it to be incomplete. Donne was writing at a time before the mass industrialization of killing was possible, and even though they had long and bloody wars, it was not possible at that time to wipe the whole of human existance off the face of the Earth at the touch of a button. Perhaps if Donne were alive today his position on the matter might be different, then again, it might not. It is an unanswerable question.
Still, one has to ask oneself why one feels compelled to adopt the philosophy of a man who lived hundreds or even thousands of years ago in a world so different from the one in which it originated in that the inhabitants of the one would not recogize the residents of the other as being connected in any manner. If we choose to adopt such a philosophy, then one must accept the fact that there will be instances where the philosophy fails to address issues which one runs across in the modern world, and that if we fail to adjust to those issues, we are highly likely of causing our own demise. (Which would be a bad thing, don’t you agree?)
I think you missed the point here; celebrating that you are alive is not necessarily the same as celebrating that your mortal enemy met his end in a nasty way; by way of analogy, myself and my best friend fall into the tiger shark tank at the aquarium, the shark decides to eat my friend and while it is busy so doing, I manage to crawl out. My subsequent relief at finding myself alive is not equal to joy in the knowledge that my friend was eaten.
Now of course we’re talking about enemies, not friends, but I still maintain there is a distinction between being glad that evil person X is no longer able to commit atrocity and overt celebration that evil person X died painfully.
Again, I think you missed the point; your post was an excellent exploration of why it could be morally acceptable/preferrable to execute an evil person, but that isn’t the topic here.
Never said it was.
**
Yeah, but who said anything about evil person X having to die painfully? Frankly, I’d be just as happy if the evil person died from lethal injection.
I think you did; you appeared to be equating the two when you replied to orbifold thus:
-Orbifold was talking about not celebrating the death of an enemy as distinct from being glad to have survived; you answered as if there is no such distinction.
That’s what the thread has been about from the start; the glee and celebration that an evil person met their end in a violent and bloody manner.
That’s a strange loop, you’ve got going there Mangetout. You posit a situation, where, through an accident, you and a friend are put into danger, one survives. In that instance, celebrating that you’re alive is not rejoicing in your friend’s death. Did you miss where I said this
Indeed, the thread is about celebrating a violent, bloody ends of horrible people (which is quite often how they end their lives), but for me, how they die is of no consequence to me, I’m just glad they’re dead!
So, would it be acceptible to you, to rejoice in the death of a horrible person if they died in a peaceful manner?
Yes, in some of the most important and basic ways, I am like them – even the part of them that is rotten. Discovering that was extremely painful for me. But, if anything, that gives me even more reason not to celebrate their deaths.
I don’t think they are equal, but enjoying someone’s death is a little further down the road toward becoming a monster. What they have in common is taking joy in someone else’s demise.
I disagree. They are part of humanity as in your statement Face it, you are like them.
Why do you equate “not celebrating” with “mourning”?
Anything that reenforces a hardening of our hearts hurts us, makes us a little colder. (My opinion and my experience.) Celebrating a death is a life affirming act? You must be really hard up for reasons to affirm life!
I don’t think most artful phrases endure unless they have some meat in them. Didn’t you just say something about “a rose by any other name…”?
Were people really so different from us hundreds of years ago or even thousands of years ago? Our daily routines certainly are different, but that is such a little part of what it means to be human.
Wanting to rip someone to shreds literally is not “okay.” Feeling intense anger is.
Not in themselves. But they require the compassion for balance.
[quobe]jimpatro: Getting back to the OP, should we rejoice at the death of someone who is considered evil? Hey, if you do, you do. If you don’t you don’t. A Clockwork Orange applies here. No one can tell you how to feel. You just do.
[/quote]
I mentioned something similar earlier. Sometimes other people can explain things in a way that influences our thinking. That, in turn, may influence our feelings. To me, relief is a feeling; celebrating is an action.
Well, perhaps it is outmoded of me to hold to the philosophy that I have a metaphysical connection to my fellow man, not only the benefactors and the downtrodden, but also to the bystanders and, yes, even the malefactors. Nevertheless, that is an essential component of my overall belief system, and I find that it still serves me. As I implied above, that informs my view that celebrating the demise of a human being, no matter how monstrous, is itself a monstrous thing.
I have evidently failed to persuade you to view it that way; however, I hope to have succeeded in communicating to you where I’m coming from. I’ll just wish you well and withdraw from the argument at this point.
Thank you for your willingness to discuss the matter with courage and candor.
Not to belabor the obvious, but my previous post was addressed to Tuckerfan.
Although I wish YOU well, too, Zoe. Rockin’ post. 
It wasn’t painful for me. I know what it would take for me to join the ranks of Hussein & Co. and I simply cannot walk down that path. If I were to start down that path, I would take myself out of the picture.
**
Ah, but the reasons why they take that joy differ greatly. I am not taking joy in the sheer “sport” of someone being killed, I am taking joy in the fact that an abomination has been removed from the Earth. We don’t treat all killings as being equal, so why should we assume that the celebrations for another’s death are equally wrong.
**
In that we share the same basic DNA, yes, in our actions, no. Remember what Thomas Swift said about liking Man, but not mankind? He liked the ideals of Man, but not the actions of mankind. Humanity as an ideal, is what I was referring to when I stated that they have effectively removed themselves from humanity.
**
See the John Donne quotes in the posts prior to this.
**
I once worked for a company where they refused to discipline their employees or terminate them for anything. It was a nightmare. Production needs weren’t met, they’re staff became bloated because they had to hire more people, and they were constantly worried about “enhancing and maintaining people’s self-esteem.” When I was a supervisor there, I didn’t care about people’s feelings, if they weren’t pulling their weight, I told them so. I pushed and pulled and drove my people as hard as I could. They didn’t like me (but they respected me), and I didn’t care, I was hired to do a job, and I did it, unlike many of the other employees. The company has since had a complete reversal of their policies and are now willing to fire folks who deserve it. Had I not hardened my heart to what people were saying and feeling, I never could have done it. Did that mean I missed out on feelings of love, sadness, joy, or whatever? No, in fact, it intensified those feelings for me.
**
Celebrating the death of a mass-murderer is a life affirming act, celebrating the death of a child, for example, is not. **
I affirm life every day by choosing to get up and go about my life. Every act I commit is a life affirming act. So long as I am alive I am not “hard up” for reasons.
**
Ah, yes, but mine was a statement of fact, Donne’s is a statement of belief and a great difference lies between the two.
**
**But could an ancient Greek recognize that a person sitting down at a keyboard, typing away, was working? Ever read Plato’s Cave? Eventually a person from the past would be able to grasp what was going on, but not right away and not easily.
**
But they are quite often one in the same.
**
Agreed.
As the man who brought John Donne’s quotes into the discussion, I find it necessary at this time to state that I categorically reject the notion that by accepting the truth that “any man’s death diminishes me,” my disdain for celebrating the death of a human being is, by default, mourning. Sometimes, the life of a monstrous human being can be in itself a cause for mourning; that does not make its end a cause for celebration.