Does Mass Murder Contribute More to Society than Doing Nothing? (Absolute Value)

[Truthster013]

A mass shooter once summarized his motives using the mathematical principle of absolute value. As he pointed out, a doctor contributes to society by saving lives. A mass murdered contributes to society by taking lives. Most of us do neither. We contribute nothing to society. In his eyes, if a doctor saves 11 lives and he takes 12 lives he has contributed more to society than the doctor. He has actually had an effect on the world. The absolute value of his contribute is 12 while the doctors is 11. Most would say of course that taking lives is NEVER acceptable, but does anyone understand the logic? Is the person who goes through life never saving or taking lives have no "value"? How about if we put it in terms of good deeds. Does the person who does more good needs than negative have a greater contribution on society? How about more negative than positive deeds? Or what if someone is right down the middle having done both good and bad deeds such that their contribution is neither "good" or "bad". Would we say they had no value?

[NancyV]

It depends on what you think "value" is whether you accept anything as "valuable". A valuable contribution to society is in the eye of the beholder. So a mass murderer can theorize that he contributes to society and I can laugh and say he's full of **it. We can both be correct from our own perspectives because there are no absolute absolutes. There might be some things that seem like they are absolutes, but sometime, somewhere, someone has proved or will prove them to not be absolutes, whether they are mathematical principles or misguided (stupid) theories.

[Michi]

I would say, it's a matter of giving something valuable, something that is wanted and fulfilling the needs of another person. A doctor fixes an injured body and this is usually something needed and wanted. A mass murder acts based on dogma or fixed ideas and doesn't consult the victims, whether they want to be killed or not.
It does not even matter so much whether if it's "good" or "bad".
If a dying person in much pain would like to be killed - the act would be somewhat acceptable.
To bring it to an even more concise point: Don't take away someone's power of choice.

[Franny]

It sounds to me like the crazed justification of a sociopath/psychopath of an activity they enjoy too much to stop - as if it's part of the balance of life. I don't buy it.

This sort of pathology has been creeping in to the mainstream of society for so long that at some point it starts to sound like it's part of the 'norm' as it slowly displaces what came before it.

I pulled this quote from an article I read last year which seems applicable:

In an article written by author and Psychologist Peter Michelson about the Iraq war he noted something that Carl Jung stated after finishing The Undiscovered Self.

Jung observed that Americans had become so superficial that within a generation or two they would no longer be able to recognize evil or their participation in it.

Words really fail to describe how depraved we are and the atrocities we rationalize [about the war].

Gilbert

[WhiteLove]

Posted by Truthster013 (here)
A mass shooter once summarized his motives using the mathematical principle of absolute value. As he pointed out, a doctor contributes to society by saving lives. A mass murdered contributes to society by taking lives. Most of us do neither. We contribute nothing to society. In his eyes, if a doctor saves 11 lives and he takes 12 lives he has contributed more to society than the doctor. He has actually had an effect on the world. The absolute value of his contribute is 12 while the doctors is 11. Most would say of course that taking lives is NEVER acceptable, but does anyone understand the logic? Is the person who goes through life never saving or taking lives have no "value"? How about if we put it in terms of good deeds. Does the person who does more good needs than negative have a greater contribution on society? How about more negative than positive deeds? Or what if someone is right down the middle having done both good and bad deeds such that their contribution is neither "good" or "bad". Would we say they had no value?

By not having done anything, your impact is that you have not taken 12 lives. By having taken 12 lives, your impact is that you have taken 12 lives. So the amount of impact is the same between the two, but the one that took 12 lives caused negative impact by that amount. So the difference is not in the amount of impact, but in the type of it, positive vs. negative measured from the perspective of love & healing vs. hate and destruction.

So the quote falls apart very quickly as soon as you realize that because you have not killed someone, you have done the opposite and that is true because what is false is that you have killed someone. You cannot have killed someone by not having killed someone, that is impossible. Either you have killed someone or you haven't, there is nothing in between. So the amount of impact and the amount of the result is the same, but the type of impact and the type of the result are opposite to each other.

[rgray222]

Posted by Truthster013 (here)
We contribute nothing to society.

When I read your post two things come to mind

1. Life does not have the importance that we place on it. I believe survival above all else has been placed into our DNA to ensure that we make every effort to keep ourselves and others alive. If we understood this we would stay alive by choice not by instinct. This strand of DNA acts as a safety net because where we came from and where we are going has been wiped from our memory.
2. Just by being on earth we have contributed to society and to the universe at large. Even a lethargic, self-indulgent life has meaning, and does contribute. It is just hard to understand with the limited knowledge we have in this current life.

[Satori]

The mass shooter/serial killer and people like him have no moral compass. One cannot genuinely and justifiably reduce the giving of life (which I deem generally positive), or the taking of life (which I deem generally negative), to mere mathematical principles.

[ZenBaller]

Questions like these prove how humanity is possessed by incessant thinking and superficial mind domination, instead of heart awareness. It always ends up rationalizing ego, even evil, in the name of "science". Pure madness.

[Orph]

Posted by Truthster013 (here)
As he pointed out, a doctor contributes to society by saving lives. A mass murdered contributes to society by taking lives. Most of us do neither. We contribute nothing to society.

We are targets for the mass murderer, therefor we contribute something. We are the patients that the doctors save, therefor we contribute something.

Book 'em Danno.