Discussing Tragedies

18Apr07

Predictably, the Virginia Tech shootings have sparked a new debate on gun legislation. People both within the US and outsiders (such as me) discuss it. Some people, however, feel that it’s inappropriate to discuss such relevant matters before the bodies are even put in the ground. It’s disrespectful, they say, to turn a tragedy such as this into a political issue. One should at least wait a few days until the emotional impact has decreased before turning it into politics.

But this is when this is current. This kind of event is the time when these matters will get as much attention as they do. Later, they won’t have as much impact. Cynical as it may seem, these shootings are statistically insignificant. In 2004, 29 569 people died firearms-related deaths in the US alone, according to this. Wouldn’t it be unfair to all these people if we, out of respect for the families of some 30-odd people, refrain to discuss this? This, after all, is when discussing this is most likely to have any effect on actual legislation.

In general, should we not discuss tragedies, or discuss tragedies only after they’re no longer current? I say we should. Most tragedies account for a surprisingly small part of actual injuries/deaths. The only thing that’s different when 32 people are gunned down at once and when 32 people are gunned down in separate cases is the emotional effect. The emotional effect of this kind of event is simply much greater than the sum of its parts. This is the only difference. This means that, in any given disaster, there are going to be lots of nameless victims of the same kind of thing that never get any attention. Out of fairness to them, and their families, and society at large, we should indeed discuss tragedies when they’re hot and not wait until they’ve already gone cold.

Many people complain about making politics out of tragedies. Don’t the victims and their families and friends have enough to deal with, or should they become political symbols as well? To some extent, this is true. But there’s a difference between taking a current case that has received some attention and using that as a springboard to raise more general issues, and actively making victims martyrs for one or the other case. Let’s say a pedophile molests ten children. Now you have ten victims, ten families and an intense emotional appeal. What would be the ethical thing to do? I always try to be careful not to assert to much about ethics, because I don’t believe anyone has any objective standard on their side. However, going from a generally accepted view of ethics, what should one do? There are many kinds of issues that could be relevant in such a case. What would not be relevant, but still a powerful rhetorical trick, would be to constantly refer to the victims by name, show pictures of them and so on in an effort to turn the public’s opinion in your favor. This emotional, empathic response would no doubt win many over to your side. But it wouldn’t be fair, because you would be playing to emotions instead of using logical arguments, and you would be exploiting the victims.

The trouble is that playing to emotions is not only effective, it may even be something we unconsciously do because we ourselves are emotionally affected. The key to productively discussing tragedies is this: stay cynical. This may appear cruel, but ultimately you’re doing the victims and their families a favor. By keeping as calm, emotionally unaffected and objective as possible, your arguments will not only taken for what they are, they will stand the test of time. Emotional arguments will often sway public opinion in your favor in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, but it won’t do it in the long run. Because after all, the point is not to gain people to your side but gain people to the side that will be best for society, whichever side you happen to be on. Those who disagree with you are doing you a favor if they’re right.

To not only win the debate in the long run, but also win the debate for the side that’s ultimately best for society, we should strive to see the big picture and grip the chance to discuss these matters before it’s too late. A period of silence is perhaps respectful to the victims and their families, but it’s unfair to the nameless masses the issues we could raise also affect or have affected. We should remember that tragedies are rare and exceptional cases. While their intense emotional appeal make them the ideal springboard to raising important issues that concern us all, tragedies in themselves often prove to be rather useless in arguing one way or the other. Their exceptional nature often mean that what would have prevented them would not be what would work in general. We need to stay cynical for everyone’s best and recognize that, while we all want tragedies to be avoided, we can’t avoid such tragedies by paying a price to high to pay. If a solution is best in general, but not in exceptional cases, whereas another is best in exceptional cases but sucks in general, we should advocate the general solution.

Because our purpose in debating isn’t to further inflate our egos by winning but rather to win for the side that will be best for society, isn’t it?

Filed under: ethics, politics   |  1 Comment