The Horrific Act In Colorado

The horrific act attributed to James Holmes in an Aurora Colorado theatre is bad enough, but we should consider his character before we make an adequate judgment.  Was he an Athlete a football, basketball, or baseball star? Was he a wrestling champion?  Was he from a wealthy heritage, did he drive a fast sports car, was he popular and sought after amongst the cheerleader set?  Did he have dates with the beautiful girls?  Was he a guitarist in a rock band?  Did he exhibit any talent for being an attractive man for whom there was an irresistible charm about him which made the girls silently scream with desire?  Was he thought particularly brilliant by his classmates and teachers?   Did he participate in the popular pastimes of his classmates, and display leadership in that regard?  No!  In fact we can say that on the contrary he was the quiet loner, the studious type who spent his time reading and imagining.  He more than likely had an opinion of himself which did not match the opinions of his peers.  In fact we might think that his peers wanted to have nothing to do with him.    I’m not saying that his peers knew somehow beforehand that he would commit such an act.  What I’m, saying is that his peers knew what type of person he was, and that was the very reason they would have nothing to do with him.  That in short, made of him a loner.  Maybe that did not make him commit such a horrific act, but it certainly contributed to his character which precipitated such an act. 

But then again it perhaps is not his character that is in question, but our character in our treatment of him.  Perhaps before we go off and attribute character flaws to this man, we stop and think on our flaws in our treatment of others.  Perhaps if we distinguish character from psychology, we can see the issue more a matter of psychology and less a problem of moral character.  The persistent and determined isolation of an individual may eventually contribute to a person’s character flawed or not.  Perhaps we will see the persistent isolation as a contributing factor in the person’s psychology.  Perhaps the psychology and our contributions to that psychology are the conditions under which a flawed character may develop.  Perhaps the isolation contributes to the conditions under which a psychology of continual isolation creates a character flaw, if there is such.  But one’s moral character may not be of import here at all.  Perhaps it is only the psychology, and a consistently moral person may under persistent isolation commit horrific acts without giving those acts moral consideration at all.  This is not to say that the act in question was not morally reprehensible, only that one cannot attribute the act to a flaw of the person’s moral character.  Perhaps we can attribute it to a person’s psychology, but not to a person’s moral character flawed as it may be. After all who among us does not have flaws of character?  Can a perfectly good man do, in a moment of stress, an act of a horrific nature?  Can a perfectly moral man lose control of his psychology and become psychotic? Can a person with twisted psychology do an act without moral consideration?  ‘Of course!’ are the correct and natural answers.  Perhaps if, before we get on our moral high horse and attribute a character flaw to a person, we sit back and think on how our treatment of that person contributes to his/her psychology, we can leave our judgments as to the person’s moral character, to those whom they rightfully belong – the person him/herself and God.   Perhaps the morality of the act in question is not a matter of character and virtue at all.  Perhaps it is an oversimplification to think that the horrific act in question is a matter of character and virtue ethics.  Perhaps we should only consider it a matter of action and conduct ethics. Perhaps on utilitarian grounds we should consider the act in question a failure to consider the greatest happiness and least pain for the most persons.  Perhaps on deontological grounds we should consider the act in question a failure to live up to the categorical imperative to “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”  Perhaps we should not only consider the actor in this horrific incident, but also our complicity in the act as a failure to live up to our duty to others, and our treatment of the humanity of others as ends unto themselves.