Sunday, 25 August 2013

THE OKLAHOMA KILLING WAS MORAL RELATIVISM TAKEN TO ITS EXTREME



You know something’s gone terribly wrong with society when three teenagers go out and shoot someone simply because they were ‘bored’. 

The killers (above) said they were 'bored' - what on earth made them give such a reason for murder?
Christopher Lane, an Australian national who was attending collage in Oklahoma, was shot dead by James Francis Edwards Jr. 15, Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and Michael Dewayne, 17, last Friday in an apparently random shooting.

There has been some speculation over whether the shooting was an act of racism.  Well, if it were we will never know – we will never know the real reason the three blacks chose the white student, in the same way that we will never know whether George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because he was black, or because he was wearing a hoodie.  However, with the Zimmerman incident the Liberal Media were all too willing to treat it as a race attack, without any possible way of verifying that.  So, if you are to say that we cannot be ‘sure’ that the Lane attack was racist or not, then I say that we cannot be ‘sure’ whether the Zimmerman attack was racist, either.  The only option, then, is to leave it at that – a mere speculation. 

But there is something far more important about this case.  The Zimmerman epic (yes, I’m being sarcastic) centered on one man’s desire to protect himself from physical attack – and it was a physical attack, courtesy of Martin; we’ve seen the scratches, we know about the hysterical phone call Zimmerman made to the police.  But the Lane case (sadly, I cannot call it an ‘epic’, as the media have failed to make the story into anything more than a simple ‘random attack’) concerned three young thugs shooting a young man not merely in cold blood, but because they were ‘bored’.  Because they were ‘bored’, they had to commit the crime.  Because they were ‘bored’, a man has lost sixty years of his life. 

But in what society do young killers come up with such a justification?  It’s no longer simple ‘cold blood’; it’s a necessity to ensure contentment.  It’s Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism; it’s the principle of utility.  There were three of them, and they’d ran out of pot, they’d watched all their movies, they’d texted all their mates, they were in need of a new game.  In our society – of buy-now-pay-later, of immediate gratification – is it no wonder that three killers find ‘boredom’ to be a decent justification?  After all, nobody waits for anything anymore.  People want things so much that they are willing to get themselves into debt in order to pay for them.  Debt is of no concern because you don’t have to pay it off straight away; it gives you time to enjoy the new toy, and then allows you to buy another one once you’ve gotten bored to the former. 

In short, people don’t wait.  People don’t wait for marriage, they don’t feel constrained by Judaeo-Christian morality, they don’t want to stop and think about the people their actions are destroying.  ‘Who cares if I get drunk?’ they ask.  ‘It’s my body, it’s my choice’.  Well, I care, because I cross the road.  I care; because I have to walk pass you when you’re out of your senses.  I care because I’m a citizen, and I have a right to feel safe. 

The murder in Oklahoma is of course far more concerning than drink driving, but it boils down to the same mentality.  Too many people now just don’t give a damn about their fellowmen.  They’ve become desensitized and debased.  They’ve ceased to stop and think.  Indeed, our 24-hour culture doesn’t even allow them to stop and think. 

In the end, we are headed towards a period where the citizen must strive to protect him or herself.  The police won’t help you, and increasingly your fellow citizens won’t either.  The option available to you at the moment is to hold onto your gun and pray to God you see the knife, car or bullet before it’s too late.       

No comments:

Post a Comment