Morbid curiosity gone too far

Gaze

Gaze

Donor
MBTI
INFPishy
It seems lately that life is no longer important because it's life. Suddenly, the value of a life is reduced to who they were socially, economically, etc. When deaths are reported in the news, there is more and more attention given to who, what, when, where, why and how (of course) but less of an interest in someone passing away- the sense that a life has ended. It becomes more important to not only emphasi e but exhaust the story behind their killing and the saga, drama, or soap opera which created the situation which lead to their death. Also, socio economics is playing too large a role in how news is reported. However, I am not arguing that we are not going to pay more attention to deaths of high profile figures or people. Rather, I mean that the importance given to someone is so often glamori ed that a death ceases to be a tragedy simply because it's the end of a life. Again, I am not arguing that the person they were, how they conducted their life, or the circumstances of their death are not important. Instead, I mean that more importance is given to their death as an event rather than the value of a life.

So, do you think our morbid curiosity has gone too far

 
Rite said:
It seems lately that life is no longer important because it's life. Suddenly, the value of a life is reduced to who they were socially, economically, etc. When deaths are reported in the news, there is more and more attention given to who, what, when, where, why and how (of course) but less of an interest in someone passing away- the sense that a life has ended. It becomes more important to not only emphasi e but exhaust the story behind their killing and the saga, drama, or soap opera which created the situation which lead to their death. Also, socio economics is playing too large a role in how news is reported. However, I am not arguing that we are not going to pay more attention to deaths of high profile figures or people. Rather, I mean that the importance given to someone is so often glamori ed that a death ceases to be a tragedy simply because it's the end of a life. Again, I am not arguing that the person they were, how they conducted their life, or the circumstances of their death are not important. Instead, I mean that more importance is given to their death as an event rather than the value of a life.

So, do you think our morbid curiosity has gone too far
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I can see why people are fascinated by death and I don't know what a healthy relationship with it would look like. But I feel like when someone's death is sensationalized like that, it doesn't seem real anymore. The deaths I've experienced are a far cry from 90% of what I see. My grandma is completely obsessed with watching death on TV. It's really unhealthy. Because she can basically find as much of it as she wants and then it starts to color everything for her. She talks about it all the time.

I really think our sources of information color how we see the world, especially if it's things we don't have a lot of knowledge about/experience of. I'm super skeptical of mainstream news sources. Real death isn't something that I want to watch/read about every day. It's sad and hard to appreciate if you didn't know the person. Life has enough tragedy.
 
Try watching a tv show without seeing someone shooting at / trying to stab / fighting another person. :/ Find a good show where no one dies or is seriously injured. You can't!

It's as though we've forgotten that death and injury are serious things. We've lost touch with the phenomenon, I think, due to what's being fed out via the media- and because of our culture's lack of shunning these things.

Death has become entertainment of sorts.


It's a shame.
 
Well, in the past we would have been surrounded with a lot more death occuring around us naturally. There was a lot of violence in the past too, especially lots of gore in things like cowboys&indians shows for little kids. I guess it's just the fact that it's given to us through the media rather than through direct contact with us with it happening to people we know, that makes people desensitized to it. I don't think it's wrong to be overly morbid or overly curious about things in general though.
 
Violence and death have always been popular because it sells. It sold in ancient Rome when people attended gladiator contests, and it sells today on TV and in the newspapers. Is it because most people lead such boring lives?
 
Yes.
 
Rite said:
It seems lately that life is no longer important because it's life. Suddenly, the value of a life is reduced to who they were socially, economically, etc. When deaths are reported in the news, there is more and more attention given to who, what, when, where, why and how (of course) but less of an interest in someone passing away- the sense that a life has ended. It becomes more important to not only emphasi e but exhaust the story behind their killing and the saga, drama, or soap opera which created the situation which lead to their death. Also, socio economics is playing too large a role in how news is reported. However, I am not arguing that we are not going to pay more attention to deaths of high profile figures or people. Rather, I mean that the importance given to someone is so often glamori ed that a death ceases to be a tragedy simply because it's the end of a life. Again, I am not arguing that the person they were, how they conducted their life, or the circumstances of their death are not important. Instead, I mean that more importance is given to their death as an event rather than the value of a life.

So, do you think our morbid curiosity has gone too far
Click to expand...

Well the popular belief is that we are nothing more than biological machines. When we die it's just a matter of disposing trash then, isn't it? No one in their right mind acts with respect towards trash.
 
I find it amusing that people tend to preach about the moral implications without realizing that media is a mirror that reflects society's image back. We tend to swing toward extremes rather than find healthy balances. Should we go back to Victorian Era Values or embrace so-called Family Values (snickers)? As a culture, America is like a small child---short attention span and attracted toward bright/shiny and loud things. We are unsophisticated and banal in many ways and our "entertainment" reflects that.
 
Mirrors do reflect images however they only reflect the images before them at a given time. There is an entire world beyond which the mirror doesn't reflect. It is the same with the media in America. It reflects that aspect of America that those with power in the media wish to promote. To say that there is an overemphasis on death in entertainment is not to say that there should be a return to Victorian values. There is a lot of middle ground to be found. That being said if Americans find the content of their media abhorrent they should turn it off and celebrate life instead. It's more effective and rewarding than grumbling.
 
willow said:
Well the popular belief is that we are nothing more than biological machines. When we die it's just a matter of disposing trash then, isn't it? No one in their right mind acts with respect towards trash.
Click to expand...

I think this is what I'm getting at. Because I'm not going to argue that we need to end media sensationalism because I think that ship has sailed and won't be returning to the harbor. My point is more about the devaluation of human life because of these representations. If you depersonali e or glamori e the events surrounding someone's death, then it seems easy to glorify it and in some affirms the continuation of that person's existence after death by sensationali ing the events surrounding their death and life. On the other hand, by looking at the human body as just an object after death, people justify treating it as a disposable item which no longer has dignity or use, so apparently, almost anything goes when describing the person's life after death. It's somehow ok now to make the events of their life and death a spectacle because they supposedly no longer have any mortal rights to reverence.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a sense of humanity (i.e., the essence of being human) that transcends the nature and personality of specific human beings. In that sense, we feel bad about the death of any human (many except humans guilty of heinous acts) because we feel a sense of loss that diminishes us as a whole. And, indeed it does. All the knowledge, experiences, and thoughts of a person are lost when they die. Particularly saddening are all the geniuses who are lost anonymously who never had the opportunity or means to express their great talents in art, science, technology or other interpersonal interation. It is the loss of potential and possibility that is troubling. Humanity is greater than the sum of its individuals, but all individuals count.
 
[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION] interesting. What you said makes sense. I guess I am just not someone who values humanity as a whole or "what could have been" for humanity, outside of the living individual.
 
Well religion refers to it as spirit. That part of a human that represents life, consciousness, intelligence, the ability to form relationships with others and to create. These are the things we hold as special in human beings and there is an element of tragedy that when someone dies this portion of them is lost to the world. We may have memories of them in our mind, or recorded in writing or media but these are only echoes. The real essence is lost. We for instance may read the writings of Sir Isaac Newton but we will never experience the man. Spirit is something we cannot make, reproduce or explain and that sets it apart and worthy of respectful remembrance. There is also the issue of showing kindness to the relatives of the deceased. Their relationships with the deceased are severed and life without their loved one is a difficult adjustment to make. We should seek to make it easier not more difficult, imo. A good place to begin is not to use death, esp. of actual persons, as entertainment.
 
willow said:
Well religion refers to it as spirit. That part of a human that represents life, consciousness, intelligence, the ability to form relationships with others and to create. These are the things we hold as special in human beings and there is an element of tragedy that when someone dies this portion of them is lost to the world. We may have memories of them in our mind, or recorded in writing or media but these are only echoes. The real essence is lost. We for instance may read the writings of Sir Isaac Newton but we will never experience the man. Spirit is something we cannot make, reproduce or explain and that sets it apart and worthy of respectful remembrance.
Click to expand...

Is that not selfish

There is also the issue of showing kindness to the relatives of the deceased. Their relationships with the deceased are severed and life without their loved one is a difficult adjustment to make. We should seek to make it easier not more difficult, imo. A good place to begin is not to use death, esp. of actual persons, as entertainment.
Click to expand...

I agree with this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top