GriefSPEAK: Martyrs, Consequences, and Morality, Oh, My! – Mari Nardolillo Dias

by Mari Nardolillo Dias, EdD, NCC, FT, contributing writer on grief and grieving

“There’s something happening here
But what it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it’s time we stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look, what’s going down?” (Buffalo Springfield, For What It’s Worth)

–

It seems we need an operational definition of the word “martyr” in today’s world. According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), a martyr is:

“a person who is killed or made to suffer because of their religious or other beliefs.”

According to the definition, there are numerous martyrs in our country, particularly in recent days and weeks. Perhaps even years. Charlie Kirk certainly is an apt example of this. He was killed because of BOTH his religious and a political belief. Many have extolled his death and ridiculed his wife. Many have declared his death warranted as he is said to have disliked Black people and transgender people. That his message was rife with hatred and vitriol. Anyone who knows anything about Christianity understands hate has no place, despite which branch of Christianity or religion one espouses. Christianity is about love and forgiveness. This is prominently evident in Erika Kirk’s statement where she forgave the shooter. She walks the talk.

Fortunately, there are many who grieve Charlie’s death. They read and listen to his words in context, understand his message, and believe in his ideas. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of deaths due to murder. Why all the hate? I stand on the side of a belief in a higher power. Something that is bigger than we are. A moral compass that disallows us from even considering killing someone. There are many variables – yet an internal set of consequences, a conscience, that prevents us from acting on impulsive, violent thoughts is tantamount in the list of the variables.

In the words of Buffalo Springfield, what is happening here? It is unclear, but there often seems to be a man over there brandishing a gun and many are afraid. It is time to stop. Yet, how do we stop when we cannot seem to find the cause? Behaviorists would respond by stating that we do not need to know what is causing a behavior to change it. We can reduce behavior through positive or negative punishment. Most religions believe that a higher power proffers consequences. Several of you may remember the training school in Cranston. Often referred to as the bad boys and girls school and warned by parents as a consequence for unacceptable behavior. I know I, for one, was terrified to go there. Every time we passed the facilities we held our collective breath. It was a scary thought. This consequence. Without consequences, whether internal or external, there is little to deter or stop behavior.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development posits three levels and six stages of morality based on chronological age. His research is based on responses to the “Heinz Dilemma.”

“A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors said would save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So, Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?”

The reasoning offered by subjects’ responses are far more telling than a simple yes or no. As one can see, the responses often include discussions of consequences. Some examples include the following:

“It is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else. He will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person.”

“He will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he has to serve a prison sentence. Prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife’s death.”

“His wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.”

“His wife will benefit, but he should also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed.”

“Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences. The law prohibits stealing.”

“Everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law.

The scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.”

“Saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.” (https://media.lanecc.edu/users/kime/Psy201Ch9b2.pdf)

What might be your response to the Helnz Dilemma? Yes, or no? More importantly, what is your reasoning behind your response?

___

Access all of Dr. Dias’ columns at: GRIEFSPEAK

Dr. Mari Nardolillo Dias is a nationally board-certified counselor, holds a Fellow in Thanatology and is certified in both grief counseling and complicated grief. Dias is a Certified death doula, and has a Certificate in Psychological Autopsy.

Dias was an Adjunct Professor and was Professor of Clinical Mental Health, Master of Science program, at Johnson & Wales University. Dias is the director of GracePointe Grief Center, in North Kingstown, RI.  For more information, go to:  http://gracepointegrief.com/