Tyranny of the Individual
April 27, 2007
In a New York Times op-ed piece from April 19, columnist David Brooks argued that the Virginia Tech tragedy occurred at a moment when society has started to question the true power of individual choice and responsibility in guiding our actions. Today, morality as an explanation for how we act has become increasingly challenged by science. Mark Haslett, researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Strokes, told the Times last year that the idea of free will has weakened with continued research in to the brain and its activity: “Free will exists, but it is a perception, not a power or a driving force…the more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it.” This dilution of individual choice as a rationale for action has also been seen in the media. Brooks cited both Newsweek (“What Made Him Do It?”) and the L.A. Times (“Why They Kill”) as examples of the media portraying physiological and external factors, not individual responsibility, as being determinants for violence.
The shootings at Virginia Tech show that individual choices still influence decision-making. Of course, background factors did play a role in the massacre. Seung-Hui Cho was shunned by his peers. A neighbor described him as looking like he had a perpetual “broken heart.” He let his anger out in his college English classes, writing plays that showed a hint of the violent rage that lay waiting to explode. A professor even contacted the campus counseling service because she thought that Cho was so miserable that he might kill himself.
Many young people feel ostracized and alone yet never decide to act out on their most violent fantasies. Cho’s decision to strike against his classmates, albeit delusional, was not made in a fit of passion. He bought one of the guns used in the massacre on February 9, more than two months from the day of the shooting. His roommates said he did not go to class a week before the shooting. Over a thousand dollars were charged to his credit-card account in the weeks before the shooting. During the carnage Cho went about his killing in a cool and calculated manner, meticulously putting bullet after bullet into bodies to raise the body count.
Premeditation to this extent cannot be explained solely by the work of chemical imbalances or social isolation. It appears Seung-Hui Cho made a conscious decision to override basic morality and end the lives of thirty-two of his colleagues.
But responsibility runs both ways. While individuals are eventually responsible for the acts they commit, society still plays an important role. Society is responsible when an individual like Cho can go through the educational system without anyone reaching out to him before it is too late. Society is responsible when gun control laws allow Cho, who was declared mentally ill, to buy two handguns without hesitation. Society is responsible when social systems are unable to prevent Cho from harming himself and others.
The American social fabric is woven by our belief in personal rights and rugged individualism. The Bill of Rights protects life, liberty, and property from the “tyranny of the majority.” But what happens when the rights of a select view begin to encroach on the safety of others? Individual rights have become absolutes without nuance. Pro-gun advocates see legislation like the Assault Weapons Ban as the first step to the dismantling of the Second Amendment. People who are mentally ill and a potential threat to others cannot be involuntary committed until after they commit a crime. Concerns about upholding students’ right to privacy has led universities to err on side of silence and withhold information from parents when warning signs appear. While protecting the rights of gun-owners, the mentally ill, and students is essential, these protections must be balanced with the rights of others to live, work, and learn without fear of violence. This is not a call to curtail individual rights of Americans. In fact, further erosion of our civil liberties would continue a disturbing trend. But the Virginia Tech shootings have showed that there are holes in our social systems that allow individuals like Cho to commit atrocities far too easily.
Free will is a philosophical idea, but it has concrete implications for society today. In the end, individuals are responsible for the actions they take, but the collective whole must ensure that those who are troubled get the help they need. The preservation of personal rights is necessary for sustaining our way of life. But the greatest threat may not be the erosion of liberty, but those few who slip through the cracks.