Sunday, January 19, 2014

Maybe YOU'RE the Bunghole...


Understanding what is right and what is wrong is a difficult concept. A majority of the time, we need an example of one to understand the other. Understanding what is, many times comes down to knowing what isn’t. Behavior, actions, ideas and concepts are often never regarded or praised when they are right. Society as a whole is only quick to jump on what is wrong. Many base their own actions off that which they see others doing. Having someone or something to point the blame at suddenly seems to justify the actions of others. Even as adults, many like to pose the almost childish question to society of “well, he did it, so why can’t I?”



Creator Mike Judge made the show, Beavis and Butthead based off teen awkwardness and angst merely for entertainment purposes. He wanted to rattle the cages of the politically correct and give viewers some dumbed-down humor to laugh at. Quickly, illegal activity, immature catchphrases and wheezy laughing became a societal joke. Unfortunately for some, the joke was on them.

Aaron Messner was only five years old in 1993 when he set fire to his trailer, ending the life of his two-year old-sister. Authorities later came to find out that the two cartoon ne’er-do-wells, Beavis and Butthead, inspired his antics. This was the first case in a long-line of pranks that were blamed on the Viacom top-rated show. MTV denied any causal links between these instances, but worked with the network and media backlash to help prevent future occurrences (or perhaps, future accusations).


This particular case study is an excellent example of Communitarianism in ethics. This code focuses on the actions of society on the individual and vice versa. There is a back-and-forth of how individuals’ actions affect society and how society can in turn affect other individuals. Communitarianism seems to place a high importance on society looking out for its own. Ensuring we give all people the resources and influence necessary to become and remain upstanding citizens lies within the citizens themselves. In the case of Beavis and Butthead vs. the riff-raff of America, two two-dimensional and animated individuals seemingly “caused” multiple house fires, the killing of a cat and a bowling ball falling off an overpass onto a moving car below. The people who committed these actions pointed the finger at a show saying that it was good enough for them, so why couldn’t they do it too?

Who in the community is to blame is a question that may never be answered. Should the community over the guilty individual receive some punishment because of external influence, is a tough question as well. In this particular case, Mike Judge the creator did not tell these people to light the matches or throw the bowling ball. Viacom did not condone people committing violent acts against each other either. But before these incidents occurred, the media company did not put any disclaimer on the show discouraging these actions either. Neither Beavis nor Butthead had a moral compass to guide them, and apparently these viewers didn’t either.


Lawrence Kohlberg mixes ethics of justice with stages of moral development. As we grow up, we exhibit certain levels of reasoning. Children often act out of self-interest and need adults to teach obedience and consequence in order for these moral lessons to stick. We all grow into conventional levels of reasoning and understanding to shape how we view our actions and society around us. It then comes to a point where we must realize how we as individuals are a part of, as well as mutually exclusive from, society all together. In Aaron Messner’s case, he may have been old enough to understand his actions may hurt people, but not old enough to understand that until after it was too late. Can we blame little five-year-old? Should we be asking where his parents were during the viewing of Beavis and Butthead? Is it more, or less, important to ask where they were when he was in possession of something to cause a fire? Was there really a fault on MTV’s part for allowing the show to come on during a time a five year old is potentially watching TV around 7:30 in the evening? Who ultimately lacked the levels of proper reasoning? Anyone can answer this question with his or her own opinion, myself included. But it will never be more than opinion; it will never become a fact or an absolute.

Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is an interesting take on this case as well. Kant attempts to see if there are in fact any absolutes in morality and ethics. We can cheat on a test even if we know it is wrong, or we can simply not cheat at all. Our autonomy allows us to make choices even if they are perhaps not in a particular party’s best interest. Anyone has the ability and free will to throw a bowling ball over the side of a bridge onto a moving car. But should that person feel bad for doing it at all, or only because the life an infant was taken as a consequence of this person’s actions? Can we more-so blame the driver of the car for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or swerving the car causing the death of a baby passenger? These questions fall under the idea of determinism: A caused B, which resulted in C making A true because of C. With this, you can also argue that will does not have total causal power and that an outside influence has to have caused this causal chain. Would this person never have had the idea to throw a bowling ball had they not seen the show? Or is it simply easier to blame Beavis and Butthead?




It may be hard to say what is most helpful in answering any of these questions. My own personal moral compass has been oriented to point directly at myself as the cause and blame for my own actions. It is hard to remain unbiased in this case in allowing the idea that external forces are to blame for ridiculousness rather than the free will and reasoning to understand the consequences of these actions.  However, breaking down the different codes of ethics and understanding where someone may get these ideas and notions is an interesting way to broaden the horizons of decision-making. There are always two sides to every coin, but which side it lands on can make a world of difference.

**all images are active links from their source**

No comments:

Post a Comment