This was very thoughtful and an interesting read as usual, Laura! It’s always ok to take your time. I am a slow processor myself!
As I have been reflecting on this situation, I think I’m seeing a relationship between guilt and shame and victims and perpetrators. I think the trouble the left is getting itself into arises from these ideas. We’ve essentially eliminated the notion of guilt at large, especially when it comes to identity. Only we can decide who we are and anyone who disagrees with that or engages ideas which would call for us to feel guilty about said thing are basically oppressing us and should be damned. So we condemn-loudly-any dissonance, or even questioning.
At the same time, we are largely viewing the world through the lens of categorizing people as a victim or an oppressor.
In this situation, it would seem both people are in both categories, so who wins out? If Mangione’s reasoning seems legitimate, then, he’s the victim and he can’t be guilty. For the Left, I think the big corporation and its representative will always be the perpetrator. That may point to where some of the cognitive dissonance you’re referencing is coming from.
Anyway, still thinking through this, but I think you’re spot on, especially in the last few paragraphs.
Thank you for another brilliant and thought-provoking essay. I’ve recently been catching up on the news after taking a much-needed break to “save my nervous system.” I find myself particularly fascinated by some of the current debates around morality and am considering how it intersects with the role of stereotypes.
Cases like Luigi Mangione and the widespread interest in Lily Phillips’ OnlyFans story are especially intriguing. There’s also the horrifying tragedy in Germany involving the Saudi doctor whose beliefs conflicted with what many might have expected. What stands out in all these individuals' stories is how they challenge the stereotypes we often rely on to make sense of the world.
Traditionally, stereotypically, these individuals may have been initially considered to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and to have limited access to resources to engage in such acts. Yet, their situations typically don’t fit those narratives. These stories have garnered significant attention precisely because they defy what people might typically assume about individuals in their positions. Their actions and circumstances suggest otherwise, shaking the foundations of these preconceived notions.
This, to me, highlights how much we rely on stereotypes to validate our own values, beliefs, and subsequent definitions of morality. When people or events don’t align with these expectations, it can create confusion or force us to reevaluate our assumptions. It underscores just how deeply ingrained and flawed our reliance on stereotypes is. They are, in many ways, our attempt to create predictability in an unpredictable world. Yet now, what we once considered predictable is increasingly unpredictable, and the certainty of volatility is becoming the norm.
Even when stereotypes are broken, society will still often scramble to construct new ones in an effort to maintain a sense of order. It’s fascinating to observe how these disruptions not only challenge individual assumptions but also provoke broader questions about morality, psychology, and the way we perceive the world.
Ultimately, these moments provide a valuable opportunity to reflect on why we think the way we do and how we might approach things differently.
Thank you again for sharing your work. I look forward to reading more in 2025. Wishing you a peaceful and restorative Christmas, despite the soaring temperatures, and a smooth start to the new year!
Thanks for this intelligent essay. There are many complex things to think about because of the killing and the reactions. However, murder is wrong in all circumstances. The use of the word murder rules out mitigating circumstances such as self-defense and killings in war.
The shattered moral compass is systemic, we live in a world where words and deeds don’t match. The corruption, inequality and pain of watching suits pontificate about right and wrong while they wring every drop of good out of society to line their own pockets and power structures while telling us to work harder, be better, buy more. When someone comes along and does something this shocking, it is like a like a psychological shockwave that breaks through the grinding horror of our reality in a way that makes us question everything. I was equally horrified and fascinated by the violence but not surprised. This was a shattering of the carefully politically crafted facade of left vs right. Most people don’t condone the specific act of violence, but they viscerally feel the dissonance between the establishment outrage over the death of an elite vs the insidious, slow death of thousands at the flick of his pen. Corporate and political corruption is out of control and the moral equivalence arguments are akin to telling a starving person not to steal to feed their kids - pushed to the edge, morals start to become meaningless.
You are not looking for moral coherence Mr. Smith, you are looking for moral conscription to your world view. Of course this was an abhorrent, cold blooded assignation and I am glad that the perpetrator will face justice - through the courts. I would have thought that was obvious but clearly every discussion needs to be prefaced with a disclaimer to prevent lazy logical leaps such as yours. I do not condone violence under any circumstances, including death penalties or war crimes and this murder is no different.
Your bizarre rant about the anaesthesiologists proves the point that the system is broken, a system that puts corporate interests before people. I am lucky to live in a country that has strict gun control, safe schools and universal health care yet, every day is a financial struggle and the future is deeply uncertain. You trivialise the existential dread most people are living with as “dissatisfied on very vague terms, overwhelmed and intellectually lazy”. What a cruel, careless statement that shows a compete lack of understanding or empathy for people who are staring down the barrel of financial destitution while record breaking profits pool at the top. Perhaps this system is working for you but it is not working for the vast majority who are not crying tears of distress over a CEO who represents the worst of its excess. That does not mean that they want the system to devolve into anarchy, they simply want change. There will always be extremists but if you can’t find the grace to listen to the grievances of others without insulting and belittling them, you are part of the problem.
I’ve yet to encounter an “of course, but” take on this murder that was morally coherent, and Ms. Fitz’s is no exception.
If one steals food to feed starving children, those children don’t starve.
Who has been saved by this murderer? What change has it actually brought?
I can think of one…
A trade association for anesthesiologists (one of the highest paid practices alongside radiology; median salary north of $300,000 per year) seized upon the controversy and put out a press release decrying Blue Cross changing reimbursement from time charged to a flat rate by procedure. The trade group warned their members would have to stop giving patients anesthesia when operations ran long.
Except, Medicare, years prior, had caught anesthesiologists systemically overbilling patients, and moved to a flat rates for various procedures. No patients on Medicare had their anesthesia cut off during surgeries.
And here, too, Blue Cross had discovered systemic overbilling — a long pattern of small acts of fraud — and moved to mirror Medicare’s reimbursement practices to guard against it.
Unfortunately, thousands of people online who share much in common with Ms. Fitz, dissatisfied on very vague terms, overwhelmed and intellectually-lazy, lashed out at the insurer, and it succumbed to the trade group’s opportunistic PR push, preserving corruption.
Whether or not Ms. Fitz finds others’ morals to have any meaning is almost moot. A better question is, does what she and her fellow travelers choose to excuse, equivocate or celebrate actually bring about positive change?
Probably not if motivated by a list of grievances that is vague and incoherent.
“ pain of watching suits pontificate about right and wrong while they wring every drop of good out of society to line their own pockets and power structures while telling us to work harder, be better, buy more.”
I don’t recall consumerism being a grievance expressed by the murderer. If we’re going to describe a man’s gray matter being sprayed on the sidewalk as predictable, a coherent set of affronts could bolster that argument.
Perhaps the best fiction I’ve read this year is a nearly hundred-year-old short story, Katherine Anne Porter‘s “Noon Wine”. It’s moral is that evil corrupts, full stop.
This was very thoughtful and an interesting read as usual, Laura! It’s always ok to take your time. I am a slow processor myself!
As I have been reflecting on this situation, I think I’m seeing a relationship between guilt and shame and victims and perpetrators. I think the trouble the left is getting itself into arises from these ideas. We’ve essentially eliminated the notion of guilt at large, especially when it comes to identity. Only we can decide who we are and anyone who disagrees with that or engages ideas which would call for us to feel guilty about said thing are basically oppressing us and should be damned. So we condemn-loudly-any dissonance, or even questioning.
At the same time, we are largely viewing the world through the lens of categorizing people as a victim or an oppressor.
In this situation, it would seem both people are in both categories, so who wins out? If Mangione’s reasoning seems legitimate, then, he’s the victim and he can’t be guilty. For the Left, I think the big corporation and its representative will always be the perpetrator. That may point to where some of the cognitive dissonance you’re referencing is coming from.
Anyway, still thinking through this, but I think you’re spot on, especially in the last few paragraphs.
Thank you for another brilliant and thought-provoking essay. I’ve recently been catching up on the news after taking a much-needed break to “save my nervous system.” I find myself particularly fascinated by some of the current debates around morality and am considering how it intersects with the role of stereotypes.
Cases like Luigi Mangione and the widespread interest in Lily Phillips’ OnlyFans story are especially intriguing. There’s also the horrifying tragedy in Germany involving the Saudi doctor whose beliefs conflicted with what many might have expected. What stands out in all these individuals' stories is how they challenge the stereotypes we often rely on to make sense of the world.
Traditionally, stereotypically, these individuals may have been initially considered to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and to have limited access to resources to engage in such acts. Yet, their situations typically don’t fit those narratives. These stories have garnered significant attention precisely because they defy what people might typically assume about individuals in their positions. Their actions and circumstances suggest otherwise, shaking the foundations of these preconceived notions.
This, to me, highlights how much we rely on stereotypes to validate our own values, beliefs, and subsequent definitions of morality. When people or events don’t align with these expectations, it can create confusion or force us to reevaluate our assumptions. It underscores just how deeply ingrained and flawed our reliance on stereotypes is. They are, in many ways, our attempt to create predictability in an unpredictable world. Yet now, what we once considered predictable is increasingly unpredictable, and the certainty of volatility is becoming the norm.
Even when stereotypes are broken, society will still often scramble to construct new ones in an effort to maintain a sense of order. It’s fascinating to observe how these disruptions not only challenge individual assumptions but also provoke broader questions about morality, psychology, and the way we perceive the world.
Ultimately, these moments provide a valuable opportunity to reflect on why we think the way we do and how we might approach things differently.
Thank you again for sharing your work. I look forward to reading more in 2025. Wishing you a peaceful and restorative Christmas, despite the soaring temperatures, and a smooth start to the new year!
As always, well said.
Hi Laura,
Thanks for this intelligent essay. There are many complex things to think about because of the killing and the reactions. However, murder is wrong in all circumstances. The use of the word murder rules out mitigating circumstances such as self-defense and killings in war.
The shattered moral compass is systemic, we live in a world where words and deeds don’t match. The corruption, inequality and pain of watching suits pontificate about right and wrong while they wring every drop of good out of society to line their own pockets and power structures while telling us to work harder, be better, buy more. When someone comes along and does something this shocking, it is like a like a psychological shockwave that breaks through the grinding horror of our reality in a way that makes us question everything. I was equally horrified and fascinated by the violence but not surprised. This was a shattering of the carefully politically crafted facade of left vs right. Most people don’t condone the specific act of violence, but they viscerally feel the dissonance between the establishment outrage over the death of an elite vs the insidious, slow death of thousands at the flick of his pen. Corporate and political corruption is out of control and the moral equivalence arguments are akin to telling a starving person not to steal to feed their kids - pushed to the edge, morals start to become meaningless.
You are not looking for moral coherence Mr. Smith, you are looking for moral conscription to your world view. Of course this was an abhorrent, cold blooded assignation and I am glad that the perpetrator will face justice - through the courts. I would have thought that was obvious but clearly every discussion needs to be prefaced with a disclaimer to prevent lazy logical leaps such as yours. I do not condone violence under any circumstances, including death penalties or war crimes and this murder is no different.
Your bizarre rant about the anaesthesiologists proves the point that the system is broken, a system that puts corporate interests before people. I am lucky to live in a country that has strict gun control, safe schools and universal health care yet, every day is a financial struggle and the future is deeply uncertain. You trivialise the existential dread most people are living with as “dissatisfied on very vague terms, overwhelmed and intellectually lazy”. What a cruel, careless statement that shows a compete lack of understanding or empathy for people who are staring down the barrel of financial destitution while record breaking profits pool at the top. Perhaps this system is working for you but it is not working for the vast majority who are not crying tears of distress over a CEO who represents the worst of its excess. That does not mean that they want the system to devolve into anarchy, they simply want change. There will always be extremists but if you can’t find the grace to listen to the grievances of others without insulting and belittling them, you are part of the problem.
I’ve yet to encounter an “of course, but” take on this murder that was morally coherent, and Ms. Fitz’s is no exception.
If one steals food to feed starving children, those children don’t starve.
Who has been saved by this murderer? What change has it actually brought?
I can think of one…
A trade association for anesthesiologists (one of the highest paid practices alongside radiology; median salary north of $300,000 per year) seized upon the controversy and put out a press release decrying Blue Cross changing reimbursement from time charged to a flat rate by procedure. The trade group warned their members would have to stop giving patients anesthesia when operations ran long.
Except, Medicare, years prior, had caught anesthesiologists systemically overbilling patients, and moved to a flat rates for various procedures. No patients on Medicare had their anesthesia cut off during surgeries.
And here, too, Blue Cross had discovered systemic overbilling — a long pattern of small acts of fraud — and moved to mirror Medicare’s reimbursement practices to guard against it.
Unfortunately, thousands of people online who share much in common with Ms. Fitz, dissatisfied on very vague terms, overwhelmed and intellectually-lazy, lashed out at the insurer, and it succumbed to the trade group’s opportunistic PR push, preserving corruption.
Whether or not Ms. Fitz finds others’ morals to have any meaning is almost moot. A better question is, does what she and her fellow travelers choose to excuse, equivocate or celebrate actually bring about positive change?
Probably not if motivated by a list of grievances that is vague and incoherent.
“ pain of watching suits pontificate about right and wrong while they wring every drop of good out of society to line their own pockets and power structures while telling us to work harder, be better, buy more.”
I don’t recall consumerism being a grievance expressed by the murderer. If we’re going to describe a man’s gray matter being sprayed on the sidewalk as predictable, a coherent set of affronts could bolster that argument.
Perhaps the best fiction I’ve read this year is a nearly hundred-year-old short story, Katherine Anne Porter‘s “Noon Wine”. It’s moral is that evil corrupts, full stop.
I’m glad you persevered :). Such a sad topic (topics really, but the term doesn’t seem encompassing enough for such terrible matters).
I’m possibly your oldest reader, but I so admire your thoughtful writing. It always helps me consider the world anew. Thanks for this.
Have a great holiday!
Thank you John, and you too.