That might work in primitive cultures, but this is 21st century Western life

I understand that. But Eddie Davidson didn't evolve in a neolithic cave.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Eddie Davidson didn't evolve in a neolithic cave

What are you talking about? Of course he did. So did you.

Civilization is often described as a thin veneer.  Underneath the veneer lies the same old barbarism and savagery that has been with us for the past half a million years or so.

My own observation is that while most members of any civilized society will normally appear to be civilized, only some of them really are; the others are just pretending.  And when the time comes for such a person to kill himself, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the pretense of civilization.  In a sense, it is very logical to kill people before you kill yourself, because you know that you will never be held accountable for your crimes.  Suicide is the ultimate "get out of jail free" card.  So if you have ever felt like killing someone, the ideal time to do so is just before killing yourself.  But in the case of family members, it is more often a case of killing not only yourself, but also others who are (as you have noted) seen as property or as an extension of your own ego, thus making the suicide more thorough.  It is a very sad commentary on the human race that these kinds of crimes still occur.

"Indian culture progressed past the ritual of sati, or suttee, a long time ago"

Suttee was abolished by the British.

Now they have sluttee.

That they did, Steve. Or, at least they did their damnedest to abolish it. However, was still a hardcore element who stuck with it. The practice was finally outlawed by Indian law in 1987 with the enactment of the Prevention of Sati Act.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I think there has also got to be a degree of, "If I can't have them no one else will," the way a lot of older cultures had live people burried with some of their well-to-do dead. It seems to me that workplace/school violence from disgruntled employees/students is likely something from men offing their families and themselves because of professional failures.

I also agree with zyx on this--I'm not convinced we're all that more socially evolved versus 2000 years ago.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Maybe not.  It still pisses me off.

Off yourself, you loser, but leave your kids and everyone else alone. :(

What a selfish, sick, evil thing to do.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

What a selfish, sick, evil thing to do.

Agreed. But if you look at this asshole's criminal career, his actions pretty much define "selfish" throughout.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

But if you look at this asshole's criminal career, his actions pretty much define "selfish" throughout.

Very true.   I want what I want, and to hell with everyone else.  

I might even go so far as to say he was a sociopath.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

I might even go so far as to say he was a sociopath.

i think he could safely be said to define sociopath.

this was discussed recently on /., and it was there that i read an hypothesis, put forth by psychologists, that often the men in this culture (the u.s.) who commit murder-suicide do so because they feel shamed by their failure to provide for their families (these things are often associated with financial problems), and so believe it best to kill themselves.  since, though, their death would leave their families unprovided for, they decide, as patriarch, to kill the entire family in order to spare them that ordeal.

yeah, i didn't think it made a lot of sense, either.

i'll be honest and say i feel no sorrow for Davidson's death but, as one poster put it on /., just once it'd be nice to see these murder-suicide guys do the right thing and start with the suicide.  what he did to his family was unfathomable to any sane person and a tragedy.

yeah, i didn't think it made a lot of sense, either.

One of the most remarkable effects of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought has been the the slow, but steady, acceptance of the idea in Western societies that the individual is the primary rights-bearing entity. That not just the landed gentry, or men, or citizens, or the pater familias, but every single person, simply by virtue of being human, has what we broadly term "human rights." I think that this is a good thing, and I hope that we all agree.

However, this belief, which is by no means universal on Earth today, is an extreme anomaly. There have always been individualists, of course, but any systematic, widespread belief in the value of all people regardless of their relation to others is an invention of the last millennium. Ignoring for the moment that we as civilized people often fail in living up to that belief in practical terms, and assuming that these beliefs have been widespread for 500 years (which is generous; indeed, ahistorical), then this strain of thought has been prevalent for roughly 0.2% of human history. That's the history of Homo sapiens, of course, and ignores the long evolutionary history (stretching into the millions of years, IIRC), of the primates from whom we are descended.

Most parents assume that other people couldn't take care of their children as well as they can. Excepting poor natural parents and really great adoptive parents/guardians, that's generally true. Because my son is my child, the decision to make sacrifices for him is not difficult. Actually making the sacrifices can be difficult, like when I have pressing responsibilities outside of the home, but my son is sick, or in pain, or upset, and needs me to comfort him, to care for him, or to clean up after him...but the decision to do so is never difficult.

If the situation were different, and I had, say, married a widow with a small child, I honestly can't say that I could take care of him/her as well as his/her father could (again, excepting a bad father). I'm no stranger to duty, like most people I'd certainly be moved by a child's tears, and I'm generally a swell guy, but (also like most people) I'd be less likely to go the extra mile for anyone else's kid. Chalk it up to people's enthusiasm for the survival of their own genes, or call me a bad person, but it's true.

My point is that most parents don't relish the idea of someone else taking care of their kids on a long-term basis. For men who are good fathers, the idea of another man being in the household in which his children live is at least uncomfortable, and that's assuming there are no suspicions that NewDad is a creep.

After becoming a parent, I've had occasion to ponder my mortality more than I used to. My wife and I are both young and in good health, but accidents and sudden illnesses happen, and I've thought about, and worried about, what would happen to my son if we died. I've worried about what would happen to my son if I died. In spite of my wife's good judgment, I'd worry about his increased risk for poverty, and especially sexual or other violent victimization. And, to paraphrase /.'s esteemed psychologists, I'd rather "spare him that ordeal."  After all, who wouldn't?

Of course, wanting to spare him that ordeal would never take the form of doing violence to him. It has taken the form of writing our wills, in which we've spelled out our wishes for him should we die, and gathering assurances of support from very close family should one of us die and be in a tenuous childcare/financial situation. In other words, for me, it's a long leap between wanting to spare my son the ordeal of losing a parent and being willing to remove him from the world in order to do so. But, then, I'm not suicidal.

Unlike Rome and Japan, which had (have, in the case of the latter) traditions of honorable suicide, the US has a lot of cultural and religious baggage left over from Catholic doctrines about the sinfulness of suicide. Most suicides who've been reared in the West, therefore, are outside of the mainstream culture (and ideas about mental health) by definition. In a sense, murder of one's family is actually the more culturally understandable part of these murder/suicides. For all we've learned and continued spouting Enlightenment propaganda about the primacy of the individual (and made genuine progress, I don't mean to sound like an absolute cynic), the family remains the basis of Western society, and I think that's particularly true in the United States. After seeing all of the local election commercials for the Republicans, I've learned that I may actually be a commie Satanist if I don't think of myself as part of a God-fearing family first, and an individual second.  Kidding aside, custom and law still allow parents to "own" their children in a way that a sane adult of normal intelligence (or even below normal intelligence) could never be owned, and one's family background is still the largest determiner of one's situation in life. Traditional ideas about the patriarch's role as family provider and guardian are deep, widespread, and often in conflict with ideas about the primacy of the individual.

So, I never understand the disbelief I encounter when something like this happens. Only an odd man would envision a time after his death and relish the idea of another man fucking his wife and raising his children. For most of the rest of us, wanting to spare our children that ordeal stops at steps like those my wife and I have taken. But for those who've decided to end their lives in a way our society already finds shameful, the leap to violence against one's family is much shorter. Stories like this are always tragic (though not in the classical sense), and as civilized people, we should take every reasonable step to understand and prevent things like this from happening. I do not mean to be insulting, but I can't help but feel that finding this story unfathomable stems from a poor understanding of human nature.  

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

For the many parents who adopt children, or who raise stepchildren as their own, the idea that it's normal human nature to assume that nobody else would care for your children because they wouldn't share DNA is ludicrous in addition to being insulting.  It speaks more about the flaws in that person's character than it does about human nature.

I do not mean to be insulting, but I can't help but feel that finding this story unfathomable stems from a poor understanding of human nature.  

I might venture a guess that you and I have differing opinions about what is and is not human nature, maybe even what it means to be human.  

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

For the many parents who adopt children, or who raise stepchildren as their own, the idea that it's normal human nature to assume that nobody else would care for your children because they wouldn't share DNA is ludicrous

It's not just ludicrous to parents who adopt, or stepparents, but to anyone with a basic awareness of the way the world works. We see children being taken care of by people who are not related to them all the time. Of course, this wasn't the question at hand.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

No it wasn't the original question at hand, you're right.

But it kinda became the question at hand when you wrote:

... but (also like most people) I'd be less likely to go the extra mile for anyone else's kid. Chalk it up to people's enthusiasm for the survival of their own genes, or call me a bad person, but it's true.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Even though nothing I've said, in my original post, or in subsequent posts, could be construed to be an insult to you or ivyafire personally, or even by proxy in your roles as adoptive/step parents (because I've sought to describe general human behavior and inclinations, but haven't made any absolute statements, (e.g. all adoptive parents are inferior to natural parents, or no step parents provide the best possible care for nonbiological children)), you both seem determined to be offended.

I'm tired of justifying myself by restating what's in black-and-white in my previous posts, including the quote you just snipped, which you don't seem to have understood, if you're using it as an example of how I'm arguing that:

it's normal human nature to assume that nobody else would care for your children because they wouldn't share DNA

to quote ivyafire.

Anyway, I've passed the point where I can continue to respond civilly, so I won't be making any further posts on this thread. You are welcome to continue believing what you wish about what I've said, of course.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

For the last time (because I'm damned tired of arguing what you so plainly stated, too) I am not "personally offended" by any of this. You made some very broad statements (you didn't say "everyone" or "all" but nonetheless you implied this to be a wide-ranging phenomenon) that I flatly do not agree with.

Why you care whether I agree with you is a total mystery to me.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

For the last time (because I'm damned tired of arguing what you so plainly stated, too) I am not "personally offended" by any of this. You made some very broad statements (you didn't say "everyone" or "all" but nonetheless you implied this to be a wide-ranging phenomenon) that I flatly do not agree with.
Let me add a big old 'yeah that.'

It is not human nature to not give a rats ass about other people, period.  If it were, we would not have a policy of organ donation, we wouldn't have charities, and there would not be parents who take on other people's children to raise them as their own.  There would be no society, just a big free for all.

Consequently, you cannot use human nature as the reason for some whack job killing his family when he gets caught committing a crime.  

Sorry, but there has to be another reason, and it doesn't necessarily have to make sense.  Incidents like these are the very definition of the term senseless crime.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

Thanks, ivyafire.

I was really starting to think that I was some kind of outlier and that most step and adoptive parents were very different kinds of folks than I am.

And to dzetetes, I do understand you are talking about "investment" rather than "love" - pardon me for using imprecise shorthand. The thing about varying "investment" levels between kids in the same family I think is more about how kids with different personalities are easier/harder to relate to if there is anything to it at all.

I am not a big fan of "evolutionary psychology" in case you haven't already figured that out.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I am not a big fan of "evolutionary psychology"

I don't deny that the basic structure of human behavior was put together while we were still shrieking and throwing poo at each other on the African savanna. But I do think the fact that humans have since achieved enough self-awareness to actually be able to examine and make choices about our own behavior greatly diminishes the importance of our genetic "programming".

{Insert amusing quotation here}

the fact that humans have since achieved enough self-awareness to actually be able to examine and make choices about our own behavior greatly diminishes the importance of our genetic "programming"

Something else to consider: the very same self-awareness you speak of led to choices such as, for example, communism and other sanguinary ideologies. I'd say that increases the importance of our genetic programming, not diminishes it.

I was really starting to think that I was some kind of outlier and that most step and adoptive parents were very different kinds of folks than I am.

Not at all.  In fact, I find the entire concept especially surreal, considering in another thread we were discussing the idea of donating organs after death to perfect strangers so they might survive.

You know, people completely unrelated to us, to whom we presumably owe nothing and have no reason to give a damn about? ;)

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

Wow.

Rarely have I read something on TnT that I disagree with more:

If the situation were different, and I had, say, married a widow with a small child, I honestly can't say that I could take care of him/her as well as his/her father could (again, excepting a bad father). I'm no stranger to duty, like most people I'd certainly be moved by a child's tears, and I'm generally a swell guy, but (also like most people) I'd be less likely to go the extra mile for anyone else's kid. Chalk it up to people's enthusiasm for the survival of their own genes, or call me a bad person, but it's true.

I don't know if you are a "bad person", but you certainly seem to be a less-than-ideal parent.

My second wife had a two year old and a five year old when I met her. Their father is nice guy and is still (peripherally) involved in their lives, but he lives 550 miles away. I have raised those kids as my own for over a decade now, and I continue to do so even though their mother and I are now divorced.

Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. But those kids cannot help that their mother isn't very good at long term relationships, and they need a father. Until I read your comment, I was naive enough to believe that most minimally decent people would have done the same as I did. Now I wonder.

By the way, for those playing along at home, yes I do have a biological daughter whom I love very much. But I do not love her any more (or any less) than the other two.

It isn't about the "survival of my genes". It's about the survival of three kids who all call me "Dad".

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I don't think there's any reason for you to take his observation personally.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I'm not taking it personally. But it does bother to hear anyone say, in essence, "I can never love a kid that I didn't spawn as much as one that I did". To me that is so... Darwinian. Aren't we supposed to be just a bit past that?

{Insert amusing quotation here}

...so... Darwinian. Aren't we supposed to be just a bit past that?

I think his point was that we would certainly like to be past that and I believe he accounted for cases such as yours when he said, "Excepting...really great adoptive parents/guardians."

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

But see I don't think I'm a "really great" step parent. In fact, I am pretty sure I'm not. I think any responsible adult faced with a situation similar to mine should respond as I have.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

In all fairness, I wasn't talking about love, I was talking about parental care and investment, which isn't the same thing.

I'm an armchair biologist at best, so zyx and a couple of others whose handles I don't recall at the moment could probably do a better job of pointing you to some good resources, but biologists have found that parents don't even invest in their own biological children equally. Complicated, unconscious rubrics that seek to weigh the future reproductive success of one child over another seem to be a major factor in the phenomenon.

This is a generalization that holds true for much (most?) of our species, which is part of what prompts my lack of surprise about dynamics of the kind I discussed above. Obviously, these generalizations don't apply to every human being. If you provide (and not just in the monetary sense) for your biological and legal children equally and to the best of your ability, then I salute you.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

...unconscious rubrics that seek to weigh the future reproductive success of one child over another seem to be a major factor in the phenomenon...Obviously, these generalizations don't apply to every human being. If you provide (and not just in the monetary sense) for your biological and legal children equally and to the best of your ability, then I salute you

Would you salute me?

Yes.  I feel like the shame factor is just an excuse.  I don't feel like he gave a rat's ass who he hurt, or what the consequences of any of his actions were, as long as he didn't have to pay.

Suicide was an easy out, and he didn't give his family any choice in the matter.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

most people would prefer to be consulted before you make that decision for them.

Oh, no doubt.  But either they'd make the wrong decision, or they'd agree.  Or worse, they'd try to argue against the suicide, too.

But either they'd make the wrong decision, or they'd agree.  Or worse, they'd try to argue against the suicide, too.

Yeah, the nerve of people, thinking they have a right to have a say in these things.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."