Desensitisation thoughts.
Someone asked me this: "Do you think that some amount of desensitisation is good? If a situation called for it, most people would be frozen in shock from seeing a dead body, but if someone were somewhat desensitised and mentally strong enough not to kill somebody, they spring into action, you know what I mean?" Below are my thoughts.
Desensitisation is good in small amounts, but this needs to come about naturally rather than self-indulged desensitisation. This is because it helps provide an almost mental barrier between the person and the situation. However, sometimes this would cause a lack of feeling towards it, which strips away a sense of “humanity”. In the scenario above, how little or much someone is desensitised, depending on who they are, to a dead body would probably not impact the way that they behave. This is because of the natural fight or flight reaction people face. So, someone who has seen a dead body before may still run off or not help because it’s in their natural reaction to get away from a situation, however, someone who has never seen a dead body before may still spring into action because their reaction is fight, and possibly their moral judgement makes the split second decision to aid this person whose been injured as there might still be a chance to save them. You can use the recent Bondi Beach shooting/ attempted bombing as an example, Ahmed al Ahmed was a bystander who disarmed the gunman. Al Ahmed was not a man with military/ police training to disarm a gunman, as it's reported that he simply owns a fruit shop. This displays an example of how people without training can still step in and prevent a situation from progressing further into a massacre.
Obviously, taken in a different scenario, desensitisation is good. For example, police officers must not panic at the sight of a dead body, this is the same as paramedics, forensic scientists etc. ‘OscarKilo.org.uk’ states that “Police officers in the UK are likely to encounter between 400 and 600 traumatic events over the course of their careers — a stark contrast to the average civilian, who may experience just 3 to 4 in a lifetime”, this potentially displays how people who work with tragic incidents will often become desensitised to it, however, these are still human beings who can receive counselling due to their work which is accessible through websites such as “Policecare.org.uk”.
When the public gets their hands on taboo media, which isn’t meant to be seen, then issues start to manifest. This is because desensitisation can lead to an increase in domestic violence, violent sexual experiences, etc., as it contributes to a culture where violence is normalised or accepted. Still, it doesn’t always lead to murder. Therefore, I think it’s a matter of people being a little desensitised to stuff, but I feel like that comes naturally through life, rather than actively seeking it out. For example, if a relative passes away often the family visit the dead body in a chapel of rest, and the more bodies of relatives or friends you see, the more desensitised you’ll become to it.
Using an example away from human life, imagine the first time you saw a dead bird, or roadkill or something alike. The first few times, you may not want to look, or it may bring about upset. But later in life, after seeing dead animals after a prolonged period of time, you’ll most likely become normalised to it, and often that comes naturally. And once again to bring back the argument that desensitisation comes with living your life course. Imagine a 4-year-old seeing a dead body, they’ll feel distressed and confused, vs a 20-year-old seeing a dead body, they’re more likely to be able to process it due to the 20 years they’ve lived compared to the 4. It’s simply a matter of experience. However, my argument may just be subjective and deterministic.
