Hamad Waheed

UWRT 1102-064
Suzanne Thomas
4-11-15
How do people in different time periods react to death?

In a society where uniqueness is not uncommon we all share one remarkable

similarity, the gift of life. However, we are all well aware that with the gift of life, comes
the confrontation of death. Death is essentially a phenomenon of timeless curiosity.
Although, the real question isnt why do people die? rather how do people react to
death? Moreover, how do people in different time periods react to death?
It is safe to assume that everyone will eventually die, no matter what race, gender,
occupation, etc. The significance lies in the fact that all major cultures and religions
interpret death in their own way and have some sort of ritual regarding it. That being
said, we have an endless amount of people associated with these groups that can serve as
a basis for primary research. We must still keep in mind that there is no definite common
outlook in terms of passing, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The diverse ideology
in our world is the essence of humanity.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum describes the Holocaust as a
systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by
the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Needless to say, a worldwide reaction would be

imminent? Right? Wrong. When word first got around, the majority of the population
refused to believe it, and I applaud them. Why might you ask? Its not because of an
undeniable acceptance of a large-scale bystander effect, I can assure you. Rather, the
denial affirms the peoples doubt that a fellow human could do such a thing. And what
would people do when they realize the actuality of the situation? They wonder what
significance the reaction to this event would hold.
Death has been done and dealt with in a number of ways over the years. The way
people die changes how the person reacts to it. A gruesome death would cause more of a
commotion than a regular death. Perception is key in understanding the influence that a
casualty creates. In centuries past the life expectancy was far lower than that of current
day, therefore people were more used to each other dying from disease, famine, disaster,
or murder. In todays society there have been so many forms of modern medicine and
law put in place to keep death restricted to old age but when someone dies young it is
news. Today when disease breaks the barrier of modern medicine it both concerns and
intrigues people because they wonder how their society, held so high, was brought down
by a simple deadly cause.
As time progresses people become more confident in their advances and with that
people become more frustrated with death, which breaks this progress or creates another
obstacle. When mass murder or even murder of an individual occurs, people ask each
other how someone could bring themselves to kill with such strict laws against it in place.
With disease or disaster taking lives, people naturally prepare themselves with cures and

precautions. In Centuries past, these occurrences were merely a fact of life, accepted by
people without rhyme or reason thanks to religion. And although modern advances in
science and technology deem religion illogical, it still holds significance, especially when
a reaction to death is anticipated.
In Skinners book Science and human behavior he states, We want to know why
men behave as they do. Any condition or event, which can be shown to have an effect
upon behavior, must be taken into account. By discovering and analyzing these causes
we can predict behavior; to the extent that we can manipulate them, we can control
behavior. Its interesting to see how skinner correlates a vast measure of external
variables to something as profound as the manipulation of human behavior. In any other
context this proposition would sound illogical, but given Skinners magnitude of authority
one can only speculate. Although as we look into the past, I am sure that we can find an
example that pertains to skinners ideology, even before he fabricated it. The death of a
past king or of a religious figure could be a prospective case, and a questionable one at
that.

Before we delve deeper into the topic lets take a step back from Skinners
intuition. Hypothetically speaking, ones intention to kill in order to provoke a reaction is
obviously premeditated; therefore it must have been a construct of human conscience,
more commonly known as an idea. In one of Lockes essays, he illustrates the concept of
an idea. His statement that Everyone is conscious to himself that he thinks; and when

thinking is going on, the mind is engaged with ideas that it contains exclusively
demonstrates the foundation of his philosophy. Locke, much like Skinner, represents an
influential component to present-day thinking. That being said, Lockes conclusion is
mystifying to the philosophical mind in the sense that it is a paradox. Comparatively, the
aforementioned remark only elaborates Lockes ideology, considering that it is a
conception existing in conscious. So if what both Skinner and Locke are saying is true,
then when we speak of the killer of death in this hypothetical situation, wouldnt the
paradoxical attribute of his idea conclude to nothing other than divine intervention?
In conclusion, given the facts of history, people have opened their eyes to the real affect
death has and how precious life is. People began desensitized to death but have grown
more aware and have acquired strong emotion when death becomes normal in life.
People will continue to be shocked by death as time goes on and medicine and law will
continue to progress. Death is merely a fact of life, and the significance of death is highly
correlated, if not unified, with the significance of life.