|
May 04, 2006
Murder is impolite!
Philadelphia Mayor John Street made a remark today which I think says a lot while appearing to say very little. In exasperation over recent shootings near Philadelphia's dysfunctional Olney High School, he once again echoed the familiar theme that "arguments" are at the root of the problem: Yesterday's violence outside the school comes at a time that the city's pervasive gun culture shows no sign of flagging. For the first four months of this year, Philadelphia's homicide tally is keeping pace with 2005, when the total was 380 - the biggest since 1997.I'm glad I haven't lost a loved one to one of these apparently senseless shootings, and I have nothing but sympathy for those who have. With all respect to Mayor Street, though, I think it does a disservice to the innocent victims of shooters when the problem is characterized as a lack of civility, and a murderous state of mind is reduced to "the slightest indignity." (Right now, I'm just cranking out another blog post on the gun issue, but if someone I loved had been shot and I read that the cause was "incivility," I'd be upset beyond words.) We all face indignities in life. Lack of civility is a problem, and I have condemned it many times in my blog. I say this knowing that I am not perfect, and I am not always as civil as I would like to be. At the risk of being repetitive, however, the indignities of life and the lack of civility are a far cry from pulling out a gun and shooting someone. Pulling out a gun and shooting someone is not an indignity, nor is it incivility. It is pure, unmitigated evil. Shooters should be prosecuted and sent to prison or executed. But that's easier said than done. For starters, the police work involved in identifying and arresting the shooters is an enormous, uphill battle, and it's hard, hard work locating witnesses -- much less getting people to testify. In Philadelphia many of the shooters get off Scot-free because of witness intimidation, and there's a well-orchestrated anti "snitching" campaign by criminal gangs. Juries are understandably afraid to convict. Judges do not like handing down stiff sentences. Prisoners often end up on parole. Like it or not, there is a tendency to run away from facing up to the existence of evil, and a strong impulse to forgive and excuse evil doers. In my view, minimizing the evil by calling it "incivility" actually helps enable it. But I understand the motivation. When something is difficult to do, none of us really want to do it. And blaming something external and tough to define -- a "gun culture" -- offers an easy way to avoid the hard work that needs to be done. But the "lack of civility" of which Mayor Street complains is much easier to define than "gun culture," because it is everywhere. Almost everyone is less than civil from time to time. If, as the formula goes, incivility plus guns means shootings, then our only hope is to get rid of guns, because incivility is a fact of life we cannot change. I suspect that Mayor Street knows that incivility will not go away, and that his call for civility will be ineffective. Logic, of course, has nothing to do with it. If Mayor Street wanted to be logical, he would urge citizens to stop shooting each other. But that would be seen as ludicrous, because evil, criminally-inclined people do not listen to the pleas of law abiding people that they be good. I think it is tough for the mayor and people who think like him to recognize that because shooting people without legal justification is evil, that the people who shoot others without justification are by definition evil. They might also be bad mannered, uncivil, "slightly indignant" -- whatever we might call it. But there are plenty of other rude and indignant people who are not murderers. I'm sorry, but focusing on manners in the face of murder makes about as much sense as asking Miss Manners to weigh in on Charles Manson. posted by Eric on 05.04.06 at 09:02 AM
Comments
FELIX · May 4, 2006 03:47 PM The "willingness to use lethal force when matters of pride are involved" might be defended in the context of traditional duelling. But the shooting of innocent people is evil by any standard. Eric Scheie · May 6, 2006 09:13 PM 'Evil' is simply a term employed when someone wishes to dehumanize an opponent prior to doing something dreadful to him. Innocent people are killed/hurt by the actions of others all the time (eg. military collateral damage) and we don't generally refer to that as 'evil.' The point I was trying to make is that using emotionally loaded terms normally clouds rather than clarifies. Don McArthur · May 7, 2006 05:01 PM Again, the shooting of innocent people is evil by any standard. (Well, any reasonable standard.) I don't think the word "evil" is emotionally loaded in that context. On the other hand, defining evil as "simply a term employed when someone wishes to dehumanize an opponent prior to doing something dreadful to him" would appear to render the word devoid of all meaning, by implying that there is no such thing as genuine evil; instead only a word used to justify doing something dreadful. But that makes no sense either, because "something dreadful" means evil in that context, which would mean that evil is a word misused by evil people! It is certainly true that there are evil people who call other people evil before harming them. I don't see how their existence -- or the misuse of the word -- negates the existence or definition of evil. Eric Scheie · May 7, 2006 08:35 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm not sure your post makes any sense, though I _am_ sure the Mayor's statements don't. It's like everyone is agreeing to talk about the moon because it's too embarrassing to talk about Crazy Aunt Edna eating the wallpaper. (Block that metaphor, eh?)
We all _should_ be talking about an embedded uncompetitive underclass that has ruined life in our urban centers, the members of which have no hope of competing in a modern technological society, and who are well aware that 'thug culture' offers them their only hope of treasure and sexual conquest, and that part of this 'thug culture' includes a willingness to use lethal force when matters of pride are involved.
What has that to do with evil, or manners, or hangun availability?