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.

And 10 youths under age 18 have been killed by guns in Philadelphia this year, six of them in April.

At a hastily called news conference last night, Mayor Street addressed the matter.

"We need to raise the level of civility," Street said. "The slightest indignity should not be resolved with the use of a handgun."

(Emphasis added.)

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





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3569






Comments

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?

Anon   ·  May 4, 2006 11:32 AM
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
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits