debates

kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca
Fri Oct 13 06:28:14 PDT 2000


On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:32:37 +0200 (SAST) Peter van Heusden <pvh at egenetics.com> wrote:


> > And yet the words "guilty" and "innocent" still have meaning...


> Ken, are you going senile or something? Think about what you're saying - the
words "guilty" and "innocent" - doesn't that remind you of the debacle of Clinton and Lewinsky? The most recent test of innocence in US political consciousness - which culminated in Clinton bombing Sudan...

If notions of responsibility and accountability currently fall short of their own ideals, or even some sort of non-idealistic practice, or the structures and institutions of national and international justice are impoverished, the point isn't to get rid of them, rather, to improve them (or get rid of some of them and built new institutions). Are you more comfortable with the designation that Clinton is neither guilty nor innocent? Guilt and innocence might not be the best ways to characterize responsibility and accountability... but we've got some fairly important concepts here that are tied up with justice, morality and law... concepts that I wager function to make any kind of sanity possible. Should corporations not be held accountable and responsible for their actions? Is the idea of guilt antiquated?

I'm reminded of Annie Sprinkle here. The answer to bad pornography isn't no pornography - but better pornography.

anamnesis, ken



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list