On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:53:16 -0400 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
writes:
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, those who insist on such explanations of the
> morally
> >unexplainable cheapen and disgrace the anti-war movement.
> Sometimes
> >criminals are just criminals
>
> What is this, an original sin theory of human behavior?
That sort of reminds me of back when James Q. Wilson wrote *Thinking About Crime*, he made a very similar sort of assertion, and suggested that people were wasting their time looking for "root causes" for crime when what was required was that criminals be apprehended and severely punished. However, even Wilson found it difficult to remain consistent about this, since he was soon looking to Skinnerian psychology and sociobiology for answers as to why some people become criminals. The fact is that anyone who is serious about reducing crime levels must concern himself or herself with discovering the causes of crime, so that effective policies can be devised. The same of course applies to terrorism, presumably.
I was also astonished by Nathan's assertion that to concern oneself with attempting to discover the causes of terror attacks like those of September 11 was to somehow defame the memory of the dead. One would think that their memory might be best served by the very opposite since that might help to prevent similar outrages in the future. But I suppose that as Doug suggests, Nathan seems to think that this is some sort of "Elie Wiesel-type" territory here, which would be sacreligious for us to attempt a rational inquiry.
Jim F.
>I'm still
> trying to comprehend the spectacle of a very smart guy with two
> advanced degrees dismissing the importance of explanations. Even
> horrific behavior can, and should, be explained, no?
>
> Doug
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.