7 years ago today, a group of Islamic hijackers killed 2,999 Americans. Many questions arise, and I plan to explore one today: “Why do people do bad things?” I will present two different analytical models which are commonly used to answer this question, and explain how they apply to the 9/11 attacks.
First off, I will note that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are purely subjective terms. Every person has his own perspective of what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mean. Every logical person, however, can use analytical models to determine what do to in response to people doing things they personally find bad. It is my belief that most people reading this blog share similar ideas of what kinds of actions are ‘bad’ – killing people, for example, is generally viewed as a bad thing.
The first model I shall present is the simplest model. I call this the ‘atomic model of bad things.’ It works as follows:
Atomic Model of Bad Things
- Some people are inherently good, and some people are inherently bad
- Good people tend to do good things, and bad people tend to do bad things.
That’s it. Very simple. What does this model imply? If the atomic model is accurate, it means that in order to stop bad things from happening, we have to prevent bad people from doing them by incapacitating them somehow.
The most effective way to incapacitate someone is to kill them. Therefore, the most effective strategy to be pursued, if the atomic model is accurate, is to identify bad people and kill them. Does this present a problem? Only if you think killing bad people is a bad thing. If killing bad people is a bad thing, then you still have other options for incapacitating bad people. You could put them in jail, indefinitely. That would prevent them from doing most bad things. What if you think putting people in jail indefinitely is a bad thing to do? I’m not really certain. Ultimately, if you want to stop bad people from doing bad things, the atomic model says you have to do something to prevent bad people from acting as they are inclined to do.
An objection arises: what if the bad people think we are bad? This is very likely to happen, but it doesn’t change the most effective strategy for responding to bad events. It simply implies that the people we’re trying to kill also have it in their most logical interest to try to kill us.
This atomic model is quite violent; it advocates a lot of killing. Is there another way from this endless cycle of violence and death?
Yes. I call it the ‘relativistic model.’ It is more complex than the atomic model.
Relativistic Model of Bad Thigns
- People are a product of their environments; no person is inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’
- Someone who does bad things does so as a result of some external stimulus, usually a bad thing that has happened to them
What does this model imply? If we wish to stop people from doing bad things, we have to prevent bad things from happening to people. Note that the optimal strategy under the relativistic model is the exact opposite of the optimal strategy under the atomic model: if the relativistic mode is accurate, than anyone following the atomic model is making the situation in the world worse; they are causing more bad things to happen, and therefore they are influencing more people to do bad things.
Which model do I prefer? Both. I think they both have their applications; which model is more accurate simply depends upon the circumstances.
Example
I once saw a news program about an illegal immigrant on trial for murder. The immigrant had been apprehend for speeding previously, and was released back into the general population. One host of the show, (We will call him the atomist for reasons that shall become clear) was outraged, and said that this immigrant should have been deported upon being arrested for speeding. He was arguing in favor of legislation that would deport all illegal immigrants charged with any crime. The other host of the show, the relativist, was arguing against the legislation.
Let’s look at the situation from both mens’ perspectives. To the atomist, breaking the law and coming into this country illegally is something that only a bad person would do. By entering the country illegally, the immigrant has shown himself to be a bad person. Upon his being apprehended for speeding, he should have been deported in order to prevent him from doing something bad. The fact that he committed murder was practically to be expected – he is a bad person, after all. Therefore, the fact that he wasn’t sent back across the border represents a glaring problem with our legal system.
To the relativist, anyone in the situation of the immigrant would probably have tried to cross the border illegally. Who doesn’t want to give themselves a better life by migrating to the land of opportunity? How were the police to know he would commit murder after being apprehended for speeding? Any law that would treat all illegal immigrants as potential murderers is draconian, and because it does bad things to many people, would probably create more problems than it would solve.
In this case, I agree with the relativist. I don’t think that breaking into the country illegally makes someone a bad person, because many people break into the country illegally, and not all of them are murderers.
Back to 9 / 11
The relativistic model for 9/11 is that we were attacked because of our expansive foreign policy, and because we favor Israel over Palestine. If we would change our attitude towards the middle east, be more even-handed in our dealings with Israel and Palestine, and stop interfering with foreign governments, the relativists argue, we would prevent future attacks. The atomic model says there is a jihad by some of the Islamic people in the world against the west, and that the only way to prevent future attacks is to find and kill jihadists wherever they are.
Note that, once again, the atomic and relativistic models are completely at odds with each other. If we base our strategy on the atomic model, then the relativistic model predicts that we’ll simply inflame tensions in the middle east, creating more terrorists and making our problems worse. If we follow the relativistic model, the atomic model says nothing good will be trying to ‘make nice’ with the very people who are out to kill us, and that our weakness will only embolden them.
Which model is accurate? They are both accurate. Which model’s strategies make the most sense to follow? They both do. We should stop supporting middle eastern governments that oppress their people, but at the same time we should take take military action against states that support terrorism. Unfortunately, most people in America subscribe to only one of the models, while completely rejecting the other. Conservatives in America tend to be atomists, while liberals in America, and pretty much the rest of the world tend to be relativists. Here’s hoping more people will see the light in the other model, and start advocating a mixed policy, one that is gracious and kind to the majority of people in the world, but merciless towards those who harbor ill will in their hearts.