‘Calling Wilding What It Is: Evil’

I share with George Will the pain and outrage felt in his column (“Calling ‘Wilding’ Exactly What It Is: Evil,” Op-Ed Page, May 1) on the brutal attack on the woman in Central Park. And like Will, I too ponder the character and psyche of those who attacked with such indifference to suffering and who responded to their arrest with such a cavalier attitude. But I don’t find his conclusion--that these young men were unadulteratedly Evil (the capital E is implied in Will’s essay)--helpful for understanding them or the situation. It may even be a dangerous conclusion for the idea of moral responsibility.

To say that these men are Evil is to imply that their acts are incomprehensible--beyond meaning. It turns their deeds into some sort of metaphysical act (even a theological entity) that does not require any further explanation or scrutiny. It makes them a unique and special case and distances them from the motives, drives, and pathologies that we (potentially) share with all men.

Incomprehensibility is also one of the most common conclusions in Holocaust literature. In both cases the perpetrators and the victims were human beings. Unfortunately, the crimes were eminently human acts that reveal the extremes that only human being are capable of inflicting. As human beings who share that potential to inflict suffering, we are obligated to seek a human understanding for evil.

MICHAEL NUTKIEWICZ

Director, Martyrs Memorial and Museum of the Holocaust Los Angeles