it was a riot

There were some pretty shocking scenes from the London rnd of course the sheer feral criminality on display in the looting which seemed to be the main driving force. While sparked by what could probably only tenuously be called a racial incident , it is probably true that it triggered some real and perhaps even valid racial grievances, but what followed had little to do with this in justification. To avoid misunderstanding, there is no doubt that most of the violence and all of the looting was just criminal opportunism, and completely inexcusable. But that doesn't mean that the people involved were just criminals (although they of course are now) and that it is completely inexplainable. In my view what we saw was an deprived and discarded underclass, with no hopes for or from society, taking advantage of a break down in law and order to help themselves. And of course the looting of televisions and trainers showed it wasn't a fight for survival, but enrichment. It was wrong behaviour, and of course should not be tolerated.

But, that said, while it is worrying that a 'rich' and developed country such as the UK might have such a simmering class ready to rip off what they can, what's more worrying to me is how people in the UK, and especially abroad, responded to it. I can understand outraged calls for vengeance from those directly, or even indirectly, affected, but what shocked me was the level of moral indignation, and venom, from people who had absolutely nothing to do, and importantly to lose, from the situation. Lock them up and throw away the key, teach them a lesson, were the standard responses. Why did people care so much about a few vagabeonds stealing things? Especially as in the current scheme of things, there are people a lot more deserving of our ire - for example the corrupt and incompetent politicians and bankers and developers who have brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse. In terms of impact (billions), excusability (rich already) and consequentialism (most likely to affect us again if we don't do something) surely people should be getting and staying a lot more het up about this international cadre than a few localized yobs? How come a co-worker here in Austria might rant to me about how the rioters are 'getting away with it' and not ever mention the catastrophe unfolding in famine hit Africa, or the ongoing collapse of our economies?

It points again to what I believe is necessary, but unpredictable element of our moral systems. Morality in a society is about the community as a whole, and this requires it to be more than simply a network of reciprocal tit-for-tat calculations. If individuals just took umbrage at what affected them or their kin directly, then it would not count as a moral system. What is needed is a sense of outrage and indignation at general 'wrongs' - even if they don't affect us. Only if every node of the system is disposed to react, can any violations be suppressed, and violators clamped down upon, before they and their methods spread. This is why I think moral indignation, the emotional drive to blame and see punished, evolved. A rational cost-benefit analysis would always be superseded when push came to shove, which is why group selection I think caused the reactions to be evolved in the gut.

But, just as we have natural drives which we rationally keep in check to maintain society, so these drives must be consciously and rationally channelled. It is I think insightful that contrary to its modern connotation of animal revenge, the rule of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was actually in its origin an exhortation to limit revenge to the scope of the original offence, and avoid excessive reactions.

So if he urge to react to the 'bad' is so basic, why do these distance rioters provoke such a disproportionate response? Apart from the very important and serious investigation needed into why the rioters acted as they did, and what can be done to stop such phenomenon in the future, just as important is to understand why they achieved such disproportionate relevance in the news and public discourse, and what can be done to temper and better direct the anger of people such as my co-worker. Because although moral indignation against perceived violators is needed, it is a slippery slope from there into vilification and dehumanizing segments of society. if someone is 'just' a criminal, then they are nothing else. And such prophecies have a tendency to become self fulfilling