News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Moral Equivalence?

Started by Chris Johnston, January 02, 2008, 04:13:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Chris Johnston

In a recent post, pagan1 made some interesting, and all too common statements which should be addressed:

Quotewhat does religion have to do with it?pakistan is an ethnically divided,impoverished orphan of the british raj,desperate people will do desperate things.al qaeda,otherwise known as the worlds most recent boogeyman or praxis of evil is a symptom not the disease.when western nations send their children into harms way,isn't this a statement of how far they are prepared to go for their economic...otherwse known as religious beliefs?a suicide bomber or a combat soldier both spin the roulette wheel of fate,it is just that one has a more certain bet.until the wealth is spread more evenly,and until there is an awareness of what we share in common with each other rather than what divides us,there will always be prophets of doom and revenge.I think that religion is little more than a sickness,and that only after a long period of evolution will we be able to cure ourselves of the extremist disease.

This idea of moral equivalence is pretty common today, and is a favorite of liberal thinkers like Noam Chomsky. But the fact is that the suicide bomber is not morally equivalent to the soldier. And Muslim society is not morally equivalent to Western civilization.

Islam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th! It is morally and ethically retarded. We can demonstrate this by asking about the intention of the society. The intent is conveniently ignored by Chomsky and other liberal "thinkers." Here's how it works:

Can you say that the suicide bomber whose intent is to maim or dismember an infant or toddler in order to strike terror in its parents is morally equivalent to the soldier? Let's take the American soldier, since this is what is bandied about. How much effort does the American soldier take to avoid killing an infant or child, who might die while the American is trying to kill a baby-killing, life-hating, death-worshipping suicide bomber? It is stupid or evil to try to equate them. Stupid if you didn't realize the difference. Evil if you do and discount it. You decide.

From another tack, let's look at another nonsense assertion above.

Quoteuntil the wealth is spread more evenly,and until there is an awareness of what we share in common with each other rather than what divides us,there will always be prophets of doom and revenge.

The funny thing about those Muslim suicide bombers right up to Osama Pigfucking Bin Laden, is that they are not the poorest, most ignorant dregs of society, but generally educated far above the average in their society with a great deal more resources that those who ululate in the Arab street after they perform their "sacred duty" on unsuspecting and innocent bystanders.

So take your false and misleading excuses and peddle them elsewhere. We know why Muslims explode themselves. It's because they are Muslims.

SteveS

#1
Hey Chris - I don't want to bait this argument any, but I do strongly agree with the following:

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"But the fact is that the suicide bomber is not morally equivalent to the soldier. And Muslim society is not morally equivalent to Western civilization.

Islam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th! It is morally and ethically retarded.
So it seems to me as well.

Will

#2
There's always eventual equivalence. Under the same circumstances, many Americans would gladly suicide bomb a crowded market in response to Israeli bombings of a Hamas training ground, just as many Westerners were glad to leave their homes and travel thousands of miles in order to capture and defend a location that they had no claim to all along committing atrocities the likes of which are rare in history (though not as rare as they should be). I wonder how different the Christian spilling of Saracen blood is than the Lebanese's Hebollah's spilling of Israeli blood. That's two possessive contractions in one sentence, one right after the other, btw; a personal best.

If one wants to relate like occurrences in order to illustrate commonality, one cannot relate a soldier to a "terrorist". I'd think it would be more apropos to compare either terrorism because of displacement or terrorism because of religion. We can then draw from that two groups: Native Americans during the 1600-1700s and hatred-based radical Christian groups (the kind that burn crosses, are violent towards non-Protestants and non-whites, and that bomb or attack abortion clinics).
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Mister Joy

#3
Terrorist is a very sketchy word to me. I don't quite understand the limitations of its use. King George III referred to American revolutionaries as 'terrorists', after all, and they did use some similar tactics. And it seems to me that Bush is or was using the word 'terrorist' in a very loose 1984 sense: THE ENEMY. It's out there! It's evil! It wants to ravage your wives, arrange your children's heads on picket fences and burn your homes to the ground! We don't know quite what it is because it's incredibly vague but that's all the more reason for you to be constantly afraid and suggestible! and so on.

donkeyhoty

#4
Quote from: "Chris Johnson"Islam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th! It is morally and ethically retarded. We can demonstrate this by asking about the intention of the society. The intent is conveniently ignored by Chomsky and other liberal "thinkers."
Actually 7th century Islam was far more tolerant and enlightened than current "Christian" society.  In the case of 14th Century versions of Christianity and Islam I'd put them on equal footing of ignorance, and nearly equivalent to current Western and Middle-eastern societies, with the 21st Century Western World being slightly better than it's 14th Century counterpart, and Middle-eastern society being the reverse.


Secondly, your use of the word liberal does not make sense in the context you are using it.  Can you clarify what you mean by "liberal"?


Quote from: "Mister Joy"And it seems to me that Bush is or was using the word 'terrorist' in a very loose 1984 sense: THE ENEMY. It's out there! It's evil! It wants to ravage your wives, arrange your children's heads on picket fences and burn your homes to the ground! We don't know quite what it is because it's incredibly vague but that's all the more reason for you to be constantly afraid and suggestible! and so on.
Exactly.  It's a new Cold War except the Soviets actually had the capability of inflicting wide-scale damage on the "West".


Here's another question to ask ourselves:  In essence, is the religious Right in this country that is currently in power any different than the theocracies of the Middle-east?
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Chris Johnston

#5
Should I have used the phrase "left-wing?" Or "America Haters?" I know this is a fairly leftward leaning forum, but I defy anyone to show that the use of the word liberal is unclear. Chomsky is far left. You can call it progressive, if you like, but I don't know enough about his political views on other issues to use that word.

Willravel, would you kindly unkink your sentence about the crowded market? Not sure I follow you on that one. Is it a crowded market in a Hamas training camp? Will all the victims be innocent or waging war on innocents?

The fact is, in the name of faith, atrocities have always been committed. I do not single out Islam for this one. But to assume that Muslims love their lives the way we do is to ignore the bare fact of the religion they have sworn themselves to. They love death, because after death, "they are in a better place." And they get honor if they take infidels with them.

There is no moral equivalence between the soldier who goes to fight as part of an army and the teenager who straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of schoolchildren.

Put aside how you feel about our current expedition in Iraq. I don't like it much either. And equating it with a war on "terror" is something Bush should be held accountable for.

But to claim moral equivalence in these cases is to betray a very abnormal, anti-life view of morality.

SteveS

#6
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Here's another question to ask ourselves: In essence, is the religious Right in this country that is currently in power any different than the theocracies of the Middle-east?
I do see them as somewhat different, although more important is the shocking similarity.  I see the "religious Right" as "authoritarian evangelicals".  And I wonder if they could eventually become indistinguishable from the Islamic theocracies.  I think the answer is "yes".

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Actually 7th century Islam was far more tolerant and enlightened than current "Christian" society
Maybe.  Surely, Islam of the past was more enlightened and tolerant than it appears to be now.  And it has certainly gone downhill.  "Christian societies" don't holding honor killings, right?  Anyway, I wonder what would be considered a typical "Christian society"?  The US?  The UK?  I have a hard time imagining these societies as less enlightened than 7th century Islam, though....

Quote from: "Mister Joy"King George III referred to American revolutionaries as 'terrorists', after all, and they did use some similar tactics.
True!  Whenever I watch some history program about the "Sons of Liberty" I always think that in the modern age our own statesmen would label these people terrorists.  Haha!

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"And they get honor if they take infidels with them.
That's the problem.  And, Christians of the past did the same --- killing Saracens in the "holy land" made you a "holy" person (as Will points out).  Doesn't it seem reasonable to suggest that they adopt this ideology because of a combination of economic/political situation and religion?

bitter_sweet_symphony

#7
QuoteActually 7th century Islam was far more tolerant and enlightened than current "Christian" society

I'll be glad to see you back it up with evidence. Muhammad's pals killed entire Jewish tribes for not embracing Islam and then took the wives and daughters of the Jewish men killed as concubines. Is there any equivalent in the current Christian society? No Christian society today allows people to be killed for apostasy. Muhammad excused a man who had murdered his wife cause he (the murderer) argued that she had apostatized.

 
QuoteThe fact is, in the name of faith, atrocities have always been committed. I do not single out Islam for this one. But to assume that Muslims love their lives the way we do is to ignore the bare fact of the religion they have sworn themselves to. They love death, because after death, "they are in a better place." And they get honor if they take infidels with them.

I wouldn't generalize that far. Islam teaches people to become militants and to die in the battle against the infidel. But to say that all Muslims believe in that is entirely wrong. Most Muslims don't even know much of the Quran and the hadiths. It won't be fair to say that all Muslims are out to blow themselves up in suicide attacks.

Mister Joy

#8
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I wouldn't generalize that far. Islam teaches people to become militants and to die in the battle against the infidel. But to say that all Muslims believe in that is entirely wrong. Most Muslims don't even know much of the Quran and the hadiths. It won't be fair to say that all Muslims are out to blow themselves up in suicide attacks.

Seconded. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of Muslims are not out to blow themselves up. There are extremists, yes, but there are also extremist Christians in the west who would gladly take out a school bus in the name of their lord. There are death-worshipping lunatics wherever you go. Also, while the Christian West isn't imperialistically dominating the rest of the world, it still does so financially to a large degree. McDonald's could easily buy a small country if there wasn't international law preventing it. I'm no socialist or anything, but I can see how that would provide a lot of motivation for people like that.

Will

#9
Quote from: "Chris Johnston"Willravel, would you kindly unkink your sentence about the crowded market? Not sure I follow you on that one. Is it a crowded market in a Hamas training camp? Will all the victims be innocent or waging war on innocents?
I was putting Americans into the shoes of Palestinians (something rather rare considering the Western media...). The idea was to suggest that if Americans tasted desperation and tragety like the Palestinians do on a daily basis, they'd likely become 'terrorists' (actually, a more correct term would be insurgent because the Israeli government is occupying Palestine; the AN/UN didn't have the authority to establish a state after the fall of the Ottomans considering that none of the countries were members of the UN).
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Big Mac

#10
Quote from: "Willravel"
Quote from: "Chris Johnston"Willravel, would you kindly unkink your sentence about the crowded market? Not sure I follow you on that one. Is it a crowded market in a Hamas training camp? Will all the victims be innocent or waging war on innocents?
I was putting Americans into the shoes of Palestinians (something rather rare considering the Western media...). The idea was to suggest that if Americans tasted desperation and tragety like the Palestinians do on a daily basis, they'd likely become 'terrorists' (actually, a more correct term would be insurgent because the Israeli government is occupying Palestine; the AN/UN didn't have the authority to establish a state after the fall of the Ottomans considering that none of the countries were members of the UN).

Well slap my titties hard and call me Britney! We agree on something. I think most of our problems involving the Middle East are rooted with our aid to Israel.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"And what if pigs shit candy?

Will

#11
Israel would be a great state if it were in Europe. It's nothing but a match thrown onto Middle East oil right now, though. Jerusalem should be international territory, Palestine should be run by a parliamentary government, and the Hezbollah should be run out of Lebanon. Possibly into the sea.

I had a really good friend die in Lebanon not too long ago during a bombing campaign. That place needs a lot more atheists.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Big Mac

#12
Quote from: "Willravel"Israel would be a great state if it were in Europe. It's nothing but a match thrown onto Middle East oil right now, though. Jerusalem should be international territory, Palestine should be run by a parliamentary government, and the Hezbollah should be run out of Lebanon. Possibly into the sea.

I had a really good friend die in Lebanon not too long ago during a bombing campaign. That place needs a lot more atheists.

Holy shit....we really agree! The world, my friend, needs more secular thinking.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"And what if pigs shit candy?

donkeyhoty

#13
Quote from: "Chris Johnston"Should I have used the phrase "left-wing?" Or "America Haters?" I know this is a fairly leftward leaning forum, but I defy anyone to show that the use of the word liberal is unclear. Chomsky is far left. You can call it progressive, if you like, but I don't know enough about his political views on other issues to use that word.
You can use whatever words you like, but the problem lies in your equivocating "left-wing" and "liberal" with "america-hating".  Liberal does not necessarily mean "left-wing" nor did your use have any clarity as to what you meant by "liberal".  I had a feeling you were using it in the perjorative, and useless, sense that liberal=left=anti-america.  If you mean left-wing in a socialist sense, then say that.  If you mean left-wing in a radical anarchist sense, then say that.  

There is a great problem with the misuse and overuse of "liberal" and "conservative" today in American politics, insofar as they have lost all explicit meaning.  Democrats are not necessarily liberals, nor are Republicans necessarily conservative.



Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I'll be glad to see you back it up with evidence. Muhammad's pals killed entire Jewish tribes for not embracing Islam and then took the wives and daughters of the Jewish men killed as concubines. Is there any equivalent in the current Christian society? No Christian society today allows people to be killed for apostasy. Muhammad excused a man who had murdered his wife cause he (the murderer) argued that she had apostatized.
I was actually thinking of the 700s more so than the 7th century, where the Muslims were still conquering for no other reason than they thought they should like the US is doing today.  But, they actually cared about science and knowledge and education, and a somewhat limited religious freedom that enabled the spread of knowledge to reach Western Europe.  

So, I'd say current "christian" society, and by that I mean the Bush administration and its lackeys in the UK, is less enlightened than 8th and 9th century Islam in the educational sphere, and equal in the Imperialist sphere.


Quote from: "Chris Johnston"There is no moral equivalence between the soldier who goes to fight as part of an army and the teenager who straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of schoolchildren.

Put aside how you feel about our current expedition in Iraq. I don't like it much either. And equating it with a war on "terror" is something Bush should be held accountable for.

But to claim moral equivalence in these cases is to betray a very abnormal, anti-life view of morality.
These statements are also at a disconnect.  If you ignore how you feel about the war in Iraq, then you can claim no moral equivalence.  But, if you disagree with the war, or think it illicit, then the soldier and the suicide bomber are equivalent.  Both sides are killing for no reason other than someone told them to do it, and they believe they are right.  Whether the number of "innocent" people is higher on one side or the other is irrelevant.  Both sides have been responsible for the killing and maiming of large numbers of "innocent" civilians.

If you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent.  You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

bitter_sweet_symphony

#14
QuoteI was actually thinking of the 700s more so than the 7th century, where the Muslims were still conquering for no other reason than they thought they should like the US is doing today. But, they actually cared about science and knowledge and education, and a somewhat limited religious freedom that enabled the spread of knowledge to reach Western Europe.

I beg to differ. They cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state? I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I don't think it can even be compared to any Islamic state.


QuoteIf you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent. You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

I beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is  morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong.

Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.