Moral Equivalence

Oddly, over at SoccerBlog.com, I got into a minor political debate with a “Sara.” The subject was a post by Shourin Roy that struck a decidedly one-sided, pro-Gaza stance. While he correctly admonishes Israeli fans who use racial against the Arab-Israeli players, he somehow never gets around to noting that the notion of a Jew playing on the KSA or Iran team is absurd.

But I digress, the lovely Sara chimes in when I suggest we keep the politics out of SoccerBlog: “Only in the US media are we seeing no mention of Israels's stupidity. [snip] Tilam, this is beyond politics. We should not allow ourselves and our government to become terrorists, which is in fact what has happened. So keep talking."

I reply: “There are many reasons to be critical of the US or Israeli policy, but moral equivalence (in this instance) is repulsive. To equate the President or US armed forces with the beheaders or to equate the IDF with people who strap on suicide belts to kill innocent civilans does a disservice to your argument. Clearly we are not perfect, but we are nowhere near them."

Oh, and by the way, if they were in charge YOU (Sara) couldn't express your opinion. Theirs is a Men Only club.”

She comes back: “No one is saying that Hamas are saints. What I'm saying is that everyone is guilty. Some more than others- especially when our government becomes a terror state. The proper response to terror is not to become a terror state yourself.”

My final word: “[I]t is obvious you have no idea what a real terror state is.”

Moral equivalence. This notion that everyone is morally equal, that no causes are inherently better (or worse), no cultures are inherently better (or worse). Moral equivalence is the product of a lazy intellect. It lacks the strength of a rigorous argument and fails the slightest analysis. My 7 year old daughter understands right from wrong, but Sara refuses to.

I believe there much to be reasonably debated about different cultures and religions, but I also firmly believe that there is some, universal minimum moral standard to become part of that debate. For example, valuing human life. This is a big difference between the radical Islamists and us. To be precise, the radical Islamists believe your life has no value unless you are BORN one of them. So me, Sara and most of you are just simply more infidels to kill.

It seems to me that while there is no rule that is inviolate – I do believe taking a human’s life can be justified – there is a set of principles that should govern moral behavior toward our fellow man. And fundamentally, morality is not about how one treats those like oneself, but how one treat those different. And we all know how the radical Islamists treat others.

Finally, I firmly believe Western civilization (as a cultural concept, not a geographical concept) is the best alternative currently available. I would quickly point out that “western civ” is actually an amalgamation of many ideas which have originated around the world. Hammurabi’s code, the Greek polis are as much a part of “western civ” as the Puritan ethic and capitalism. In that, “western civ” is really “human civ.” It does have its flaws, but it currently represents the integration of the best ideas we have had and the furthest advance of human culture and morality.