So, let’s start with you Kev, you sly dog. You’re going to try using my questions to you about morally judging the actions of Pizarro (a discussion from Kev’s blog about his bike trip around the world) to trap me on the subject of terrorism? I feel honored. (The photo, by the way, has nothing to do with anything. Just a shot I like of the Lake Michigan shoreline a couple springs ago.)But your first big point is a little shaky. Are radical Muslims really so alien in their thinking? Hardly. Think of the British colonial war and later the more pernicious American war against the Native Americans. Think of Sherman’s March to the Sea near the end of the Civil War -- which many scholars think is a momentous event in the history of warfare, the moment when someone bumped the world over some moral line by purposely committing terrorists acts against a civilian population. Think of our dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many civilians were incinerated? 150,000, give or take. For what purpose? Well, wasn’t it to terrorize the Japanese public and government into surrender? Alien? Hardly.
So I don’t see Islamic terrorists as all that alien. But what about this matter of morals? Well, I will ask you similar questions as in our discussion of Pizarro. If you think all morals are relative, which you hint at, what are you proposing to do about terrorism? Just let it continue? You seem to think that’s the way to go. But can you really believe that? You actually hint that since we have no way to say that terrorists are wrong or bad, there is nothing we are morally permitted to do about terrorists. In fact, there is even a deeper hint in your comments that you might actually think that reason requires us to regard terrorism as good -- that because terrorists regard their terrorist actions as values of good to them, we are required to accept those values as good.
But let’s set those strange hints aside for the moment. You make no guess about what causes terrorism or what might cure it. But let’s imagine that you really do want to stop terrorism, regardless of those hints that you think we’re morally helpless in this situation. If your idea is 1) to blow the hell out of them, and then to hunt them down like dogs and hang them like cats, well, that’s the current course this country is taking in some ways. So you should be happy about how things are going. Let me say that I think that we have the perfect moral right and duty, even the responsibility, to hunt terrorists down and kill every last one of them (with the proviso that the hunting and killing should be performed in moral ways and by moral means). But that’s because I think they’re morally wrong, not because I think they’re morally good or because I think all morals are relative. Or if you’re idea is 2) to just let them go on killing at their leisure, since in your mind everyone’s bad is someone else’s good, well, then I think you’re just a plain ol’ "postmodern" fool. No one is obliged under any moral system to accept the killing of his kith and kin because someone else values the killing of those kith and kin. No one. This is the basic moral right of self-defense, which I believe is one of the very few truly universal moral principles.
So, Kev, I don’t know why you’re bringing up moral relativism. It doesn’t appear to have any bearing on the questions of the causes and cures of terrorism, the subject I’ve been excogitating upon. Look at it this way. If all morals are relative, then we Americans can do whatever we want and destroy terrorists in any way and by any means we wish. Fine. (Let me say, though, that this is why I think moral relativism rather dangerous: it tempts us to think that we can do ANYTHING we wish to get whatever we want.) But if we’re morally good and they’re evil, well, then we Americans also can go ahead and disable or destroy them in any way that is moral and effective. The only problem is if we’re morally evil and they’re good. I’ll have to excogitate on that possibility over the next week.
You’re right about the interpretation of the Bible, of course. But I don’t regard the Bible as the WORD OF GOD or as a sacred set of texts with any authority over me or anyone else, so that point is moot in regard to this issue.
2 comments:
Ben, the causes and cures of terrorism depend on many factors. Let's assume for the moment that terrorists are either (1) religious fanatics and truly believe they are doing the work of God, or (2) that the are just evil and enjoy blowing people up for personal satisfaction or gain.
If (1) is the case, then the concept of moral relativism is germane. It's easy to condemn those who believe differently than we do. We know what's right. We believe it down to our bones. Infanticide, for example, is dead wrong. You just shouldn’t go around killing little babies. Yet, many cultures have practiced this in the past. For them, it was morally acceptable. Imagine a place where what we know is right is actually questionable. Newtonian physics, for example. Imagine that gravity doesn’t work, or that you can create matter. It’s impossible to comprehend.
So it is with the terrorists. They inhabit a world where our beliefs do not apply. We cannot imagine what it is like. Furthermore there is no way we can be convinced they are right and we are wrong, and vice versa. You will never convince me that killing a healthy baby is morally justified, nor that you can create matter. The causes of terrorism arise from the terrorist's belief that they are doing the right thing. In order to cure terrorism we must try to understand the world they live in. We must try to understand a world where 2+2 does not equal 4. But, they also must also be open to dialog. Only then will we begin to resolve our differences. We must convince them to have an open mind to alternate ways of thinking. Perhaps a reasonable compromise can be reached. But if we close our minds it is unlikely they will open theirs. A never ending war is inevitable.
Now, in the case if (2), where terrorists are not, in fact, religious fanatics, but simply evil folks who want to kill people then we should just beat the shit out of them. Their universe is the same as ours. They know they are doing wrong but they do it anyway. No compromise or negotiation is possible.
So which is it? Do Islamic terrorists truly believe they are doing Allah’s bidding (even though misguided in our eyes), or are they just mentally ill violent crackpots?
Kev: You still seem to think moral relativism has something to do with this issue, but you are entirely mistaken. Your latest note appears to say that because radical Islamists think recent terrorism is good in this specific case in some sense, we should consider their case before killing them to stop them from killing us. I agree. Discussion and negotiation is a good thing to work on with just about anyone. Islamic terrorists might have some good points and some good reasons for their killing. I’ve been looking into it all along.
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with moral relativism. MR simply says that everyone is morally right and every moral position is good. Terrorists are right, anti-terrorists are right, and every other position is right, too. From the point of view of MR, it doesn’t matter morally whether I look into the case for Islamic terrorism or not. MR says that whatever I decide to do is right. If I want to answer the Islamic terrorists with some terror of my own, MR tells me I’m right. I can do whatever I think best, from bombing them to hell to opening peace talks while they keep bombing me. Thus, MR has nothing to say to this issue and is entirely irrelevant.
I suspect that what you’re really interested in is talking with terrorists and their supporters to understand them better. With the insight we gain from discussion, you appear to think, we will probably be better decide how to deal with them, how to best put a stop to their killing without falling into moral error ourselves. I fully agree. That’s just what I’ve been excogitating about. We should be trying to understand radical Islamist terrorists, both to stop them from killing us and to protect ourselves from moral error. But that has nothing at all to do with moral relativism -- not one little thing.
Finally, there are far more possible explanations for terrorism than fanaticism or mental illness; so I see no reason to bother choosing between those two simplistic positions.
Post a Comment