[lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail)
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:44:19 -0600
Oops, sent that by mistake. I'm flattered that Lawrence thinks that the Left
is Jesus approved, but we don't need no stinking badges.
Mike Geary
morally equivalent to a citizen of Sybaris
in Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Geary
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: [lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An
Online History (The Fourth Rail)
LH:
I believe the Moral-Equivalence concept originated on the Left during the
Cold War.
I don't think so. It's at least as old as Jesus: "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone." "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine
own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An
Online History (The Fourth Rail)
Phil:
You might be annoyed that I didn't find your expressions
self-authenticating but 'tis the nature of dialogue, sir. We are never ever
understood as well as we think we ought to be.
See, here is dialogue at work: You don't understand that "assumption" is
one of the synonyms for "premise," and I am happy to explain that to you.
Sometimes in such discussions I also use the words "presupposition" or
"presumption" depending upon the context.
"Logical Assumption" is a common term. Perhaps it isn't as precise as
others terms we might use. It is the antithesis of "Fallacious assumption."
It means an assumption in a Logical argument. The Moral Equivalent adherents
have not produced "Logical assumptions" - they have not produced premises to
support their conclusions about Moral Equivalence - they have not produced an
argument in which there are premises or assumptions of such a nature as to
demand their "Moral-Equivalence" conclusions.
The argument you present as being in defense of Moral Equivalence doesn't
serve the current purpose. I discussed something close to that some time ago
in regard to the idea of the "enemy." Namely, that since the Militant Islamics
have a set of arguments that demand that they kill infidels. And we have a set
of arguments that demand that we defend ourselves against people trying to kill
us. There is no point in wasting time over trying to make these arguments
mesh. We should simply understand that the people trying to kill us are
"enemies." Even though equivalent arguments can be produced, those wishing to
kill us are not the same as us and we are not the same as them. This doesn't
mean that we are neutralized and prevented from acting in accordance with our
own prnciples because we can't make the arguments meld. We have a set of
standards that they violate. It is wrong from our perspective for them to kill
us. It is quite right in accordance with our standards that we should defend
ourselves against those trying to kill us. The fact that those trying to kill
us have equivalent believes ought not to confuse us. We are mutual enemies.
We shall be trying to kill each other off and on for years to come. We should
understand that.
So you intended an attack on me in your original note. Well, I missed that
as well. I'm afraid your comments haven't dissuaded me from the belief that
those advancing "Moral Equivalence" schemes are deficient in an understanding
of logical argument. The ME adherents believed there was no moral difference
between the Communists and those fighting the Communists. They were the same
morally. There was no right or wrong in this because the Communists thought
they were right and so did the West. I have no problem with part of this
concept for it is certainly true that the Communists and the West both thought
they were right, just as it is presently true that Militant Islamics and
Westerners both think they are right. But a difficulty arises when someone
uses Moral Equivalence to imply that it is immoral of us to operate in
accordance with our own standards. I don't believe they can demonstrate this
logically.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:09 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An
Online History (The Fourth Rail)
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"I don't understand the significance of your saying 'this is not even close
to what I wrote'. I was interested in 'application' not 'duplication'.
What I wrote was my understanding of what you wrote applied to the matter of
'Moral Equivalence'."
You were discussing my so-called theory. I pointed out that your discussion
of what I was saying did not remotely resemble what I said. You may be
interested in 'application', but I am interested in accurate attribution. I
don't mind being wrong, but I do mind when claims that I would never make
are attributed to me.
Lawrence continues:
"In regard to my present confusion, you say you don't know what a 'logical
assumption' is. I'll take that at face value although I find it surprising.
It is necessary to have at least two assumptions in any argument - two
assumptions and a conclusion, we could also describe this as a major and
minor premise and a conclusion. The assumptions or premises don't
necessarily have to be stated they can be realized by the reader if the
writer is clear enough."
So, you have described the structure of a syllogism, which contains two
premises (not assumptions!) and a conclusion. I am still waiting for a
description of a 'logical assumption'.
Lawrence continues:
"Since no believers in 'Moral Equivalence' have thus far produced a logical
argument I produced one for them."
Here is one that has been given on this list, but not in this form, by a
variety of people on various occasions.
Major Premise: All judgments regarding what is right and wrong proceed from
one's social and cultural context.
Minor Premise: The application of the label 'terrorist' is a judgment.
Conclusion: The application of the label 'terrorist' proceeds from one's
social and cultural context.
Lawrence again:
"An argument is either logical or illogical. There is no third choice."
Apparently there is something called a 'logical assumption'.
Lawrence concludes:
"Are your statements aimed at those who use the Moral Equivalence argument?
Are you telling them that Eric isn't morally wrong because Eric was raised
to believe it morally right to defend oneself and one's nation?"
My comments were aimed at you for suggesting that the inability to
distinguish between terrorist and someone fighting terrorism was the
consequence of a faulty education in logic.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
Other related posts:
