[lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:57:56 -0800
Well, Mike I guess the words can sustain your interpretation. They are
ambiguous enough to permit the truth of what you say, but I don't think that
is the way they have been used in modern times. Jesus was speaking to men
who were truly morally equivalent to the woman they caught in adultery. He
accused them of being morally equivalent to that woman but beyond that was
critical of their denying it by their actions; which made them guilty of
hypocrisy. There weren't two ways of looking at this matter. The woman was
guilty of adultery, and so were the men. They both had the same world view
and they were both guilty of violating it.
What we had in Communism vs. Liberal Democracy and now have in Militant
Islam vs. Liberal Democracy are different world views. It is legitimate to
say that we have equivalent world views. It is not legitimate to say that
by opposing Communism or Militant Islam we are culpable in terms of our own
world view for defending ourselves against our enemy. I tried to keep the
discussion on the excellent recent example of two or three people getting on
Eric about wanting to vaporize the terrorists before they had a chance to
kill him. Those people used the Moral Equivalence argument to say that Eric
was just as bad as the Terrorists. I got Phil's back up by suggesting they
were thinking sloppily, but I can think of no other explanation. Eric is
opposed to Terrorists killing us, but his wanting to kill them is so that
they cannot kill him. Sure the terrorist is consistent with his own world
view to want to kill Eric because he is an infidel. But Eric is consistent
with his own World View to want to defend himself. Those who condemn Eric's
view as immoral aren't . . . thinking logically.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:32 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [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 <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
