[lit-ideas] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Max Boot
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:30:23 -0400
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"[C]onsider those who recently demonstrated that they couldn't tell the
difference between a terrorists act and the act of someone fighting
terrorism. I continue to think that this problem is one of education. We
no longer teach logic."
The problem isn't one of logic, since we are operating in the realm of
discussion and debate. For example, people will operate with different
premises and logic won't be of much help in addressing these differences.
Nor do I think it is an issue of education. This list has some very well
educated people who disagree with each other.
In my opinion, the problem with many of those who claim a similarity between
a terrorist's act and the act of someone fighting terrorism, is their
inability to articulate satisfactorily the differences. Often, this failure
is a result of a commitment to the claim that mores are expressions of
social structures. For example, on this account, the difference between a
criminal shooting a person in a drive-by and a police officer shooting the
criminal in the course of making an arrest, is one between conflicting
social groups. The criminal most likely comes from a background of poverty
and abuse while the police officer represents primarily the interests of
those who are established and privileged. On this account there is little
or no grounds for condemning the criminal and justifying the police officer
because there is no recourse to an independent standard for making
judgments. There are only descriptions of who people are. Intuitively we
know that the criminal is wrong and the police officer is justified, but how
is this intuition to be articulated? One can, of course, introduce talk of
'criminals' and 'terrorists', but these are terms relative to a particular
social structure. Few would self-identify as being a criminal or terrorist.
So one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and each is an
expression of a particular social milieu.
But, again, intuitively we make the moral judgment that there is an
important difference between the criminal and the police officer that is not
satisfactorily accounted for with descriptions of social structures. The
commitment to explaining the differences solely through descriptions cannot
account for the seemingly universal belief that certain acts are wrong no
matter who does them. The terrorist is different from the person attempting
to stop the terrorist because what the terrorist is doing is wrong, no
matter their background. The person who refuses to draw on a standard
beyond social structures is unable to satisfactorily account for this 'wrong
no matter who they are'.
For those of us who are religious, or believe that there are grounds for
making general moral claims, it is then possible to articulate satisfactory
accounts of the difference between terrorists and those trying to stop them,
even though we may disagree. But without those grounds, all one is left
with is descriptions noting similarities and differences, unable to make
judgments.
I should also note that the 'all is social structures' crowd includes those
who advocate 'spreading democracy' or defending 'the American Way'. In both
cases, 'wrong no matter what' is collapsed into 'our ideals' and so getting
people to acknowledge right and wrong is identical to having them adopt
'our' way of doing things. I say this to guard against the misconception
that the issue is one of 'right' and 'left' or 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
