[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 21:46:16 -0600
LH:
>>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.<<
Ah, yes, I was one of those people. But I don't take Eric very seriously when
it comes to politics. He keeps trying his best to be gonzo, but come a gentle
breeze and he lapses into the splendiferies of Beethoven or Ravel. In short,
he's a lousy tough guy. And you know as well as I do that no one on this list
would argue against defending one's self or others or one's country against
attack. What most object to with Eric is his call for exterminating the
"Islamists". It's attention-getting, and about as morally bankrupt as you can
get and I don't believe for a minute that he means what he's saying. He's just
sick of liberal bromides and wants to prickle our souls. We all have our
games. As to moral equivalence, I hear it used most in arguments against
justification -- for instance against our President's justifications for
pre-emptive war, for invading Iraq, for continuing the sanctions against Cuba,
etc. -- all have been met with clean your own house first, Georgie. Moral
equivalence is a very legitimate argument, and an effective one, as Jesus well
knew, especially against those who claim to be acting in the name of goodness
against evil-doers.
Mike Geary
Memphis
Other related posts:
