So what's wrong with 'moral equivalence'?

Question

When I look at the Middle East, I see two sides of religious fanatics fighting over a dust and calling it holy. Both sides justify their acts of wanton, sadistic murder by saying they act in the name of God. They think the other side is pure evil and refuse to negotiate. Neither seems to care if civilians die. For all of Israel's advanced technology, over 90% of the casualties out of this conflict have been civilian.

So what's wrong with moral equivalence? I really don't care who wins your war. I don't care who started it and I don't care who ends it. I don't care if Israel is erradicated and every person in it dies a screaming horrible death. I don't care if the same happens to Lebanon or the Muslim nations. Take your religious nutcasery and go peddle it somewhere else. You're all the damn terrorists to me. And I'm not anti-semetic or anti-Muslim, I'm anti religious extremist nutcases.

To the fourth answerer:

You didn't answer my question. Neither side is defending itself, Hezbollah started this latest conflict and Israel over-reacted starting something close to a full-scale war over 2 kidnapped soldiers and one border incursion.

Answer 1

As human beings we should care, I think, about who lives and dies.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying about we should be more concerned with what is going on at home and not abroad in this case - with missiles to Israel, and aid to Lebanon as a brief apology note for when our missiles hit the innocents that are not Hezzolah (sp?)

However, as our nation is retaining political ties with Israel, and Bush saying she has a right to defend herself is mainly to keep this political bond strong, and keep the at odds policy with the remainder of much of the Islamic Middle Eastern nations.

However, as for religious extremists - we have to remember when we form bonds of politics elsewhere, that not all political entities are akin to the United States in not having a state religion, and not having separation of church and state. Just as we have learned that it is possible to have allies with socialist countries in Europe, and that not all countries are pure democratic, or repbulics with a democratic base.... we also have to remember that all of these political units do not have the same base values as we do, the same definition of freedom.

We might think it our job to enlighten the world, in the style of some missionary, on the value of our age old system. But - if we go about forcing constitutional democracies by war, and separating others from their own culture - we negate the progress of enlightenment. Others develop in their own manners - and, there are fine lines between standing up for a people imprisoned by a dictator, and sticking our nose in too far to completely establish governments to our liking. This is the habit of the US lately, and by giving Israel missiles when they have a very advanced military, we made a strong statement on who is right and who is wrong.

I wonder, is it completely political, and about allies? Or, does our ties to Israel result from the Christian majority originally being able to identify more with Judaism than Islam. There is STILL a large semblance of anti-Islamic ideations in this nation as part of the post 9-11 culture, and it was already there, and grew deeper. Can we justify this?

Personally - I don't think it really has to do with moral equivalence anyhow. Terrorism goes beyond religion, I would say to self worship and godlessness. Not even a humanitarian atheist bone.

We need to care about the people caught in the strife, but, we cannot take it in our hands to police the world as one huge United States. It is not our place to set up one world wide commonality - besides, frankly - no one in the United Nations would allow it. And frankly - let's hope NATO wouldn't either.

Answer 2

it style of feels to be... it is the subject with employing this style of term, it sounds self-righteous. And each and all of the those that use the term have had ethical lapses of their very own. only because of fact which you have been as quickly as a "sinner" does not make you an expert on morality. The term "ethical equivalency" used against a snippet of a speech is laughable. communicate approximately hypocrisy... we've had a minimum of 10 years of the dazzling complaining approximately political correctness and now they try to prepare their very own version by using parsing words.

Answer 3

Organized religion separates us this is the outcome. I could care less to I want to know about the occupation in Iraq and the search for Bin Laden or the war on the middle class at home.

Answer 4

Your apathy speaks to your ignorance, and your ignorance of the issues speaks to your unwillingness to understand both sides of the issues. I imagine though that you view the concept of self defense as radical religious extremism. Maybe we are better off if you remain apathetic, and silent.

Answer 5

You have a point.

Of course if you get rid of the religious nutcases of the world - there wouldn't be enough of us left to play a decent game of poker.

Not enough DNA to re-populate the species - Humanity loses.

Next species please!

Answer 6

Moral equivalence is the denial of right and wrong. It seems pretty basic to me that there is a difference.