Apples, Oranges, and Moral Equivalence

September 29, 2007 § 13 Comments

One of the less edifying features of our current public discourse is the tendency to say “shut up!” by accusing someone of postulating moral equivalence between, say, ourselves and the terrorists who have attacked us.

Now it is doubtless true that many critics of the Administration’s follow-up to 9-11 really are attempting to draw a moral equivalence, or even worse, to displace moral blame for the attacks from those who carried them out to someone else. Certainly that is a dominant theme on the political Left, and the “Truther” phenomenon is its natural manifestation. If we are morally to blame then we must be the ones who actually did it, a priori: no matter how much people try to cling to the idea that we are responsible for outcomes rather than for our own acts, nature reasserts herself. The “Truthers” are just being more consistent with the reality of how moral responsibility works than other factions of the “blame America first” mob.

[Note to the paleo Right: if you don’t want to be like the Truther Left, then don’t be like them. You can choose.]

Now it would of course be very convenient for the administration hawks and their agitators if everyone who criticizes administration policy were drawing a moral equivalence or blaming America first. But about this the hawks are kidding themselves. Because in point of fact it isn’t our job, as ourselves, to make moral evaluations of our enemies (those not yet vanquished) at all. It is our job to make moral evaluations of ourselves; and to understand what we expect our enemies to do so that we can make prudent decisions, the making of prudent decisions also being our moral obligation. The required moral evaluation is all about us, and moral evaluation of them doesn’t enter into it. We need to know what to expect from them in terms of behavior. Our expectations about their behavior reflect on what we should and should not do morally and practically. That’s it, until such time as the particular enemy in question has been vanquished and is either dead or on trial.

So when we use the language of cause in reference to ourselves we are talking about something quite different from what we are talking about when we use the language of cause in reference to our enemies. The things that we do must be morally justified; the things they do must merely be understood. Understanding is not justification, and shouldn’t be confused with justification. It would be grossly immoral for us to march into a nest of vipers and unleash all manner of death and mayhem without all the usual prudential considerations being taken into account. This is true even if occasionally a viper enters our camp and kills one of our young: if dealing with the nest is beyond our morally-realizeable capabilities then we are left to dealing with keeping incursions as isolated – and yes, unprovoked – as possible.

The prudential – but no less morally binding for being prudential – requirement not to provoke the nest of vipers doesn’t make us morally equivalent to the vipers. Our expectations of what they will do is part of the prudential evaluation of our own acts. But it doesn’t say anything at all about them morally: apples are not oranges, and expectation is not justification.

We don’t have to justify what they do. We only have to justify what we do. No amount of outrage that God has allowed the serpent to dwell on this same earth with us can turn an apple into an orange.

(Cross-posted at What’s Wrong with the World)

Tagged:

§ 13 Responses to Apples, Oranges, and Moral Equivalence

  • Rodak says:

    Zippy–I have more chance of attending the next Inaugural Ball with Scarlett Johannson on my arm than you have of getting an honest discussion on this topic.

  • William Luse says:

    Who’s Scarlett Johannson?

  • Rodak says:

    William–If you have to ask, you wouldn’t be interested.

  • Civis says:

    Rodak,Why can’t we have an honest discussion?Zippy and Rodak,I hate the word verification thing on both your blogs! My dyslexlixc ass can never get the letter right.

  • zippy says:

    Unfortunately it is the only level of security on Blogger that blocks SPAM pretty effectively and yet allows people to post without me having to moderate every post. The SPAM got so bad last spring (or whenever it was that I turned the feature on) that I pretty much had to either turn on word verification or get rid of comments entirely.

  • Rodak says:

    Civis–It’s not that we *can’t* have an honest discussion of Zippy’s topic; it’s that it won’t happen.Why it won’t happen is perhaps summed up by these lines from an early, Vietnam-era, Bob Dylan song:“And you never ask questionsWhen God’s on your side.”

  • Rodak says:

    Well… I visited What’s Wrong With the World, and I must say that there is a lively and *lengthy* discussion going on there. It seems to be based in the premise, upon which there is universal agreement, that they are the Bad Guys and that we are the Good Guys. They are bad guys. You’ll get no argument from me there.I see little effort, however, to demonstrate the truth of the other half of that proposition, i.e., that we are the Good Guys.Therefore, the discussion is not based on any debate of fundamental, existential, questions, but only upon doing moral assays of various acts by our side, current and historical, to determine just how much dross is mixed in with the pure gold of our unimpeachable righteousness.So, tell me to shut up. I’ve just committed moral equivalence: there is no righteous man, not one. Multiply that by 300+ million, and there you have it.

  • zippy says:

    <>I see little effort, however, to demonstrate the truth of the other half of that proposition, i.e., that we are the Good Guys.<>I see the discussion there as an exploration of what it should be like for us to act and think like the good guys, rather than an attempt to demonstrate anything.

  • Rodak says:

    Yes, but only in terms of our specific acts vis-a-vis the Muslims, or the Japanese, etc. What we need to be examining is our own essential national values, not merely whether this act or that is justifiable according to some formulaic moral algebra.

  • Civis says:

    Oh, speaking of Scarlett Johannson: That chic is butt ugly. Whoever her agent is, he must be a genius. I don’t see how she has such a glamour image.

  • Civis says:

    RE Word Verification: If you could only understand the difficulties I have with dyslexia. I’ve been through a lot. It makes finding a girlfriend hard too. I’ll never forget the time I posted a personal ad saying I was “viral”.

  • Rodak says:

    If you think Scarlett is “butt ugly”, I think you’re not dyslexic–you blind!That said, even if she were ugly, she’s a really talented actor, so she’d work in any case.

  • Civis says:

    Man. I have to disagree on the second part too. Oh well. De gustibus non est disputantem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Apples, Oranges, and Moral Equivalence at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: