What beheading apologists are you referring to? This is just a red herring invented by conservatives as the only defense to our own abuses.
You are absolutely right when you say beheading is inexcusable if we did it, as it is inexcusable by anyone. Similarly, it would be wrong for the terrorists to humiliate our soldiers, deprive them of food and sleep, beat them, leave them tied up for hours outside on the desert ground, and other such abuses.
The only moral relativists I see in this mess are conservatives trying to defend this indefensible war. Wrong is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator is.
Curious thought. It brings to mind the question "Is it wrong for a man to steal bread for his hungry children?" Yes, it's wrong because stealing is wrong and as 'Anonymous' says wrong is wrong no matter the perpetrator. However, most people are not monsters and would say it is acceptable for a man to steal food for his hungry children, myself included. Consider it the benefit of the doubt defense. It's probable that the man is only stealing bread because they're hungry and he has no alternative. In a different situation, it's likely that he would never steal bread.
The bread man is a staple of moral discussion. I'm not really sure how it relates to Abu Ghraib vs. the Beheaders, but consider: It's at least marginally acceptable to many people that the breadman steal food for his kids. Was the breadman childless and not hungry it would be completely unacceptable.
So, what changes our assessment? Are we "Thinking of the children"? I don't think so, at least not directly. If the man steals bread for his kids he's taking risk on behalf of others. Immoral actions done for a noble cause is pallatable. Thus, motivation serves as a measure of morality. Stealing for one's own gain is disgraceful. Stealing for a second party's necessity is (or can be) acceptable.
It's marginally okay for the breadman to steal bread for his kids. What if he robs a bank at gunpoint, with the intent of spending the money on bread for the little tykes? I would feel sympathy for him but not to the extent of agreeing that he should be let off. At that point the man ought to be prosecuted. What is different here? The extent of the moral infraction. Theft is the immoral behavior. Swiping bread from the grocery store is wrong, but nobody is endangered, and the loss is on the order of pennies. Robbing a bank at gunpoint puts many people at risk, and is measured in hundreds or thousands of dollars. Thus, magnitude is important in determining the morality of actions.
Combining these two ideas gives us moral judgement. Lying is a moral infraction (I hate lying and very seldom do it). Social lies are generally acceptable (I'm not good at these. "Does this shirt make me look fat?" "Yeah. Ow! Stop hitting me!") Lying to spare somebody's feelings is often excused. I tend not to do this either, but feelings and I don't talk often. Lying for personal gain is generally reprehensible.
Furthermore, the response to moral infractions is important to determining the moral fiber of a person or people.
Abu Ghraib was shameful. It was wrong. It was inexcusable, and never once have I seen a conservative blogger make excuses. America was appalled. We expect excellence from our people and this was most certainly not excellence. We are still in the process of punishing those who were guilty of this atrocity. We responded by holding the guilty parties accountable to a standard of behavior. We trotted them out in front of everybody and made them take responsibility and face their shame. It doesn't make it right but it hopefully helps us move towards a world where it will not happen again. At least not at our hands.
Beheading civilians is shameful and wrong and inexcusable. In America it would be considered a monstrosity only explainable by insanity. We would be collectively horrified if a farmer in the midwest showed up on the news beheading some stranger, some passerby. It is almost blase in the Islamic world. Some of them are chagrined and ashamed and horrified, but no small number of them dance in the streets and cheer for these monsters. They clearly have a different moral scale than we have as Americans.
Conservatives, including myself, use an absolute moral scale. Moral infractions are measured on a 'wrongness' scale. Liberals use a relative moral scale and wrongness is measured on a perpetrator scale. America is supposed to be better than fundamentalists so lesser transgressions perpetrated by Americans are equivalent to greater transgressions perpetrated by others.
I'll close with this: Were you captured by an enemy and given a choice would you pick humiliation or beheading? I know I can live with wounded pride and a few bruises. I'm not so sure I would long survive without my head.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (4:53 pm)
That is so funny! I just wrote a blog on Moral Relativity too! LOL! Great post!
posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (5:45 pm)
A couple of things here:
"We are still in the process of punishing those who were guilty of this atrocity."
Actually we are not. Rumsfeld is still there and he and his office OK'd these atrocities.
" Conservatives, including myself, use an absolute moral scale. Moral infractions are measured on a 'wrongness' scale. Liberals use a relative moral scale and wrongness is measured on a perpetrator scale."
I don't know where you get this. You go through a whole argument about why a starving person should steal bread to feed his children. An absolute moral scale would say that this is always wrong, however you are saying that it is OK if his kids are starving.
By the way, what is a wrongness scale? Is this related to the punishments given to criminals? Conservatives are always trying to increase these punishments, because they think that harsher punishment is a deterrent to the hungry people trying to feed their children in the inner city.
You really just confuse me. Sorry I'm so dense. A little more explanation may help.
