Originally posted by PaulNik:
Originally posted by iconophile:
[b] I wouldn't say moral equivalence, rather moral continuity.
I don't like to talk in terms of moral equivalence because from there it is a short step to the "WE are not so bad; just look at what THEY do!" blindness. Look at the Palestinians and Israelis: neither side can see the evil they do as they are blinded by the evil of their enemies [though more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians, if you are looking for a quantitative standard].
But quantitative standards don't apply. Lives become an abstraction, when they are anything but. Is the Armenian genocide unimportant because "only" a million Armenians died and 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis? Is 9/11 not the moral equivalent of Hiroshima because only a fraction of numbers of the Japanese dead were killed in the Twin Towers?
Secondly, how are we judging moral equivalence? Subjectively? Those Iraqi children you see in the photos are considered "collateral damage" by those who bombed them for the sake of [at best] spreading democracy or deposing a tyrant.
But the jihadists, however misguided, believe they are killing and dying for the sake of the literal reign of God.
This subjective question of motivation is important: most Americans, even Catholics who should know better, justify the targeting of civilians in World War II by appealing to the good that came from it. Even Christians are transformed into full blown relativists, consequentialists who justify evil in the name of a greater good. By this standard, the jihadists have the highest motivation, the reign of God on the earth.
On the other hand, if there is objective moral truth, killing the innocent is never just, no matter what.
And do not forget that the Holy See called this war unjust. "Collateral" deaths in an unjust cause are murder.
-Daniel
