In the previous post Trampage writes:

How do I join the KILLING FOR DEMOCRACY group in my area.
I don’t know any PLO or clansmen.
Is that the same group as “Democracy for the few, the proud” club.
I just love it when we get to Kill everyone and everything because we’re the
good guys.

I wish to take up the argument implicit in the last line of this comment. Trampage uses the expression ‘good guys’ to mock those that claim moral superiority in the US military action in Iraq. Underlying this position is the idea that all moral systems are equivalent. Rhetorically this is captured in the expression ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. Implicit in this argument is the idea that moral superiority can only come about through a fundamental failure in understanding the position of those regarded as morally inferior. If the morally superior were to seriously consider the position of the morally inferior they would come to realize that inferior’s morally reprehensible actions are in fact morally acceptable in the context they live in. Effectively this argument would argue that the morally superior would behave in amoral ways had they lived in the same context of the morally inferior.

The problem with moral equivalence is it strips one of the justification for taking action in assisting others. Perhaps the most obvious example of how this becomes a problem is the Second World War. Without moral superiority, on what grounds do you justify the killing of innocent Germans when fighting its army? For what reason do you intervene in the massacring of millions of Jewish people? Would you eagerly remind the US that had it lived in the context of Germany it to would be exterminating other ethnic groups?

Additionally, there seems to be this notion that other people make inferior moral decision not out of choice, but out of the condition they find themselves in. This seems to imply that one has no control over their fate and must resign themselves to the actions the context dictates. Reducing the argument in this way reveals just how absurd moral relativism becomes. It enables one to make justifications for the most heinous of crimes simply by saying they had no other choice. Eliminating moral superiority dissolves personal responsibility.

Putting all that aside, I believe there are some inherently superior moral positions. Government systems that allow for the expression of the people’s will and place safeguards to protect minorities from being oppressed are inherently morally superior to governments actively suppressing the people’s will and oppressing its minorities. Military intervention employed to prevent the large scale slaughter of groups of people is inherently morally superior to those military interventions with the intended purpose of slaughtering such groups. Regardless of the context in which Germany began exterminating Jews it’s position was morally inferior to US intentions to stop that massacre even if it meant killing innocent Germans in the process.

Those in Iraq explicitly interested in finding crowded market places to maximize the carnage when they detonate a bomb are morally inferior to a targeted bomb intended to wipe out a terrorist stronghold which through collateral damage kills the same amount of civilians. In one case, you have the intentional effort of killing civilians as a way to make a point, while in the other case you have the inadvertent killing of those same civilians in an attempt to stop those that would massacre civilians.

In the case of Iraq there can be no question that the US position is morally superior to the terrorism of Al Qaeda. The methodology of wholesale killing of civilians simply to make the war political unpalatable to voters thousands of miles a way is morally inferior to our efforts to stop such action. Baathists hold outs from Saddam’s regime are morally inferior only to the extent they subscribe to terrorist methodologies to express their will. Those that stick primarily to fighting the US military are no doubt freedom fighters. However, I can state unequivocally in regard to Al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime US military action is morally superior. This most certainly makes us the good guys.

In the first few years of gaining control of a country a military can maintain its morally superior position even when enforcing a harsh set of rules. While minor offences in a controlled state may not bring about execution, in the interim period in which a military is attempting to establish control in a lawless state extreme measures may be necessary. For example, a measure of shooting looters on sight might be necessary to quickly put an end to wide spread theft and anarchy. If extreme measures are used then they will enjoy moral superiority provided they are applied consistently across groups and intended to specifically curb a certain kind of lawless behavior. No doubt part of tyranny is the application of austere measures on the people, but an equally crucial element is the inconsistent application of such measures on varying groups of people. Equal application of austere measures on groups will reduce the tyrannical effect of those measures.

With time, such austere measures should be loosened as the citizens in the country become more certain that the military will not yield to lawlessness. Provided that austere measures are equally and consistently applied to all groups of people, and those measures are lessened over time its hard for me to see how this is not morally superior to a state in which a tyrant, such like Saddam, inconsistently and selectively kills off groups of people in an effort to stymie the expression of their political will. It just as difficult for me to see how this is not morally superior to the current state in Baghdad in which certain groups again are selectively and inconsistently killing other groups of people primarily as way to affect politics. Neither of these scenarios seem to be morally superior to the harsh but consistent application of austere measures.

Moral equivalency arguments are extremely weak. If one was to follow them literally they would be paralyzed in justifying the efforts needed to stop an amoral tyrant. While adhering to moral equivalence binds one from taking action against the tyrant, the tyrant is not constrained by his own amorality. Thus, one ends up in an idiotic scenario in which their moral equivalency binds them from even preventing their own murder by a tyrant.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.