This opinion article from the Wall Street Journal definitely captivated me. It talks about Batman and Bush, and brings up some really interesting moral questions. I think the article is well-thought out, and I believe that the article is more or less accurate when it refers to right-wing morals vs. left-wing morals as basically moral absolutism vs. moral relativism.
The author argues:
"Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
"Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless."
But although the author favors moral absolutism, he does acknowledge a sizable gray area:
"The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love."
"When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve."
The author is saying that, like Batman, our soldiers in Iraq and the prison guards at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo face a lot of resentment from the general public, despite them taking on difficult tasks for a good cause (helping America).
So I'm really confused now. Are right and wrong relative or absolute? Should I be left wing or right wing? Is it OK to torture/incarcerate indefinitely without habeas corpus in order to preserve American liberties? Is it OK to kill people to save people? Are our public villains today actually going to be remembered as our "silent, watchful guardians?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
see, i really hate assertions like this.
sure, george w. bush usurped unusual priveleges in the name of certain goals. but unlike in batman, none have been willingly given up or purposely divided. federal agents can snoop your library record for practically any purpose, and they (meaning the exec branch) don't even acknowledge this as a dangerous ability.
i would say that a better analogy might be something like the invention of the a-bomb (ww2) or the repeating rifle (civil war). but neither of these turned out great either (who knows what will become of the cell phone sonar machine that morgan freeman used his business background to geniously design?)
I would disagree with you on the invention of the atom bomb not being "that great." It has played an important role in history.
The existence of nuclear weapons probably helped keep the USA and USSR from commencing a full scale war. If nukes did not exist, then the USA and USSR would have had no problem bombing each other to bits.
When an individual country possesses nukes, it's like they have an guarantee of sovereignty and independence from the tyranny of other nations. My uncle says that one of the greatest things China accomplished in modern history was the development of nukes, because it finally made the rest of the world take China seriously again. Before China got nukes, China was a backwater, decaying husk of a once great empire. China was Japan and the West's punching bag. Obtaining nukes ended that.
That's also why I highly doubt N. Korea or Iran will ever willingly relinquish their nuclear arsenals. Their nukes are the only thing keeping the USA and NATO from pwning them hardcore.
Post a Comment