Moral Equivalence
Moral Equivalence. I despise these words. Whenever this phrase is used, nine times out of ten, religious zealots are invoking it in order to justify their petty bigotries. By invoking the logical fallacy of moral equivalence, zealots state that their morals are absolute because they come from God, never mind that there isn’t a single shred of scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of said supernatural being. In essence, it’s as Carlin would put it, “My God has a bigger dick than your God. Nyah-nyah-nyah.”
However, as the saying goes, there’s an exception to every rule. Let’s look at this political cartoon by Mike Luckovich, as published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as an example.
This image is a perfect example of a legitimate complaint of moral equivalence. Yes, some people misbehaved at a little prison in Iraq called Abu-Ghraib. The people involved were held accountable for their actions by a process called military courts-martial; accountability that doesn’t seem to exist with the insurgents.
Last I checked, no one in U.S. custody at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay has had their heads sawed off with a knife, or had their bodies mutilated beyond recognition, then booby-trapped in order to kill other people. Yet, somehow, many on the left equate putting panties on someone’s head to be the same as the barbaric treatment Islamic insurgents inflict upon their captives on a regular basis.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is true moral equivalence. This is true hypocrisy on the part of those who make such claims. Given everything else we’ve heard from the “troop-supporting” left, I really can’t say I’m shocked to see this cartoon.
But, hey, at least I’m not questioning their patriotism.
I’d have to find it, first.
Comments
Comments posted on this blog to not necessarily reflect the opinions of the blog's owner. Please refer to the Blog Policy for details.
2 Responses to “Moral Equivalence”
Leave a Reply
For anyone to even remotely suggest that the tactics used by the military is anywhere close to the terrorists is absolutely insane. This comparison is ludicrous and typical liberal tripe.
I find it interesting that your “perfect example of a legitimate complaint of moral equivalence” comes in the form of a political cartoon. Last I checked, political cartoons from BOTH the right and left ideological perspectives regularly employ such fallacious argumentative assumptions. Cartoons are often attempting at making polemical points intending to shock readers into thinking about an issue in a new way, to shake them out of their ideological comfort zone (if only momentarily). While your argument about the cartoon’s claim has some merit, you do engage in some rhetorical slight-of-hand yourself; for example, Abu ghraib is a “little prison” where “some people misbehaved.” If you’re going to fault the “liberal” cartoonist for overstating the analogy between the torturous practices of the insurgency in Iraq and the torture meted out by American boys and girls in Abu Ghraib, then focus that acute critical eye of yours on your own not-so-logically-kosher practice of setting up a strawman to knock down for rhetorical affect. In terms of evaluating the validity of Luckovich’s analogy, there is far more context to take into account than you admit to in your argument. One of your premises, the one about accountability, is almost laughable in light of your views on religious zealotry. If we don’t have to take a zealot’s word for the absoluteness of religious doctrine, then why should we simply accept the US military’s claim that the torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are isolated, and non-sanctioned, incidents? There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, though this, of course, can be debated long and hard. If you’re going to call Luckovich a hypocrite, then you might do well to look over your own rhetorical practices as well, best regards