Saturday, June 24, 2006

Moral Relativism



The Americans use smart bombs, designed to avoid 'collateral damage'. The Jihadis blow themselves up in public places to purposefully kill innocent lives.

The Americans hold inquiries and serve court marshals when mistakes are made. The Jihadis lop off the heads of any hostages they can find.

Where's the moral equivalence?

3 comments:

Rumpus said...

Don't forget that the American administration is defining the prisoners in Guantanamo as 'illegal combatants' yet viewing them as legitimate targets for military offensives. This legal grey zone allows the American administration to avoid giving these people due legal process, which many nations view as an important aspect of human rights in the corporatized world. I acknowledge that the Guantanamo prisoners are guilty are many crimes but their human rights are being violated. If liberty and freedom are (now) the basis for the war on Terror should not the American administration practice respect for the rights they claim to be bringing to the rest of the world? Is it worse to cage a human without charge for years on end in inhuman conditions or kill behead them on video as a form of sick propaghanda? This question is obviously not meant to be answered but it does point out the errors in your comparisons. Let's try to make sure we are comparing appropriate examples.

Rocketman1200 said...

I would say that beheading them is worse

Rocketman1200 said...

by the way, I'm not sure that Guantanamo's conditions are actually inhumane. Certainly they're caged up, but they are fed food that is prepared halaal, and they're given copies of the Qu'ran. And some of the prisoners have been released.