Moral Equivalence
- July 05, 2003
- No Comments
There’s a point-of-view that is very prevalent in many circles, and is even being taught in our schools, that goes something like this…
“We don’t have the moral authority to judge other people. We shouldn’t cast judgement (i.e. call something evil) because we are no better than they are. It’s no different than what we did to the Indians (or Blacks or whoever).”
I’m sure you’ve seen it in some form or another in any number of places. Basically, they’re saying all men are equally good and equally bad, so we have no right to do anything to stop another person (or people) from being hurt or killed.
Bigwig over at Silflay Hraka has started a series of posts, called Unseen History, dealing with moral equivalence and the denial of evil which leads to inaction. In the second of the series, he shares the story of a man named Don Timmer. Don witnessed first-hand the atrocities that man is capable of. He was the translator for the Allies when they liberated Ohrdruf 3, a Nazi concentration camp. Don now speaks out against moral equivalence to classes and organizations. His description of it:
It’s an argument that demands the perfection of human character before allowing action against evil while simultaneously denying that such perfection can possibly exist.
It’s a neat rhetorical trick, an excuse for inaction in the face of evil.
The argument’s aim is clear, though not all who ascribe to its logic recognize what that goal is. It seeks to make all of the human tragedy and suffering equally important, which sounds noble enough. But, if all deaths are equally important, then they are also equally unimportant[.]
Which leads to inaction. Which allows evil to run rampant and innocent people to be made victims. It’s a sad state when people can’t or won’t cast judgement on an atrocity or the ones who carry it out because “everyone’s done bad things”.