To some this seems obvious, to others it seems counter intuitive. Some people do what they consider to be wrong, but they do it to further a right or justified cause. People do not do bad things for bad purposes. It may seem that way to you, but it is the relative perspective you must consider.
By no means does this defend actions or positions taken by fringe groups, or even some mainstream groups, but it should be helpful in understanding perspectives.
Take an abortion clinic bomber for example. The person does not blow up abortion clinics for fun. Nor do they do it because they are bored and think it is a good way to occupy themselves. They blow up a building, and act that in any other context they themselves would consider wrong, to further what is a just cause in their opinion. They believe abortion is murder and must be stopped at all costs. Thus the evil actions furthers a just and righteous cause.
To those that believe abortion should remain legal, the bombers actions seem evil. To them, his actions are not furthering a noble cause, it is bringing unnecessary and unwarranted destruction down upon people who are doing something they should be aloud to do. Keep in mind that to the bomber, every time that clinic performs an abortion they are committing an act of abomination. It is all in the perspective, and as such, is relative. This is not to be confused with moral relativity, but that is an entirely different topic.
The examples are endless and need not be gone into. Understand that in most debates you and your opponent have the same goals. What differs is the way in which you both think those goals should be achieved.
One final example to illustrate this point is look at the war on terror. Almost universally, people believe that terrorism against civilians must be stopped. The way in which they are stopped however, is a point of great controversy. Some think the best way to stop it is to attack the sources of funds and the strongholds of the terrorists. Others think that negotiation is the only way we can ever hope to be rid of the terrorists. Both want the same goal, but both have different ideas of the best way to go about achieving it.
Remember this the next time a lively debate heads toward getting personal or worse, violent. There is no need for such escalation. Most of the time you are both on the same side, you just don’t know it.
Right World View Article Link:
http://www.rightworldview.com/mvilleissuearchive
I know its weird to be commenting on a post this old, but this exercise in moral relativism by you is too good to ignore.
ReplyDeleteI think probably a better observation would be: No one "thinks" they are fighting for evil- but sometimes they are.
Al-Qaeda thinks they will be rewarded in Heaven. A lot of Nazis believed they were doing the right thing wiping out Jews. The Likud party and others in Israel thinks they are the heirs of a historical legacy that gives them the insecurity/ permission to blow up palestinians. Same goes with your hypothetical abortion clinic bomber- what makes him evil or good is not what is in his head, it is in what he does. If you believe murder is evil, or at least wrong, and then you murder people- by virtue of your opinion that other's shouldn't be able, like you did to come to a conclusion about abortion, then you too are evil.
3,000 american civilians were killed on 9/11, 30-35 thousand afghani civilians have been killed by us since, that's all some pretty evil stuff.
If you put Hitler, Ghandi, Bush, Obama, Bin- Laden in a room together, you think they all wouldn't believe they aren't fighting for evil? Why would you hold the opinions you do if you didn't think you were right? even if you are in reality wrong. do we draw equivalency between all them now and say "they're all on the same side, they just don't know it!". No, that is just absurd.
There is good and evil in the world Andrew, we all supposedly have a conscience. Yet reality is most of what we believe now will be proven wrong at some point anyway. That means if we are really doing our best as human beings with our time on this earth, then we must be willing to work in order to take into account the conscience of other's into our own. That's just the best we can do. Killing people because you happen to believe its justified (not because you've convinced your self its in self-defense, or the defense of others if its not) is a failure of conscience.
@Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - this is not an old post, this is something I wrote before I started this site and imported to it. No need to apologize though, hard to complain about giving a second (or third) life to something I wrote.
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail square on the head with "I think probably a better observation would be: No one "thinks" they are fighting for evil- but sometimes they are."
That is what I was trying to say with the "This is not to be confused with moral relativity, but that is an entirely different topic."
Most people do not act in a way they think is evil; though it may actually be evil. The advice was more for when you are debating someone to keep it civil recognizing that most people you will debate with agree on the same outcome just by different means.
I know that's what you were trying to say, which is why it was ironic that you then proceeded to draw moral relativism between an abortion clinic bomber and women who have abortions, and then followed that with "this is not to be confused with moral relativity". and titled it "No One Fights For Evil".
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone thinks they are evil, who thinks they are evil?, who doesn't build an ideology to justify and reason what they do? We are all bound by our ideology.
I think civility is good, but I really disagree with the post-modernist assertion that "most people you will debate with agree on the same outcome just by different means." Because the reality is that what is being debated in politics, is Outcomes. One person's means versus another, no matter what they have ideologically convinced themselves is not just a road to the same destination, but an entirely different road all together. Choices have consequences and a society is a fluid, living thing that our participation in effects. Even in benign settings, what is being talked about is people's lives, its serious, it's not football.
I feel like you enjoy Greek shit, and because this reminds me of this quote:
"What makes men different, are their opinions. What they are willing to account for, and act based on convictions".
-Pericles
@Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I think we are mostly talking past each other but agree; at least in part. There are people that do evil things, but do not consider it evil. This article was meant for a campus audience that saw occasionally heated debates.
ReplyDeleteI think you are wrong about the outcome. No one wants people to starve to death, no one wants people to be forced to live on the streets... but the way in which that is accomplished is what is debated. The debate may be between handouts and hand ups, but both sides agree that starvation and forced homelessness are wrong.