Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz (emphasis mine)
Then I have to completely disagree that all calls for slaughter are irrational and wrong. Because they're not. Wishing harm on your enemy isn't moral, so it can't be right or wrong. It's the nature of conflict.
|
It's been my limited experience that when someone mentions the "nature" of something, they're presenting a postulate as a demonstrated conclusion. The most flagrant use of this is in "human nature", where all sorts of things are suggested to just sort of be a part of the human condition. I once was told that zoophilia is human nature. Only if humans are animals, I think I responded.
In this case, I feel like we're speaking in generalities so generally general that we're losing track of the subject. First, we're obviously talking about violent conflict. Second, violent conflict can be determined to be immoral or moral; it's not somehow all inherently amoral. In the very specific case we're talking about, Anwar al Awlaki, a cleric with some influence especially among moderate Muslims, has called for the murders of people regardless of whether they're innocent or not. Which is obviously crazy (ducks as The_Shoe is thrown).
We're not at the end of the conflict as the victors, but rather are in the conflict and are able to remove ourselves and apply our own brand of morality to see if this is moral or immoral. Most people don't consider the targeting of innocent civilians in violent conflict to be moral. I know, I know, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Lincoln (a stretch), etc., but generally the murder of people who have not wronged you is judged to be immoral.
Moreover, though, this cleric is calling for actions which will almost certainly escalate the conflict which has inspired him to go rogue and call for killing civilians. That sounds neither sound nor rational no reasonable to me. One might even suggest that this man is a danger to himself and others.
I have to say, in the end I'm with MM on this one.