September 11 and the Death of Moral Judgment :: September 11 Terrorism Essays

September 11 and the Death of Moral astuteness   The nation is in crisis a national security crisis and a crisis of incorrupt public opinion. What is the right thing to do? People disagree. Then comes the big skid observing disagreement, people conclude that there is no right answer, no way to make a judgment. Worse, they conclude that to judge is arrogant and dangerous, so that in an odd twist, the only thing that appears to be morally feckless is the attempt to make a morally responsible judgment.   On the contrary, abdicating judgment is the problem. Democracy itself is based on the notion that reasonable people testament disagree and that it is possible to make judgments just about our disagreements - not that there is ineluctably one right answer there may be several(prenominal) partially right answers. But there are certainly approximately wrong answers and better and worse judgments about them.   So, how do we judge? First, we female genital organ think clearly about the words we use. Second, we can stop feeling for pure good or pure evil innocence and viciousness are not found in pure forms in the received world. Third, we can learn to distinguish among kinds and degrees of evils (And there are plenty of kinds cruelty, neglect, exploitation, etc.)   To adorn One mans terrorist is another mans exemption fighter. Many people fighting for precise different causes call themselves freedom fighters. But they usually let us know what they mean. Osama bin Ladens statements tell us that his goal is to free the Muslim world of infidels and their influence. He seeks freedom to establish theocratic regimes that would suppress women, as well as religious and political dissidents. We can argue about whether or not this is freedom in any meaningful sense, notwithstanding the important thing is to be clear about what he means. For the interestingness of argument, let us say that he is a freedom fighter. Martin Luther poove was a fre edom fighter. Mahatma Gandhi was a freedom fighter. Neither could be called terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. They renounced violence as a means. Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, embraces a strategy of targeting civilians in order to terrify and keep the population, undermine opposing governments, and achieve his political aims. Whether he is a freedom fighter or not, he is a terrorist.   The enemy of my enemy is my agonist This is an important practical principle, but it is not a moral principle.