Letters to the Editor

America on the side of good

While reading Karen Bauer GS's Oct. 22 letter to the editor, I was deeply disturbed by one of her comments, and I feel obliged to respond in defense of American values. She made a passing comment about America's dubious standing as a "pinnacle of rationality" because President Bush portrayed the war on terrorism as a fight of good against evil. The terrorists themselves use such terminology, she said, and since we use the same words as our enemies, we must be no better than they.

I do not find it irrational in the least to condemn the heinous acts of Sept. 11; it does not diminish our character as a rational nation to view such terrorist actions as evil. People often shy away from using clear, bold words like "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong" — because, they say, who can really say what is good or what is bad? It's all relative, isn't it, with no absolutes? It's true that most actions fall in the gray area between purely good and purely evil, and it would be foolish to ignore it. However, the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 were unmistakably in the domain of evil, and we sacrifice none of our claim to rationality when we say this. There need not be a dichotomy between the rational and the moral; in fact, a rational principle is the basis of the moral judgment passed on the acts of terrorism.

We are living creatures; without life, we are nothing. It sounds basic, and it is. In order to act, to think, to speak, to help others, to help ourselves, we must first and foremost be alive. Therefore, we must hold life as our highest value because if we are not living we cannot have or do anything else. Makes sense, doesn't it? It's rational. If we hold life as our fundamental value, we must then praise as morally "good" all that promotes life and condemn as "evil" all that destroys it.

The acts of Sept. 11 not only destroyed life, they destroyed innocent lives — there was no reason for those thousands of people to die. The most egregious acts of evil are those which pointlessly cut short innocent lives; we must condemn these acts, clearly and without shame, as acts of evil — and we must remember that, because we are fighting to prevent more such acts, we are fighting on the side of good. Amy Burghardt '05

Role of independent thought

While Kai Chan GS's Oct. 22 analysis of the campus conflict over the current war accuses both sides of confusion, he is the one who is thoroughly confused. On the one hand, he urges us to respect others' opinions, even if they're at odds with our own. This presupposes that we should have opinions. Yet, in the next breath, he advocates engaging in an academic exercise of moral agnosticism. Mr. Chan's personal puzzlement leads him to confuse what is actually happening on campus.

The "fact" Mr. Chan cites that "very few have crossed party lines" in this debate could not be further from the truth. Just as the U.S. Congress ignored political lines to support the use of force against international terrorists, so too have campus supporters of the war. A look at Princeton's faculty makes this unmistakably clear: both professors Sean Wilentz and Robert George, Princeton's poster boys for liberalism and conservatism, respectively, have spoken out in support of the war. And even within the Princeton Committee Against Terrorism, the group formed to support the American response to the attacks, student leaders run the gamut from liberals to conservatives to libertarians.

Mr. Chan further states, "It seems that everyone is using these events to pursue their personal ends." He is halfway right. Mr. Chan is probably aware of the peace march that took place in Washington, D.C., a few weeks ago. Before Sept. 11, it was to be a protest against the IMF; after Sept. 11, organizers conveniently morphed the event into a protest against the war on terrorism. Even at the Princeton Peace Network's Oct. 7 demonstration against American airstrikes, protestors were still blaming global financial institutions for the tragedy.

Conflating issues is a specialty of the antiwar crowd, who frequently veil themselves under issues like poverty and hate crimes. While these are important issues, they are entirely irrelevant to the rich and ruthless international terrorist regimes.

PCAT and supporters of the war across America come from all across the political spectrum and all different walks of life. They are united by one simple belief: America must do what it takes to put an end to international terrorism.

I believe that PPN and PCAT both want the same things: namely, peace, security and justice in the world. We can agree to disagree, and we can disagree civilly. But we must not, as Mr. Chan advocates, surrender to moral relativism. Each of us must thoughtfully analyze the arguments and come to a decision on how best to obtain lasting peace and enduring freedom. Jennifer Carter '03