Letters to the Editor

Discussions of right and wrong cloud the debate on U.S. terrorist policy

In her Oct. 25 letter to the editor, Amy Burghardt '05 claims that the destruction of life on Sept. 11 is in clear violation of basic human values and must be condemned as "evil." Her central point is that rationality requires living creatures to make a moral judgment against any destruction of life. In some respects, it could be said that her view is as narrow as the one held by the terrorists.

I do not intend to stand in support of terrorism and promote excess moral relativism. However, there is a real danger in oversimplifying the conflict, and I don't believe that having President Bush talk about a "crusade" against "evil" is in any way constructive. Ms. Burghardt's test of morality holds life "as our highest value," but that test cannot be selectively applied. The U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan is resulting in the destruction of life. Is it moral? To make a serious judgment, its means and objectives have to be considered. The question immediately becomes more difficult to answer. In any case, that level of consideration should be applied uniformly.

Later in her letter, Ms. Burghardt differentiates — perhaps appropriately — between lives and "innocent" lives. If we apply her modified test to history, the most "egregious acts of evil" must have been the atomic bombings of Japan in World War II, which killed more than 200,000 civilians. Perhaps this is true, but the matter certainly deserves more consideration than a simple measurement of the civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the event stands out in history mostly because of its magnitude. Numerous bombing raids on population centers in Europe and Asia claimed many more innocent lives throughout the war.

Humans use violence to pursue political goals, both inside and outside the bounds of "war." If we are to evaluate this fact morally, our choice comes down to believing that everyone is evil or believing that everyone else is evil. The latter view is obviously more popular, but it also feeds into the cycle of violence. Absolute moral justification is what got us into this mess.

What, then, does rationality require of us? It's simple, really: Dispense with the moralism. The United States, like all countries, is simply a rational, self-interested actor following its national interests. God is no more on its side than on Osama bin Laden's. The only values we should be promoting are freedom, democracy and capitalism — values that actually prevent violence in their practice. Pete Hill '03