09-16-2001, 04:13 PM
I have been reflecting on the exchange others and I have been having on this forum. Despite its many virtues the Internet and these posts may not be the best forum for this argument in that the medium often determines the message. Socrates suggested that writing itself may be limited and dangerous in that it moves us away from the living voice (e.g. actual dialogue) and replaces it with a mere simulacrum of discussion.
However, I am going to make an attempt to communicate what my reflections have yielded.
The crux of the exchange I have been involved in relates to the idea of good and evil. Cyrus made the following comment upon one of my statements-
You DID state the following, Gil : ""There is an immense difference between us and them. We [Americans] are the good guys and they [??] are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil."" That is manichaeism, Gil.
Note they question marks that he inserted after they, as if he wondered whom I meant. Clearly, in the context it can only refer to the terrorists.
Now a Manichean viewpoint in this context means what? It certainly doesn’t mean that one sees only pure good and pure evil in that I ruled that out in the quote above. So apparently one is Manichean if on believes that the terms good/evil are meaningful in any objective sense. It seems to me that Cyrus must defend one of the following propositions-
1. Good/Evil are terms that don’t apply and inherently are a sign of ignorance.
--Of course if moral terms don’t apply then the only idea we are left with is power. If this were the case then terrorism and the U.S. response would be only a question of who will triumph
2. If neither side is morally pure then all moral distinctions are vacuous.
--This is a clever rhetorical position but ultimately incoherent
3. Moral distinctions apply but favor the terrorists
--No comment necessary
4. Moral distinctions apply and favor the U.S. and the forces of civilization
--This is of course the point I was making in the above quote
However, I am going to make an attempt to communicate what my reflections have yielded.
The crux of the exchange I have been involved in relates to the idea of good and evil. Cyrus made the following comment upon one of my statements-
You DID state the following, Gil : ""There is an immense difference between us and them. We [Americans] are the good guys and they [??] are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil."" That is manichaeism, Gil.
Note they question marks that he inserted after they, as if he wondered whom I meant. Clearly, in the context it can only refer to the terrorists.
Now a Manichean viewpoint in this context means what? It certainly doesn’t mean that one sees only pure good and pure evil in that I ruled that out in the quote above. So apparently one is Manichean if on believes that the terms good/evil are meaningful in any objective sense. It seems to me that Cyrus must defend one of the following propositions-
1. Good/Evil are terms that don’t apply and inherently are a sign of ignorance.
--Of course if moral terms don’t apply then the only idea we are left with is power. If this were the case then terrorism and the U.S. response would be only a question of who will triumph
2. If neither side is morally pure then all moral distinctions are vacuous.
--This is a clever rhetorical position but ultimately incoherent
3. Moral distinctions apply but favor the terrorists
--No comment necessary
4. Moral distinctions apply and favor the U.S. and the forces of civilization
--This is of course the point I was making in the above quote