Politics

There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?

This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.

He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.

Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.

I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.

I don't think I'd listened to or read Sam Harris before, but he sounds like an apologist for war criminals.

This article was posted elsewhere, so I'll just copy my comment from there over here:

I generally enjoy listening to/reading Sam Harris and always go away from his pieces with the feeling of having learned something new, some fact or perspective, however small. It's kind of the same here, but, I think his arguments are, at least in part, deeply flawed here.

I find the distinction between victims of terror and collateral damage problematic. Under the line what he's saying here, is that their quantities are not comparable because they are of very different nature. I can't agree with that. Dead people are dead people no matter how they died. They had lives, family, friends, ... To them it makes no difference if they died because of terror or as collateral damage. Thinking back to the WTC attack and the wars that followed Sam Harris' notion suggests, that the >3.000 victims of terrorism could be worse than the >1.000.000 collateral in the following wars, because of their quality and the quantity not being comparable. In my book, that's plain nonsense.

I tend to agree with his stance on "us" (western world/democracies) having a set of higher moral standards than Hamas and others we would consider failed states or dictatorships. Though, he and I share a compatible set of morals in our upbringing. I am personally opposed to absolute morals as they are usually provided by religious texts. But in the spirit of democracy I acknowledge that a majority could decide and settle on a set of morals incompatible with mine. I could argue all I want and never claim to be objectively correct. But, more importantly, especially when looking at Gaza and Hamas, as he points out himself, our moral compass wasn't that different in sometimes very recent history. "Our" progress on the moral front was made in times of peace (at least at home) and economic stability and success. If "we" deny a group of people (I'm deliberately not saying society here) the conditions we had to achieve what we consider our superior morals, we can't be surprised if they don't share them. And I would go a step further and argue, that we are not in a morally justifiable position to criticize them for their "lack of morals".

Sam Harris isn't really saying much contrary to what I'm saying here. He's just conveniently leaving out the angles I'm bringing up. Knowing lots of what he's said/written and being familiar with his eloquence and rhetorics, I'm tempted to assume it is very deliberate. Hence I'm pretty disappointed in him for this particular piece.