| | In post #24 of "Are Civilians Guilty in Some Wars", John Pappas wrote:
In post #18 Michael Marotta makes a moral equivalency between the USA and Imperial Japan. He also states that the difference between us and our enemies during WWII was merely a difference of degree. I always wonder what kind of a human being could say such absurdities. It’s not often that I have a visceral response so severe that civility requires that I say nothing further. I apologize for being old. I stopped following Objectivism for about 20 years after the Rand-Branden split. I read Judgment Day and The Passion of Ayn Rand. I discovered some of Dr. David Kelley's works about ten years ago, but never bothered with why he split with Dr. Leonard Peikoff, if that is what happened. Along the way, I bought other books by Ayn Rand (Romantic Manifesto, for instance). I was happy to find The Passion of Ayn Rand movie on videotape a couple of years ago and last year I found The Ayn Rand Lexicon used at a good price. All of that is to say that I am not hep to the hotcat lingo these days and I have no idea what "moral equivalency" is supposed to mean. (It is not in the Lexicon.)
Is it: The fallacy of moral equivalency entails the dropping of context when evaluating the actions of two volitional entities.
Or is it: The fallacy of moral equivalency is the attempt to withdraw part of a moral sanction or to grant a partial moral sanction, which is impossible because moral sanctions are absolutes.
Or is it something else?
|
|
