“Moral Equivalence” Argument Sinks to New Depths

“Moral equivalence” has long been a favorite liberal argument – noting that America isn’t perfect so we have no right to condemn evil. Premiering a new violin concerto with the New York Philharmonic, acclaimed composer John Adams explained it was inspired by an exhibition he saw in Paris exposing the “casual brutality” toward women that is prevalent in the Arab World. But in discussing his piece with audience members afterward, he said he “got to thinking about the continuing physical and mental brutality against women not just in enclaves of the Middle East but also in America – for example on the airwaves that carry Rush Limbaugh.” To compare honor killings, genital mutilation, and religiously endorsed wife-beating in the Arab world to occasional rude remarks by one radio host in the US brings the moral equivalence argument to new depths of stupidity.
Comments (3)
Leave a commentWell said.
I suppose Adams also agrees with Rosie O’Donnell that radical Islam is no different than radical christianity and that the poor in America who own tv’s and cars are equivalent to the poor in Haiti who live in tents and bath with buckets.
It is so much easier to posit a moral equivalence argument, replete with rampant emotionalism, then actually think. Plus the moral equivocator gets the added benefit of patting themselves on the back a proclaiming what a nice guy they are. they get to feed and stroke their ego all the more.