Terror is as Terror does
The article points out what can be called the limitation of categories. Everyday we are bombarded with terms without ever being given their meanings. The meanings are left to be assumed. We create categories without boundaries or boundaries that change with the whims of society. Moral relativists argue this is necessary for an evolving societal ethic. That can seem reasonable until you realize this also means that slavery was not wrong until the society that practised it determined it was wrong. Which begs the question: were the fighters against slavery first wrong and then later right? If so, wouldn't it have been "right" to have stopped the freedom fighters? It can get quite confusing. Which brings us to terror...
What is a terrorist? Anyone who uses terrorism as a tactic? Then what is terrorism? Any attack against non-military targets? Or is motive a component of terrorism? Is it like a hate crime. Is it somehow worse to do a bad think if your thoughts at the time were also bad? Are some thoughts worse than others? Should some be outlawed?
I think the argument that the eco-terrorists should be called just that is perfectly reasonable. But that does not mean it makes the most sense. Should "terrorist" like "nigger" be given some kind of mystical power that makes it more than just a description with a definition? Do we gain more than we lose when we do this? Does it really matter?
Posts
1 comment:
I reject the ideas of "wrong-plus" sentences and "wrong-but" defenses for the same reason: The law, right or wrong, is the law.
If you choose to uphold it, you must do so dispassionately, because as morally repugnant as bigots are, their repugnancy should not be the measure of how bad a beating is; and "terror"-- feelings aside as they should be-- never made a flame burn brighter anywhere other than in our ever-selective memories. We either all have equal rights under the law, or we don't.
If you choose to break what you consider an unjust law, stand your moral ground, but don't expect your opponents to do it, too, just for your sake. Abolitionists fought for social change, not personal privilege. This is the lesson in courage that journalists, under the considerably less trying circumstances of contempt of court, have yet to learn from history as they plead after the fact for mercy and "shield laws".
Post a Comment