Moral Relativism Defies Logic

Joe Bell

There is a strain of thought among liberals that says: Since America has nuclear weapons, and has used them in war, it would be hypocritical to try and prevent other nations, like Iran, from developing nuclear weapons. The notion is ridiculous and suicidal. The U.S. used nuclear weapons in a just war against the Japanese empire, a ruthless enemy that attacked America at Pearl Harbor and engineered atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking, where an estimated 260,000 were killed and an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 women were raped, and the Bataan death march, in 1942, during which thousands of Americans and Filipinos died.

There is a difference between using force in a just cause and using force to enslave. In the Pacific and European theaters, U.S. forces and their allies were fighting for the future of mankind. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and every man and woman in uniform understood the deep moral difference between using force to free people and using force to conquer them.

Examine what Japan did to the nations it defeated and what America did after it defeated Japan. In “A History of the Twentieth Century, Volume II”, Martin Gilbert wrote, “On the Japanese march from Hankow to Changsha, two hundred Chinese soldiers who had been taken prisoner were lined up and machine-gunned. Not one survived. When the Japanese reached Changsha several thousand Chinese soldiers surrendered. They too were shot, and hundreds of Chinese women were forced into prostitution in military brothels.”

After the war the United States helped rebuild the defeated nations. Is it really that difficult to comprehend the difference between Japanese conduct and motivation and American conduct and motivation during the war? If an individual truly is unable to see the distinction then one must concede such a person is morally incoherent.

It is the same with the nuclear challenge posed by Iran today. In October 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, “Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair ... hoping to dishearten the Islamic world. Such people are using words like ‘it’s not possible’. They say how can we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realized.”

Frankly, Ahmadinejad is right. Some of the greatest civilizations in the world crumbled and no one should believe history cannot be repeated. A tyrant committed to a nuclear program who envisions a day when Israel and the United States are gone must be taken seriously.

A nuclear armed Iran could do much damage without even firing one missile. It could set off a nuclear arms race in a region that is already tremendously unstable; it could share its nuclear bounty with terrorist organizations; it could use the world’s knowledge of its nuclear weaponry to subdue any force that tried to hamper a resurgent Hezbollah; it could coerce the Gulf oil producers to lower production; and all these elements would combine to greatly reduce U.S. influence in the region and further destabilize a struggling Iraq.

The goals of a nuclear armed America and those of a potentially nuclear armed Iran are completely different. While President Bush sends forces abroad to defend the U.S. and freedom, end tyranny and help people rise from the wasteland of oppression, President Ahmadinejad speaks of destroying other nations and supports terrorism. The difference between the two leaders and their ambitions should be obvious to all but the most morally numb.

Far from threatening the Middle East, America is hard at work helping the Iraqis defend themselves and improve their lives. Major General Bill McCoy, Commanding General, Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, reported earlier this month, “Three-quarters of Iraq gets twice as much electricity today as they did before the war. We are working with the Minister of Electricity to improve the situation in Baghdad daily and have doubled the hours of power from four to eight in the capitol in the last six months in spite of the fact that demand is markedly increased with Iraqis’ new ability to buy personal electrical products.”

General McCoy also said, “New water treatment plants will provide fresh potable water to over half a million people in southern Iraq in just two more months, and the one in northern Iraq that is providing water for the 330,000 citizens of Irbil.”

Ahmadinejad is no fool and he is not mad. He understands the psychological feebleness of Western nations. He knows Iran’s progeny has achieved a significant victory in Lebanon, despite the babble from Western leaders to the contrary, and he knows the recent passage of U.N. Resolution 1701 will not lead to the disarming of Hezbollah anymore than did the passage of Resolution 1559 in 2004. While it is not conceded in polite circles, the truth is that U.N. resolutions are nothing more than futile efforts to camouflage the West’s lack of resolve.

For decades the left has been unable to see with moral clarity. In the 1980s the buildup of Soviet intermediate range missiles prompted President Reagan and Western European leaders to deploy Pershing nuclear missiles in Europe to counter the communist threat. That sent millions of demonstrators into the streets of Western Europe, not protesting Soviet domination or Moscow’s nuclear build up but the U.S. response to the threat. Only in the world of the left is a just response to evil a greater threat than the evil itself.

The fact that people see things differently does not mean there is no truth. It is found in faith, history and through observing the facts of the world around us. Those factors all call for the repudiation of moral relativism. People cannot build or maintain an honorable culture on that fetid foundation. Such a culture would teach that nothing is better than anything else and, therefore, everything is equally empty and worthless. People who embrace moral relativism create a suicidal culture that will be defenseless when confronted by a society that has faith in itself, its principles, its history and its traditions.

As in previous eras, world events have placed a heavy burden on America’s shoulders. The left’s weakness for moral relativism greatly increases the weight and that gives confidence to outlaw leaders and terrorist groups. Liberals, completely assured of their moral superiority, usher America down the road to nihilism with a clear conscience. America’s enemies are hoping the road is short and the journey smooth.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com