"Drawing a moral equivalence"
Have you ever noticed that almost every time anyone ever accuses a political opponent of “drawing a moral equivalence” between two things, they are actually not drawing a moral equivalence at all?
In other news, did anyone catch game 2 of the NBA finals last night? Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant turned the ball over more than he usually does. On the other hand, Orlando Magic rookie Courtney Lee missed a layup that would have won the game. Does anyone think I’m saying that Kobe Bryant and Courtney Lee played equally well last night, or that I regard them as basically equivalent talents?
If you juxtapose two ideas with an “on the other hand” formulation, then yes, it does sound like you are suggesting an equivalence. In your NBA example, I would say that the equivalence you draw is not between the talents of the players, but in the comparative impact their actions had on the outcome of the game.
— Blar · Jun 8, 09:03 PM · #
In foreign policy, in particular, this happens.
What’s worse, usually drawing a moral equivalence between the United States and any other country is seen as proof positive that someone is making an illegitimate argument. But sometimes, the actions of the United States are… morally comparable to those of another country.
— Freddie · Jun 8, 09:03 PM · #
“they are actually not drawing a moral equivalence at all?”
How so?
President Obama followed his statements on the Jewish holocaust with statements on the current situation in Palestine, a situation in which supporters of the Palestinian movement readily attempt to portray the Jewish people as the current day Nazis. He chose to place the references back to back, thus if anyone is responsible for the President being accused of attempting to make an argument for moral equivalence, that person would be President Obama.
Anne Bayefsky is on the money here. I’m afraid you may have dribbled this one off your foot.
— nicholas · Jun 8, 10:01 PM · #
Just to stir the pot a little: Freddie, in your view, what are the moral equivalences between the United States and other actors which you consider legitimate arguments, and which have caused undue outrage in those who decry such equivalences?
— Blar · Jun 8, 10:03 PM · #
Nicholas (and Blar),
I do think that President Obama meant to say that both Israel and Palestine has been wronged, that Iran has treated the US unfairly, but at the same time the US has treated Iran unfairly — but he didn’t do this to suggest that all the wrongful actions were equal in degree and kind, which he could easily have stated clearly if he really believed it to be so.
I think he did this because when you concede the truth that the side you back isn’t entirely innocent in history — and that the side you’re trying to persuade does have legitimate grievances — you tend to be more successful.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 8, 10:21 PM · #
Those accused of arguing “moral equivalence” tend to be arguing that an issue is not black and white. This is often done by noting either legitimate interests or accurate complaints on both sides.
However, that doesn’t mean that the interests of the two sides are equivalent. Economists are notorious for the “on the one hand, on the other” formulation but that doesn’t mean that economists don’t have any opinions or never reach conclusions.
True black and white or morally equivalent situations are actually quite rare. Pointing out complications doesn’t imply moral equivalence, it just says that this is your standard shades of grey issue. Even when one side is clearly in the right, acknowledging competing interests makes it easier to arrange a positive sum outcome.
Similarly, acknowledging adversaries points is a standard trick of Obama’s. One he uses on conservatives (and also probably some liberals) all the time. It’s a fairly effectively rhetorical device to have your readers or listeners feel respected. On the conservative side, Ross Douthat isn’t too shabby at it either. However, if you think that acknowledgement means that they’re about to start taking your advice any day now, you’re being played. At the same time, doing it right does require a decent understanding of your rivals positions, so I think it’s a rhetorical device that’s useful for informed debate. I don’t see any reason that it also wouldn’t be a good idea for mediation.
— Greg Sanders · Jun 8, 10:27 PM · #
It stands to reason as a rhetorical devise, but it is nevertheless highly insulting to the Jewish people across the world, and I would think tend to validate the Arabs in their on going violence and hatred towards Israel. They have not shown themselves particularly open to discussion. That being so, his statements weaken the US position in support of Israel, and make it harder for Israel to answer her many critics.
— nicholas · Jun 8, 10:34 PM · #
I think he did this because when you concede the truth that the side you back isn’t entirely innocent in history — and that the side you’re trying to persuade does have legitimate grievances — you tend to be more successful.
But think about all the good you could do by discovering the exact ratio between the magnitude of your own sins and those of your neighbor. Think about all the lives that would be saved if we could establish exactly how many times more blameworthy they are than we are. Thinking about this more will definitely help people everywhere. Maybe I’m just all hopped up on vindication juice, but how could this go wrong?
— Consumatopia · Jun 8, 10:34 PM · #
I can sort of see Conor’s point on the logic, but the issue is one of usage; that is, the issue is whether and how usage reveals intent.
“Kobe turned the ball over a lot. On the other hand, Lee missed a layup to win the game.” Unless you’re Dudley Heinsbergen, the purpose of the juxtaposition is to equate or equivocate. It’s either a statement of equivalence, or it’s a hedge.
To me, Obama’s statement is a hedge rather than an equation: “The Jews had really bad things happen to them back in the say. But the Palestinians have seen more than their fair share of hard times.” However, it’s definitely one or the other (moral equivalence or moral equivocation).
I don’t have a problem Obama adopting the role of mediator, but I can also see why others might be a little peeved. When you juxtapose a big evil with a smaller evil, it tends to enlarge the latter and diminish the former.
— Sargent · Jun 8, 10:42 PM · #
Juxtaposing two things invites comparison. It might invite people to attempt some mutual understanding, maybe even empathy. Juxtaposing two things does not mean “these two (events, crimes, sins, policies) get the same morality score, are the same level of evil.”
Here is a test for anyone who thinks differently: Why doesn’t Obama (or Anyone) just say “The evils of contemporary Palestinian suffering are morally equivalent to the evils of the Holocaust. I give them the same morality score. There is no difference.” It seems to me there are two reasons for this: One, because while Obama wants to juxtapose two events, he does not, in fact, believe that they are moral equivalents; or Two, because Obama is otherwise trying to lie and obscure the fact that he does believe this. Why say that Obama – or Anyone – is a liar?
Finally, I have never seen any prominent, mainstream American writer or opinionmaker – let alone Obama or other senior Democrats – argue explicitly that contemporary Israeli governments are the moral equivalents of either A) suicide terrorists; or B) perpetrators of the Holocaust. And yet we see this charge made all the time. What’s the disconnect?
— M · Jun 8, 10:48 PM · #
If you look at the full context, this starts to look like a particularly asymmetric on-the-other-hand.
…
Jewish tragic history implies an unbreakable bond with America. OTOH, Americans cannot tolerate the situation of the Palestinian people. Not only is there no implied symmetry between the tragic history and current situation, but there is plainly not even symmetry in how Obama regards the two sides. There’s one side with whom we have an unbreakable bond, and there’s another side that happens to have some legitimate aspirations for the moment.
— Consumatopia · Jun 8, 11:06 PM · #
To be clear, I was pleased that Obama took anti-Semites and Holocaust-deniers to task in a speech for an Arabic-world audience. But to defend the moral-equivalence-accusers: I don’t think any serious commentator believes that Obama thinks the Holocaust is on par with the occupation of Palestine. The concern is that the habitual rhetorical difference-splitting of Obama’s that Greg observes has in this case given Israel’s Arab-world detractors an argument that the two are equivalent. The concern is not about Obama, but his audience.
— Blar · Jun 9, 05:59 AM · #
“I don’t think any serious commentator believes that Obama thinks the Holocaust is on par with the occupation of Palestine.”
I’ve heard of Palestine. Like Oz it doesn’t exist. That is because all the leaders of the people who live in a certain area of the coastal Mediterranean don’t want it to exist. All the parties seem to continue to want it to be fictional. It has been offered an existence and this has been refused. Incidently, how can a fictional country be “occupied”?
— Fred Beloit · Jun 9, 12:20 PM · #
Paul at Powerline doesn’t understand plain English, at times anyway.
Obama said in Cairo: “Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”
So the Arabs “repeating vile stereotypes” is making the Jews so angry the Jews refuse to make peace, which the Arabs would gladly make otherwise? I don’t think so. Paul thinks this statement by Obama shows Obama is a good peace- and speech-maker. I don’t think so.
— Fred Beloit · Jun 9, 01:00 PM · #
Obama has already said “there is no equivalency here.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023733.php
What more is there to say?
— M · Jun 11, 06:27 PM · #
Thank you for your excellent post. After reading the post and all the comments, I went back to reread the full text of the President’s speech in Cairo. Where in the world are they getting this moral equivalency argument? Picking separate paragraphs that talk about totally unrelated subjects and putting them together as if they are presented as some kind of comparison is clearly a distortion of the facts. The President made it very clear that the Arab world must recognize Israel’s right to exist. He has stated it during his campaign, in his speeches in the US, and in his speeches in Arab countries. He has also clearly stated that the US has a special relationship with the State of Israel that will not be denied and that those who oppose this position had better get over it. He has further stated that the dispute between the nations in that region must be resolved by those nations and cannot be imposed by outside countries. Is this all not true?
The fact that he states that the situation in Gaza and the West Bank is intolerable is also one that cannot be denied. Where there is difference is what has caused that situation and what can be done about it. President Obama apparently believes that continued negotiations between the parties with a larger US presence can result in a peaceful solution in the near term. History is not on his side. But he is correct that many inside Israel believe this to be true. However, he is ignoring the fact that the majority of the people in Israel no longer believe that is possible as long as the Palestinian territories are controlled by those who do not seek peace. That was proven by the latest elections in Israel.
If peace is to be obtained the Arab nations throughout the Middle East must stop their charade. They must put pressure on the Palestinians. They must step up the plate and provide the financial support necessary to provide economic balance. It is not Israel’s responsibility to do so. It is not the US’s role to do so. Only then does peace have a chance in the near term.
— Art Berkowitz · Jun 14, 05:53 PM · #