Moral Clarity?

I just finished watching the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The High Ground” (Amazon|TV Tome). It examines the issues and morality surrounding terrorism.

I was left agreeing with while simultaneously disagreeing with both sides. Both sides were left in a feedback loop of ratchetting up the violence one step at a time. “They blew up this restaurant, so we will retaliate by arresting their followers.” Then, “They arrested our followers, so we’re going to blow up their ship.” “They attempted to blow up our ship, so we’re going to kill their leader.” It goes on and on. A never ending circle. Each side throwing another punch to try to convince the other one to stop. Both sides are convinced that their cause is the just one, and the true one.

One of the major players in the current world scene is described by a scholar as someone who “… believes that his mission is sacred, and he wants only to see clear results.” (Source) Left alone this equally applies to many of the world leaders. I will leave you to decide which one this applies to.

Moral Clarity while important should never be definitive. When someone considers their position to be the absolutely moral position and are definitively clear on this position, they have by definition lost the possibility of considering that they are wrong, and therefore are unable to fully analyze the situation.

We are in a time of international moral crisis. “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.” (Dante and/or JFK) I’m not quite sure this is valid. I would revise it to state the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis don’t understand both their position and the enemy’s position intimately.