On the Morality of Comparison

The other night I was channel surfing, and I heard some commentators discussing the lastest pictures from Abu Ghiraid prison. One of the men, a Christian activist, suddenly said, "Well, maybe they should show the torture chambers of Sadaam Hussein." Aside from the tacit approval of torture, if it is done by us, this illustrates what is a disturbing trend in our culture. I call it the morality of comparison.

We are familiar with it. It may even be human nature. How often a motorist is stopped by a police officer for driving 50 in a 30 mile zone only to self-righteously excuse himself or herself by saying, "Yes, but where were you when that guy went by me going 70?" The defense then is "I'm bad, but someone else is worse, that makes what I did alright."

It's not an excuse which will help our speeding motorist, yet, it seems to work in the political arena. I have found the whole debate about the American use of torture in Iraq and Gitmo disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that we are seriously debating whether or not torture is okay is disturbing. Aside from it's general uselessness in obtaining reliable information, it has traditionally been seen by modern Western civilization as being inherrently immoral. If used, it is something that one ought to be ashamed of, and not defended.

But almost equally troubling is this diversion of saying, "Yes, we tortured people, but it was restrained torture. It certainly wasn't as bad as what Sadaam Hussein did." First, there is the obvious logical fallacy inherent in this argument. An action is or is not immoral regardless of whether or not someone else has committed the same act in a worse manner. I am not responsible for anyone's actions but my own. And a country is only responsible for its own actions. Just because someone else exceeded the speed limit by 40 miles per hour, doesn't mean I have license to exceed it by 20.

What I find even more disturbing is how many "Christian" personalities and those in the pews who buy into this. The infliction of pain, stripping men naked to humiliate them, forcing them to sodomize each other or appear to do so for a camera, attaching wires to their genitals, etc. should not be the type of thing any Christian can approve of regardless of the nobility of the ends.

Some in the political world, moving away from torture, have come to believe that immoral acts by ones opponents not only validate, but demand response in kind. I was at a Democratic strategy meeting several years ago for a candidate for state office. The candidate had pledged to run a clean campaign and avoid smear tactics. His opposition had begun to run personal attack ads having nothing to do with the candidates qualifications for office. For half this meeting we talked about how horrible and immoral it was for this man to do such a thing. Finally, near the end of the meeting, someone said, "Well, there's no choice for you now. He started it, but you have to finish it. You're going to have to be as nasty as him." I tried to point out the hypocrisy of this stand. If attack ads are immoral for a republican, they are just as immoral for a democrat. But in the end, the morality of comparison won out, and the election turned out to be one of the ugliest I ever saw.

This "tit-for-tat, he-started-it" childish exercise permeates politics, the culture war and even daily life. More than once I've visited a "Christian" discussion board to see individuals posting vile, vicious and even obscene messages and justifying themselves by saying "I'm just defending myself." I have to wonder how this is a defense. I mean, does it stop the attacks? On the contrary, it usually just generates more attacks. In fact, following the Biblical injunction to remain silent and turn the other cheek would likely stop the attacks much sooner and provide a better defense than responding in kind.

But we have good models. If even Christian activists can justify torture, and our political leaders can justify libelous campaign messages, by appealing to the morality of comparison, then how can we expect the man and woman in the pew to act any better.