![]() |
|
|
The
Student Newspaper of Wake Forest University
|
Established
1916
|
|
A
black-and -white world
By Doug
Hutton Sept. 11, 2001 provided this country an escape, an outlet from the moral relativism that has plagued the United States in recent years. This country saw evil in its purest form, a total hatred for a specific way of life that consumes the heart and soul of its followers, gaining in intensity until ultimately let out through violence. As towers crumbled and lives were lost, this people had the chance to once again see black and white, the goodness of democracy against a landscape of evil religious interpretation. Several days later, President George W. Bush stood before Congress testifying that this evil would not ruin the spirit of this nation, that we would rise above its cowardice and malevolence to confront it with unity and ultimately force. He showed us that there was no choice to be made, that we had been attacked on our own soil, viciously and wantonly, without regard for the lives possibly lost. The enemy was clarified, the terms of engagement set; justice would be the ultimate arbiter. Moral relativism was to be set aside, so as not to blind the mission from its ultimate destination. Yet some still suggested that the United States had brought the attacks upon itself by unilaterally expanding its realm of capitalist imperialism throughout the world. Multiculturalists quickly mobilized to use this opportunity to understand the evil culture in a way so that differences could be peacefully resolved. The media continually questioned if the fighting in Afghanistan was justified, and decried any U.S.-led action that could possibly harm civilians. In January, Bush again took to the podium for his State of the Union address. Clearly laying before the nation the progress of the war on terrorism, he furthered declared an "Axis of Evil" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Expanding on the doctrine that any nation that harbors terrorists will be regarded as an enemy, he clearly explicated the black-and-white nature of this battle. There is no middle ground: nations support terrorism or freedom. The moral distinction could not be clearer. Recently, debate has shifted to the United Nations in reference to the most notorious Axis member, Iraq. Circumventing every U.N. maneuver since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has proven itself a liar and killer, slowly gathering the materials for weapons of mass destruction. Yet the U.N. has proven incapable of dealing with member nations that refuse to follow its dictates. The stifling regime of Iraq violates principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Charter as well. Morals dictate that they are wrong, oppressing people to achieve political ends. Yet where is the outrage? Bush speaks to the U.N. General Assembly and barely receives more than a yawn from our allies, skepticism from Middle Eastern nations, and outright indignation from the accused parties. Why does the world stand by while evil continues to rise? Have nations learned nothing from the terrible reigns of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Milosevic? What must happen before the world awakens to evil? Why do we refuse to make intercultural moral judgments? Why do we care little of the oppressed women of Islamic nations until their nations arise on our political radars due to terrorism? Why do we hesitate to classify actions into "right" or "wrong"? Why are we more content to stand by and watch the horrors of religion gone wrong instead of speaking out and taking the chance that someone may be offended? Alexis De Tocqueville was right when he foresaw the tyranny of majority opinion slowly manipulating the thoughts of all: "In America, the majority draws a formidable ring around thought É woe to him if he dares go outside of it É the slightest reproach offends it, the smallest stinging truth shocks it." The society that has brought about this moral relativism wants to hear nothing of the possibility that our morals may be better than another's. Yet in this time where evil and good are so clearly apparent, moral relativism does this nation no good. It hinders our ability to act as the worldwide beacon of liberty and undermines the very virtues we preach. How can we truly say we stand for liberty when we fail to recognize and thwart oppression abroad? Ignorance and appeasement are no ways to deal with the hatred of terrorism and the despotism of absolute rulers. We must make moral judgments now, realize the disastrous consequences of relativism and continue the fight for liberty. Many will evil upon this nation, and they will continue to attack unless we stand up for the morals upon which this nation was founded.
Doug Hutton is a sophomore who plans to major in political science. |
|
||
|
Copyright 2002, WFU Publications Board. All rights reserved. |
|||