>> These are elements of an elementary moral compass. One has to be able to
>> call an evil act "evil," or to call a policy or leader "insane" or
>> "lunatic." Otherwise, one enters into a kind of deranged pedantry, where
>> the worst acts and greatest sufferings must meet exacting standards of
>> definition before one can even think of condemning them.
>
> Sure, you are certainly free to do that. The question is, is it useful?
> Is Bush insane? How about Kissinger? Nixon? Sharon? Harry Truman? Is
> the act of dropping the A-bomb on two Japanese cities insane? It was
> certainly 'rational' in that it served to threaten the Russians.
>
> In criticizing Chris, you seem to be equating 'rational' with 'good.'
> But if you look at things in class terms, a leader can be perfectly
> rational and sensible acting in the interests of his class (take Bush,
> for example), which can mean catastrophe for another class. Men act in
> rational ways to oppress women. Beating us up, for example, is not
> insane, it's part of a rational calculation that we will be more obedient
> afterwards. Doesn't make it less bad, in ways you could say it's worse
> since it's an exercise of class power not a random bad act which has no
> other effect.
Look, one can niggle and nitpick unto infinity about whether an act is 'rational' or not-- patting oneself on the back for creating such fine distinctions. But to insist upon such ridiculous pedantry before making a judgement is, I think, surrendering one's own moral authority. I reserve the right to call an act, a person, or an event "insane" or "lunatic" or "evil."
Let's apply this logic to a single word which captures all of these-- the word "bad." Imagine that someone denounced the mass murders of Hitler or Stalin as "bad." One can easily imagine a Chris-like figure stepping in to say that one should not use the term "bad," because once people hear that word, they refuse to hear any more nuanced commentary. Or, he or she might argue, "Men beating up women is not bad; it's part of a calculation to gain power, which is a rational thing for anyone to desire." Is such hairsplitting really useful? Only if one wanted to dismiss, or mitigate, or even applaud things which are clearly, unquestionably, horrible.
> Except in times of war, when we regard it as a duty.
Hardly. Studies of men in wartime show that relatively few actually kill opposing soldiers (at least, when they have to witness the effects or do it firsthand). And most of the ones that do are revulsed and horrified.