Help with understanding "moral equivalence".
I think I know what you mean, am not sure. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe you mean that it is incorrect to equate the US torturing people with Saddam torturing people, even if they do it for the same reasons. National security, for instance, or to prevent a civil war.
That it is morally wrong for Saddam to do it, and morally right for the US to do it.
And that to condemn torture, period, is "moral equivalence" and morally wrong.
That it was wrong for Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia under the pretext of "national security" and not wrong for Bush to invade Iraq under the pretext of "national security" and that to equate those actions is "moral equivalence". And in error.
Are those examples of what you mean?
Arf