Letters to the editor
By Daily Bruin Staff
May 8, 2003 9:00 p.m.
Morality is subjective and relative
Solomon Matsas’ sentimental yet sensationalistic rant
(“World conflicts have moral ambiguity,” April 30)
should be taken with a huge grain of salt, lest we identify with
his psychic anguish and become lulled into accepting the premise
that the war on Iraq was fought on moral grounds.
Morality is, at best, a fuzzy lens through which to view world
events. In particular, one person’s (or culture’s)
morality is another’s anathema. Matsas asks which policy (to
invade Iraq or not) would save the most lives, concluding “I
simply don’t know.”
Political decisions and the world events they trigger are the
net outcome of political (not moral) will and cold calculations of
the relative ease of success. It fit the political/economic agenda
of those currently in power to depose Saddam Hussein, as his
policies vis-Ã -vis oil and other resources thwarted theirs.
The Iraqis fought back, and the Sept. 11, 2001 attackers probably
thought they were acting in the same vein. Matsas asserts,
“delaying confrontation of active tyranny results in the most
human loss.” So, perhaps the United States should not have
helped Saddam Hussein’s party take power in the first place.
…
Matsas sweeps aside obvious questions regarding what could be
done differently (e.g. less unilaterally) toward implementing new
foreign policies replacing those that engender incoming terror
attacks.
Finally, he reminds us to ask questions of the
“left” as well as the “right” ““
common fodder of AM radio talk show hosts. But where in his article
is the “right” challenged?
Richard Waldron Assistant researcher
