I hadn’t seen Norm’s dissection of Nir Rosen before I wrote mine. It’s worth reading, and this line sums it up:
[Rosen] has a moral argument he wants to make on the subject of attacking civilians and he makes it, but under cover of denying the resources of moral argument on that subject to everyone but the weak. His argument is to justify terrorist murder while claiming that terrorism is an empty concept.
Also, Eve Garrard on Rosen and those who agree with him:
…[M]orality is just a matter of taking sides, they announce, but somehow their moral views which lead them to support the weak escape this moral relativism (or even nihilism), and manage to find a firm basis unavailable to the rest of us.
Comments are closed.