The Cult of the Superficial

Judea Pearl has learned his moral philosophy the hard way, both through careful scholarly examination and personal tragedy. Pearl expands upon his comments about Arun Gandhi, Arun being one of a cohort of dangerous relativists about violence.

Judea Pearl sees a wider problem than from this hypocritical grandson, too typical of genteel critics of the West, a “cult of the superficial.”

To say "we are all guilty" is paramount to saying "no one is guilty," like that bully who excuses himself with the rejoinder, "They all do it."

Sweeping generalizations that spread guilt too broadly, tend to obscure the anatomy of violence; they drive attention away from critical factors and pivotal players, and hamper our ability to take corrective actions….

It is pointless, of course, to explain to Jihadis that terrorism earns its ominous and morally reprehensible character not through body count but through "intent," i.e., the intent of perpetrators to harm the innocent -- Jihadis refuse to get it.

One would expect, however, that modernity-minded thinkers should grasp this defining distinction and use it to tell a good guy from a bad one -- they, too, refuse to get it….

Symmetry is so seductive, and the idea that every strife has two equivalent sides so deeply entrenched in our culture, that even well meaning intellectuals fall into its trap….

For a grievance to turn into an act of terror, two additional ingredients are necessary, each non-violent in isolation: a twisted prism of reality and a twisted license to kill…

As provided by Arun Gandhi and his ilk, and widely allowed to pass without judgment by media, creating a “banalization of violence.” Last time that term was widely used was by Hannah Arendt, her “banality of evil,” when outrageous atrocities by Hitler were accepted as mundane events instead of strikes against heaven itself.

As I wrote about here, the intolerable is not deserving of tolerance.