writes:
It would totally depend on the morality of the individuals involved. If
the SWAT team member thought it immoral to take human life (kind of a bad
job choice) then the only way for him to behave in a morally superior
manner would be to not take the life of the terrorist. That choice would
distinguish him from the terrorist in an objective if somewhat painful way.
>>>
This doesn't work for me. The SWAT team member, in this case, is still
killing someone - himself.
No; the SWAT team member would be living with (and dying for) the
consequences of his moral belief system. If it absolutely wrong to kill then
it would not matter what the consequences of killing were. He/she would be a
martyr for sure but that is the price you pay for moral superiority.
More importantly, though, this defines moral superiority in relativistic
terms. For example, if the SWAT team member believes that it is only moral
to kill somebody after first breaking a raw egg on the person being killed
- the SWAT team member could demonstrate his moral superiority by throwing
eggs first, shooting later.
Lets be real here. I am not the one suggesting that there is an absolute
morality, you are. So make it a real morality. The terrorist believes he is
morally justified in his actions because what he is doing serves the greater
political/military or religous good. The SWAT team member believes it is
morally incorrect to kill. Who decides which has the moral high ground? If it
is you then you must at least accept the responsibility of your claim to
moral superiority. You must act in a superior way. You must not kill.
