Bush gives a talk to graduating military cadets about preemptive striking of terrorist cells (via
Metafilter). With the quote
"the nation will also punish those who engage in terror and aggression and will work to impose a universal moral clarity between good and evil."
If only the world were that black and white.
Can we really draw a distinct line between good and evil? It seems like a possibility existing only in literature and hollywood. Isn't that like saying that everyone in the world is either rich or poor? Sometimes there is no dichotomy, and the attempt to create one will lead to, well, we'll see what happens.
Another point is the ability of a government of a multicultural population to set a moral clarity. What is moral to some may not be to others. This is an extreme (and somewhat insignificant) example, but eating beef is immoral to the Hindu population since cows are sacred animals. What would be the government position on beef eating? Is it moral? If it is, is not eating beef immoral? A more mainstream example would be the death penalty. If the general population does not have the right to kill a person, why should the government? But what is a suitable punishment for murderers, and why should the tax payers support their livelihood? And what about abortion? Does a mother (or potential mother) have the right to decide whether she wants to have a baby or not?
These issues, while smaller in comparison to the "universal moral clarity" that Bush is trying to impose, are actually the backdrop to a true dichotomy of moral standards. And for most of us, in most cases, it is impossible to distinguish between right and wrong in a clear, black and white way.