Bennett’s Argument on Moral Relativism

Wonderful. So, we now know that William J. Bennett and Osama bin Laden agree on one point: Evil and good are unquestionable absolutes (“Faced With Evil on a Grand Scale, Nothing Is Relative,” Commentary, Oct. 1).

I don’t think Bennett really fears that anyone thinks that the Sept. 11 attack was arguably good. What he fears is anyone suggesting that what the U.S. has done in the past is arguably evil. In other words, his argument is an appeal to the now thoroughly discredited notion of “my country right or wrong.”

Once morality is accepted as absolute, all dissent becomes illegitimate. And that is precisely what conservatives, whether Islamic or Christian, always want us to accept. That Bennett uses the country’s moral outrage over the recent attack as a flimsy excuse to push his political agenda is, frankly, sickening.

John Harrington

Escondido

*

Bennett’s verbal missile on good and evil is a direct strike for truth. Finally, there is somebody who knows the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. I have been saying this to my children, family and friends for over 20 years. There surely are absolutes in our world. They have always been here and will continue to be here forever.

Jamie Dulude

Rancho Cucamonga

*

I was a B-17 navigator in World War II with 33 bombing missions over Europe.

We can all agree with Bennett that “the use of commercial airplanes as missiles, guided into buildings where civilians work, is evil.” Do we all agree that dropping atom bombs on cities and carpet-bombing cities are also evil?

Nicholas V. Seidita

Northridge