Rav Casley Gera

I’ve been having a barney with a friend about this slice of philosophy:

Cabinet Magazine Online - On Evil: An Interview with Alain Badiou

To quote from my impassioned e-riposte,

“This Badiou is talking a mixture of standard leftie cliché and unthinking wank-speak.

He debunks most uses of the word evil by impugning the morality of those who use it - an old trick - but he dresses it up. The fact that the US are shits in the Mideast does not justify 9/11 and, therefore, does not reduce its evilness. It certainly doesn’t get de-evilled because there’s no pure “good” to set it up against.

You reason in terms of the morality of human rights, you say, with President Bush: “These are terrorist criminals. This is a struggle of Good against Evil.” But are Bush’s policies, in Palestine or Iraq for example, really Good?”

Why does it matter? If you debunk the “we’re good” hallf of the premise I don’t see why the terrorists can’t still be evil. Why can’t the US and Al-Quaeda both be evil?

In the face of crimes, terrible crimes, we should think and act according to concrete political Truths, rather than be guided by the stereotypes of any sort of morality.

But without the “stereotypes” of morality, on what basis is he able to cal the attacks “terrible?”

His criticisms of the use of the word “evil” to shut down dissent are predictable, and his arguments for the removal of morality from the public space are just silly.”

James responds that I’ve “missed the point. I think it is all to do with the contingency of event, and the rejection of humanitarianism.”

What do you think?