Moral equivalence

From Conservapedia

Moral equivalence is the claim that two radically different ethical actors are really doing the same thing and that they should be judged and treated the same way. For example, if two schoolchildren are scuffling and hitting each other in the playground, a judgment of "moral equivalence" by the teacher may result in separating the two and (perhaps) punishing them both equally (for "fighting").

The problem with moral equivalence as an ethical doctrine is that it completely sidesteps the crucial issue of right and wrong; see good and evil. If one of the children in our example was a notorious school bully, and the other child was fighting back in self-defense, then it would clearly be wrong to punish them both. Even simply stopping the fight and bidding them to "go their separate ways" may be wrong as well.

If we believe that evil is defined by taking advantage of another person for one's own benefit, then an aggressive move (like a schoolyard bully beating up a little kid) is an evil action. It is clearly wrong.

In politics, a war-weary world often resorts to moral equivalence when it cannot determine who is right and wrong in a military conflict. A case in point is the Arab-Israeli conflict. If one side is the aggressor and is taking advatange of the other for its own benefit, then that is the evil side. The evil side should be stopped and perhaps also punished. But if both sides are equivalent, we need only "make them both stop". This relieves us of the mental effort of distinguishing right from wrong.