Eric Lanser

On April 17th, Bill Dalsen authored an opinion piece questioning the evidential rigor of my previous article “The violence of a backward moral code.”Peace activists would like you to think that they are against violence. This is evident from their speeches and slogans. Dr. King’s and various other criticisms demonstrate this.

However, the leadership of such movements time and again opposes the removal of dangerous and utterly violent regimes. My article attempts to explain why this is so, in less than 600 words. I give a (well-substantiated) historical example. I give an example from the modern day (also substantiated). Both examples are written to highlight the apparent conflict between anti-violence rhetoric and opposition to removal of the world’s dictatorial regimes. Finally, I explain the seeming paradox on the basis of their basic ethical beliefs.

My emphasis on the fact that America is the focus of attack by protesters is the vehicle for explaining the principle at work. The principle is that altruists are primarily against self-interest, not violence. America’s founding philosophy was of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This, along with America’s obvious material success, is intolerable to altruists, and is the reason they oppose it even more than any vicious regime America might combat.

This is the “concern with altruism as a moral foundation” the article “intimated.” Altruism leads its adherents to oppose this-worldly happiness (see The Bible or Immanuel Kant), and to tolerate truly evil individuals and regimes (‘turn the other cheek’, act not from inclination).

The “connective tissue” abounds. If any would like to discuss the logic of drawing and connecting generalizations in private discussion or public forums please contact me by email.