Lack of Morality Consensus

The assertion that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” certainly holds much truth in a society today where violence and aggression is frequently founded on ideals and innate belief systems. It seems that the more imminent dangers of wealth driven aggression, seen in colonial times, is replaced by a far more threatening and resistant force of ideology and religion, even more serious when compiled out of grave miscommunication and understanding of the intentions of others. Today, the aggression of an ideologically motivated event can be noted in, for example, radical Islam when coordinating terrorism, the pursuit and defense of a sovereign nation (the Israeli/Palestinian conflict), and the need to be respected and recognized on the international scene (Russia, China, N-Korea, Iran). Generations of a country’s people are raised with cultural influences of their society and conclusions regarding the cultures of others that are taught to preceding generations, regardless of truth. Views are founded through the perception of a differing culture; therefore, a far different color palette might be used to paint the same picture. Yet, which is the correct color palette? Ideas and values that one society might hold as true and justified will not be listed in the same moral columns, “right and wrong,” as another society might define. A general majority could generally agree on an intrinsic, human, morality of right and wrong, yet when one considers the morality of the motivations and inspirations of an action, these “right” and “wrongs” become based on religious or innate ideology (usually in reference to a country’s culture), a gray area submissive to controversy, and far more drastically, violence.

When violence, or any form of drastic motivation, propaganda, or action for a certain cause occurs, the participants are obviously considered “freedom fighters” by their supporters, as they wish to be able to support a cause and potentially enable a positive outcome. Consequently, the opposing party will feel defensive of its beliefs, on a more tranquil level, and proportionally feeling terrorized with the introduction of zealous aggression and harm. Both parties vie for freedom, yet in its pursuit, hinder its peoples’ abilities to belief freely through methods of brainwash, resulting from miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Therefore, policy directed at those considered “terrorists” should be dictated by the “considers’,” a particular society, basis for action. When a “terrorist” intrudes on another’s land and executes negative action, endangering or harming the wellbeing of a society’s people, the victims have a right to address the situation as an attack and treat it accordingly. Meanwhile, of course, it would be beneficial for peaceful relations to be attained through communication and education, yet with geographical, linguistic, and of course ideological differences, these relations are often not formed preceding violence. Because every country feels threatened by varied perceptions of “attacks,” whether physical or another, there can be no collaborative method of action towards a perceived “terrorist” in a technical sense. Only uninfluenced freedom of thought, derived from constant truth, would allow for any technical justification of “freedom fighting” or “terrorism.” Without a consensus of morality, societies constitute action and policy from the values with which they hold in esteem.