Part 1: The Parable
From the Old Testament :
1 Kings 3:16-28
Later, two women who were prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. The one woman said, “Please, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house; and I gave birth while she was in the house. Then on the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. We were together; there was no one else with us in the house, only the two of us were in the house. Then this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. She got up in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me while your servant slept. She laid him at her breast, and laid her dead son at my breast. When I rose in the morning to nurse my son, I saw that he was dead; but when I looked at him closely in the morning, clearly it was not the son I had borne.” But the other woman said, “No, the living son is mine, and the dead son is yours.” The first said, “No, the dead son is yours, and the living son is mine.” So they argued before the king. Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; while the other says, ‘Not so! Your son is dead, and my son is the living one.’” So the king said, “Bring me a sword,” and they brought a sword before the king. The king said, “Divide the living boy in two; then give half to the one, and half to the other.” But the woman whose son was alive said to the king—because compassion for her son burned within her—“Please, my lord, give her the living boy; certainly do not kill him!” The other said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it.” Then the king responded: “Give the first woman the living boy; do not kill him. She is his mother.”
Our world is filled with many moral inequivalencies… but they are often confounded by challenging circumstances that make them seem like they are equivalent. They seem like two sides of the same coin when the coins are altogether different. There is a mental gymnastics that needs to be played by those who see the inequivalencies when they try to explain them to those who do not… because when someone is blind to them, they can easily justify a less moral perspective. Imagine in the parable above, before the King’s judgement to ‘Divide the living boy in two’ that you look at both mothers and think, “They both want what they think is best for the child.” You would be wrong, but you might have been someone who lost a child and would do anything to change that outcome. But then again, for most people the above example does have an easy, morally correct outcome… even without the King’s morally corrupt scenario of giving each mother half of a dead child.
Other scenarios are not that clear cut. Here is a fictional example:
Part 2: War is Hell
Imagine a battle between two warring armies, roughly a thousand years ago. Two generals sit on opposing hills prepared to send an almost equal number of troops into the valley to attack each other. Both armies are equipped with armour, swords, and shields. Other than the colour and design of their outfits, and the crests on their shields, there is one crucial difference between the two armies. That difference is that one army has a row of unarmed women lined up in front of them, and many troops have small children tied to their their shields. They are literally using their citizens as shields.
We understand that horrible things happen in war. We know that there will be loss of life in battles. But we can clearly see the moral difference between an army that protects their citizens and one who uses them as sacrificial strategy. The moral inequivalency is clear.
However, war is hell. And there can be a blurring of the lines of what is morally correct. There might be in the opposing army a soldier or even a few soldiers that see no issue with targeting the citizens intentionally. Worse yet, the opposing general might be a monster who specifically tells his troops to target them as strategy… Make the enemy carry the dead bodies of their citizens. This would be horrific.
But does that make the two sides morally equivalent?
It doesn’t.
Part 3: Good people on both sides
Imagine being a soldier on the side of the morally evil general who demands that you place your own child on your shield. You know that if you refuse, you will both be killed. Or worse yet, you are told by your general, who is also your spiritual leader, that you will burn in hell if you do not comply, and that you are guaranteed a place in heaven for you and your child if you do comply. Are you a bad person for complying?
Imagine being one of the women standing before the army, being used as a shield. You know that your own troops will kill you if you run. You don’t deserve to die, you are not a bad person, but you have been placed in a situation where your only choice is to be sacrificed. You are neither a bad person nor someone who deserves to die… but you will.
The reality of war is that good people, who don’t deserve to die, die… on both sides of the battle. Again, war is hell. Citizens, good people, do not deserve to die, and yet in war they will. But in the scenario above, why are these innocent people dying? Is it because of the attacking army or because of the immoral decisions of their leader?
Part 4: It gets personal
I would never want to live in a morally corrupt world where a leader would consider using my family as a shield to protect their army… and if I had to fight to protect my family from such a leader taking over the rule of my country, I would do unimaginable things to protect my family, my community, and my country. If you then think that this leader and I are morally equivalent, well then I think you too are morally corrupt. You might as well go back and live in biblical times when a king would cut a baby in half to resolve a conflict… because that’s the kind of people who would be ruling our world.
