Michael asked:

What is a working definition of ""moral equivalence?"

As an example, I just read the following:

New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on Thursday rejected a Saudi prince's 10 million Dollar donation for
victims of the World Trade Center after the prince criticized U.S. policy in the Middle East. "Our
Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other
cheek.''

"There is no moral equivalent to this attack. One of the reasons I think this happened is because they
were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies
like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorists,'' he said.

Maybe there is such a thing as moral equivalence, or so it is suggested in the bible: "An eye for an
eye" is morally equivalent action. However, moral equivalence focuses purely on the action and
cannot take into account intentions or consequences since no two events are likely to be the same in
this respect. Actions are morally evaluated in terms of intentions and it is assumed that the moral
agent takes consequences into account. It is not simply a question of what is done. Although this is
disputable, as far as intentions are concerned I don't think actions performed from revenge are
justifiable. You suffer, you integrate it into your life and you become stronger. You suffer, you take
revenge, or act on the eye for an eye principle and the world becomes a worse place. Aiming at moral
equivalence is not morally worthy.

Rachel Browne