Why ISIS Is Ignorant, But Not Wrong

It is clear that we in the West do not agree with ISIS. We think that what they think is wrong, and more importantly: we think that what they do is wrong. They decapitate Western journalists, promote violence against people who don’t agree with their religious beliefs, organize terrorist attacks, and even destroy Iraq’s cultural heritage – statues that were over 5000 years old. How can they do this? Why do they do this? Is it due to their set of (religious) beliefs? And if so, can we then judge them for doing what they think is the right thing to do?

First a rather obvious observation: people from different cultures or societies have different ideas about what is right or wrong. This view is called descriptive moral relativism, and it’s a moderate, empirical claim, that is corroborated by reality. Look only at the people of ISIS, who think that what they do is spreading the true message of Allah, and who think that anyone who disobeys this message is wrong. They believe that they should stick to a very strict interpretation of the Islam, and that people who don’t do this, should be done away with. If not by words, then through force. We in the West clearly find their ideas about what is right and wrong absurd. Hence ISIS and us, clearly, disagree about what we find right and wrong.

We could go one step further than this claim, and say that ISIS and us don’t merely have different ideas about what is right and wrong, but that neither of us is more right or wrong than the other in having these ideas. There are many cultures and equally many ideas about what is right and wrong, but there simply is no absolute, culture independent interpretation of right and wrong.

And there is something to say for this so called meta moral relativism. After all, acts can hardly be judged wrong in any absolute sense; that is, without regarding the relevant context. Killing a person might seem wrong, but if you can save one hundred people by doing so, it might actually be a sin if you wouldn’t do it. So the context appears to matter for deciding whether an action is right or wrong. So it could in principle be possible that a culture’s or society’s set of beliefs, taken as the relevant context, genuinely determines whether an action is good or bad. Applied to the ISIS case: it is not only that they have the idea that destroying Iraq’s cultural heritage is right, but given their set of beliefs, it truly is the right thing to do. An equivalent way to say this is that what is right or wrong is determined by nothing but the idea of what is right and wrong. Hence, given that ISIS thinks that what they are doing is right, which I assume they do, their deeds are truly right – for them at least.

Let’s for the sake of argument assume that this meta moral relativism is a correct description of reality: that there truly is a plurality of interpretations of right and wrong floating around, none better or worse than the others. Then, applied to the ISIS case, we have to face a difficult question. Because if ISIS truly thinks to do what is right, how then can we judge them? Okay: we might have a different interpretation of what is right than they do, but we have just established that having a different interpretation doesn’t make their views wrong regardless of the context. Our conception of morality is just different from ISIS’s: different, but not superior.

And, playing the devil’s advocate, don’t we (the West) do exactly the same? It might not be the message of Allah that we try to spread throughout the world, but the message of liberalism and freedom. And we too are willing to go to great lengths to spread this message. History shows that countless of people have been killed because their actions didn’t cohere with our ‘right’ notions of freedom and liberalism – the Nazi’s being just one example.

So it appears that we cannot declare ISIS’s ideas and actions to be more wrong than ours – not while strictly assuming meta moral relativism. That’s a pity.

But there might be a way out. A way in which we can judge ISIS’s beliefs and actions to be wrong, without falling into the pitfalls of meta moral relativism. Because even though we might not be able to say that ISIS’s ideas and actions are absolutely wrong, we can say that ISIS is ignorant. We can say that they have not tried to actively refute their basic set of principles – the principles, derived from the Islam, that make their actions right. For if they would have done so, which I am quite sure they have not (because Allah’s words seem the most basic principles guiding their thinking, and even doubting these principles is wrong), it seems hard to imagine that they would have still accepted such principles.

So we can say that ISIS is ignorant, which in itself could be found immoral. But let’s not go there…

What do you think?

Written by Rob Graumans

3 thoughts on “Why ISIS Is Ignorant, But Not Wrong

  1. Just very briefly skimming over your article which I found interesting…my comment would be that we have objective moral standards , for example we ought to do whatever is likely to maximize happiness…..why? This is hitting philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question…..So thus we should regard ignorance for example as immoral because doing so tends to safeguard and lead to greater happiness than not doing so….thus we ought regard it as immoral…when we apply the same lens to the actions of Isis for example killing apostates we can logically come to the conclusion that doing so will not likely maximize the sum total of happiness and therefore it is logical to conclude their actions as immoral….And objectively wrong. Why use reason and logic to decipher morality and what we ought do? Because it seems to be the best tool we have to analyze ethical situations and come to the solution that maximizes the sum total of happiness.

    • Hi Allen,

      I think I see what you mean, but correct me if I’m wrong. You say that ISIS’s actions are immoral because they don’t maximize the sum of total happiness. Hence, assuming some form of consequentialism to be our moral principle, ISIS’s actions are wrong. This seems fair.

      Then the next question would be: who’s happiness should ISIS maximize? The happiness of the total world? In that case, you are right: their actions seem not to do that, so they could be regarded as immoral. But if we would take ISIS’s total happiness as the happiness to maximize, then their actions might actually maximize the relevant happiness, hence being moral.

      It of course depend on who’s happiness they should maximize. But it might be fair to say that maximizing the world’s total happiness would put too much authority on large countries; hence nullifying views of different, but smaller, cultures that might differ from the standard.

      What do you think?

  2. I think isis is a US Israeli creation not unlike the mujadeen. After all the IS has not attacked Israel . France, Tunnisa, several Middle East nations but not turkey and not Israel and that is telling.

    They attract recruits with American money… How do they get American money?

    And some of the sets they use to do their graphic videos have already been proven to set from movies. It is not a theory , it is a valid and real conspiracy. It is not right but it is the world we live in. Political players at the top manipulate others to increase their power and control in a closed loop of senslessness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *