Fri 29 Jul, 2016 12:40 am
Use of this term to denote violent people indicates how ethics today has no cohesion or control of popular terminology. It gives the impression that virtue is a mushy compromise in the middle. Something that no doubt suits some people, who can manipulate society all the easier thereby.
People who employ violence to destroy society, are either servants of tyranny trying to impose a new order by force, or they do not believe in any form of social order.
If we have a cohesive social ethic, and have made up our minds that we believe in altruist-democracy, or freedom within altruism. We must define other conditions from that standpoint. That intrinsically means in opposition to both tyranny and to anarchism, including a deceptive benign-anarchism.
The 'extremists' we are dealing with today, are often the agents of theocracy.
If they do not believe in any social order then they are genocidal criminals.
It may be remarked, that if the majority of people believe in a particular religious sect, then a theocracy may be imposed. It is still a theocracy, which is tyranny, and not altruism.
Altruism is a judge of religion not its servant.