President Obama: Comparison doesn't necessarily give rise to conflict

Marcello Pera, professor of the philosophy of science at the University of Pisa, in an essay entitled "Relativism, Christianity, and the West," writes, "To argue that the model of Western democratic institutions and rights is better than the Islamic model does not imply taking any particular course of action. One could say that the West is better than Islam and still tolerate Islam, respect Islam, dialogue with Islam, ignore Islam, or even obstruct Islam, clash with Islam, among the many possible stances. According to the old proverb , it's one thing to say, another to do. To rephrase this proposition in logical terms, there are no formal implications between 'is' and 'ought' (ab esse ad oportere non valet consequentia, as one says in Latin). The dominant culture in the West, however, thinks the opposite, and reveals its prejudices through a major flaw in reasoning. It thinks that 'ought' descends from 'is.' According to this way of thinking, if a person maintains that the West is better than Islam - or, to be more specific, that democracy is better than theocracy, a liberal constitution better than sharia, a parliamentary decision better than a sura, a civil society better than an umma, a sentence by an independent tribunal better than a fatwa, citizenship better than dhimma, and so forth - then he or she ought to clash with Islam. This is an error of logic that compounds the error of believing that our institutions have no right or basis to be proclaimed as universal. The consequence of these two errors is that today the West is paralyzed twice over. It is paralyzed because it does not believe that there are good reasons to say that it is better than Islam. And it is paralyzed because it believes that, if such reasons do indeed exist, then the West would have to fight Islam.

I personally reject these positions. I deny that there are no valid reasons for comparing and judging institutions, principles, and values. I deny that such a comparison cannot conclude that Western institutions are better than their Islamic counterparts. And I deny that a comparison will necessarily give rise to a conflict. I do not deny, however, that if an offer to dialogue is responded to with a conflict, then the conflict should not be accepted. For me the opposite holds true. I affirm the principles of tolerance, peaceful coexistence, and respect that are characteristic of the West today. However, if someone refuses to reciprocate these principles and declares hostility or a jihad against us, I believe that we must acknowledge that this person is our adversary. In short, I reject the self-censorship of the West. This self-censorship - much more than the universalist claims of Western institutions...is something that I find unjustified and dangerous."

President Obama does not understand that a comparison of Western institutions to their Islamic counterparts (and acknowledging the logical conclusion that Western institutions are superior) need not necessarily give rise to conflict. Speaking in Cairo, the President asserted that, "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."

But why should this be so? Mr. President?