Che Guevara: The T-Shirt Icon of Terrorists?

[Infusion]

<p>

Well, if you apply virtue ethics to the question, you could argue that although the tactics employed by Guevara were brutal when looked at as individual actions, they were the desperate efforts of a man attempting sincerely to improve the lives of his people, and his resorting to violence reflects more on the hopeless political and economic situation then on his own character. I’m typically skeptical of altruism, but the fact that Che quit the medical profession to be a guerilla fighter suggests that his intentions were relatively clean.</p>

<p>Bush, on the other hand, has lived a sheltered existence since the day he was born. At no point has he put himself in political (let alone physical) danger in the puruit of his “ideals,” allowing the blame instead to be shunted on to one of his subordinates when something goes wrong. Rather than combatting a corrupt establishment, he is the embodiment of a corrupt establishment, repeatedly displaying contempt (or at least apathy) for the American democratic political system, his decisions to ignore Supreme Court rulings being a prime example.</p>

<p>So yeah. Short version: one man can conceivably be excused because of his background and intentions, whereas the other is just further condemned.

</p>

<p>So basically what you’re saying is that the ends do indeed (sometimes) justify the means and that it depends on the sincerity of the perpetrator. Ok that may be you but that still doesn’t really prove my argument wrong. You just presented a new premise that allows someone to criticize Bush and still support Che. But anyone criticizing Bush by saying the ends do justify the means while supporting Che would still be inconsistent. Of course he or she can stop using that specific argument and just adopt yours instead. I still disagree with this new premise also however. You say Bush showed contempt for a democratic political system but I don’t see how that is worse than Che showing contempt for human life.</p>