Enforcing Morals

Devlin seems to associate the collective conscious of a society on placing the morals of a country. Morality is then enforced through the laws that revolve around it. This is to say if society disagrees with something that it has the right to be 'eradicated.' Devlin quickly demonstrates that this is a rather extreme measure, but at the same time, he still gives eradication a sense of validity. This seems to be dangerous. As much as I'd like for people who I consider immoral to go away, if one is to reject them altogether it doesn't seem to fix anything. Instead it could create backlash. This is comparable to the United States using drones to quickly eliminate terrorist threats. An unknown danger is created through a new generation that fears and hates America even more. If someone's father was killed, as a suspected terrorist, the morally just thing to do in the eyes of their children would be to eliminate the evil within the world, a.k.a America. The 'good guy and bad guy' 'ideology, which also runs rampant through American society, is a very dangerous notion and also is associated to some degree with morals. Nations like Iraq or Afghanistan are then only being reinforced with diverse cultural views and the potential demise of anyone you know and love by the dystopian-like reality that drones create. Just because we think something should be eradicated or removed does not justify the act. Even if all Americans believed the Middle-East should be bombed because it is an 'active threat' does not create the incentive or rationality to do that act. Or if the act of trying to eradicate a potential threat was completely legal, it still would not justify such actions.