Are Boko Haram’s female suicide bombers underpaid? (op-ed)

Last week I wrote how moral outrage and moral opposition are not the same. One example I gave was protesting the draft was not the same as opposing war. Now, a recent Newsweek headline about Boko Haram, the Nigerian based Islamic terror organization, makes it necessary to point out how economic outrage and moral outrage are not the same either. Economic outrage appears moral on the surface, but it often ignores the actual moral issue.

Now, we’ve all heard about someone who was shot and killed over a small sum of money. I can recall an incident when the disputed amount was $150, but what disturbed me more than the desperation of the shooter was the economic reaction to the deed.

Appalled by the amount, most people said, “Over 150 bucks!” Or they questioned, “Why would you kill someone over chump change?” or “He (the shooter) threw his life away over that?”

The moral failing of the shooter was he valued the purchasing power of $150 over human life. But the reaction to the deed was not directed toward this moral failing.

The quotes were economic outrage.

These people sounded like the victim would still be alive if the shooter conducted a cost benefit analysis and concluded the reward was too low for the risk. (But what if the amount was $150,000, would the reward be worth the risk?)

Now, Newsweek’s headline said: Boko Haram paid would-be teenage suicide bomber ‘less than $1’. The first sentence of the article mentioned: Boko Haram militants paid her just 200 Naira ($0.64) to blow herself up in a city in North East Nigeria.

This is also economic outrage with the appearance of morality on the surface.

Notice the writer said: Paid her “just” 200 Naira

Words like “just” and “only” are not financial facts. There’s no such thing as “just” ex-amount or “only” ex-amount. The price is the price. Those terms are interjected to make it a matter of social justice by suggesting the payment is too low for the service rendered and it’s immoral not to pay more.

This 14-year-old girl and her friend were told by Boko Haram to detonate their explosive vests in a crowded place in the city. They wore the vest for three days before entering the city. The police spotted them and order them to remove their vests. The 14-year-old girl removed the vest, but her friend refused and the police shot her dead.

But according to Newsweek’s headline we’re suppose to believe that the moral issue here is how little the teenage girl was paid?

This is an economic outrage if Boko Haram is compared to Saddam Hussein.

Congressional investigators said Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, each family received $25,000.

But Boko Haram can defend their selves against this comparison by saying they just started using female suicide bombers over the past couple years. Their suicide program is still in its developing stages. But at least they paid the actual suicide bombers, and they are giving females opportunities beyond being sex slaves.

The sad part here is that for Boko Haram, this is actually a moral argument. Newsweek can’t make the same claim unless they really believe the moral issue is that Boko Haram’s female suicide bombers are underpaid.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 3/22/17