Sean Penn and Moral Relativism

The Sean Penn interview with El Chapo is the hot topic. There is plenty to be bothered about with this interview. One thing that bothers me the most is the moral relativism (which he's very open about) that he uses as a rationale for doing the interview in the first place.

Here is his logic:

As an American citizen, I'm drawn to explore what may be inconsistent with the portrayals our government and media brand upon their declared enemies. Not since Osama bin Laden has the pursuit of a fugitive so occupied the public imagination. But unlike bin Laden, who had posed the ludicrous premise that a country's entire population is defined by – and therefore complicit in – its leadership's policies, with the world's most wanted drug lord, are we, the American public, not indeed complicit in what we demonize? We are the consumers, and as such, we are complicit in every murder, and in every corruption of an institution's ability to protect the quality of life for citizens of Mexico and the United States that comes as a result of our insatiable appetite for illicit narcotics.

This logic claims it's OK to glamorize El Chapo because all of us are complicit. Je suis Chapo. What utter nonsense.

If you really oppose the U.S. war on drugs, then you should glamorize nothing. If you feel complicit, then find ways to help victims. El Chapo isn't a victim; he creates them. Don't pretend that bad U.S. foreign policy is an excuse for letting others off the hook. And definitely don't do so by pretending you're Hunter S. Thompson.

This is similar to the logic that we should not criticize human rights abuses in Latin America as long as, say, there are inmates at Guantanamo. No--you criticize it all.