Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: How Often Are We Complicit with Evil?
“Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table.” — W. H. Auden
When horrible things happen in the world, those acts are often identified as evil acts. The Russian creation of mass graves in Ukraine? Evil. The killing of citizens in the streets of Ukraine? Evil. The mass shooting of parishioners at church on a Sunday morning? Evil. The killing of young children while they are at school. Evil.
These actions are so horrendous that I think most of us would not debate our describing them as evil.
But the quotation by Auden added a level of complexity to the word “evil” that I’ve struggled with over the years. The most extreme actions that defy our humanity and morality, that ignore empathy and compassion are obviously evil, in my opinion. But what happens when we are faced with immoral, cruel, hurtful, and destructive actions that are not seen as horrific? The questions that come up for me are these:
- What qualifies an action as evil or not?
- Is it important to identify an action as evil?
- If we know that an evil act is being perpetrated, are we complicit if we don’t act against it, through our words or deeds?
- Are there levels of evil that call us to action, and others that we can justify ignoring?
There are many more questions we could also ask, but I wonder if, with all the horror in the world, all over the world, have we become inured to evil? Do images in photographs, on TV, in the newspapers and film allow us to be witnesses to evil and not recognize that we are engaging with it? When we turn away from a parent spanking a child in a grocery store, or a man grabbing and shaking his wife in the park, or we realize that a financier is stealing millions from his clients, are all of these evil and how should we respond to them?
At what point do we have an obligation to speak up or speak out? When is it important for us to physically act in response to what we see?
What happens when we see someone steal? Or when he or she tells a bold lie?
Are we all too ready to allow evil to share our bed and eat at our table?
[photo by Andy Li on unsplash.com]
Published in Group Writing
Dang it Susan, I wasn’t planning on thinking today . . .
The writer and management consultant Peter Drucker, who left Germany in 1933, wrote about three men he knew who became at various levels Nazis or Nazi enablers..
–Reinhold Hensch, who came from a working-class family, became an SS officer. He summed up his motivations to Drucker thusly: “Now I have a party membership card with a very low number and I am going to be somebody.”
–Paul Schaeffer became editor of a major newspaper, believing he could influence the regime toward moderation. He disappeared when the front that he provided was no longer needed.
–An un-named professor, a distinguished biochemist and a “great liberal,” was expected by many to raise objections at the faculty’s first meeting with their newly-appointed Nazi watchdog. His main concern was about maintaining the level of research funding.
Knowing these people led Drucker to object to the Hannah Arendt “banality of evil” formulation:
“Evil works through the Hensches and the Schaeffers precisely because evil is monstrous and men are trivial…Man becomes the instrument of evil when, like the Hensches, he thinks to harness evil to his ambitions; and he becomes the instrument of evil when, like the Schaeffers, he joins with evil to prevent worse…I have often wondered which of these two did, in the end, more harm–the Monster or the Lamb; and which is worse, Hensch’s sin of the lust for power or Schaeffer’s hubris and sin of pride? But maybe the greatest sin is neither of these two ancient ones; the greatest sin may be the new twentieth-century sin of indifference, the sin of the distinguished biochemist who neither kills nor lies but refuses to bear witness when, in the words of the old gospel hymn, “They crucify my Lord.””
Indeed. Thanks, David.
Evil came into the world at the creation. The first sin was deception or lying. The serpent lies to Eve about the motives of G-d to deny them the fruit of the tree. Adam lies about his own agency in taking the fruit from Eve. Eve lies about her own agency in being persuaded by the serpent. Evil always starts with lies. If nothing else, we lie to ourselves to enable our evil acts.
I’ve often been conflicted because I do think that ‘Evil’ exists but the host it finds, willingly invites it in.
I’ve never been comfortable when people blame Evil and absolve the evildoers of their free choice and complicity in the act.
I believe it is true that it always starts off small and can end in the most horrific ways if not blunted.
As the family, religious affiliation and society’s guardrails are lowered, this will only get worse.
I think that you should be very careful about the “complicity” argument. It does seem to make one person responsible for the actions of someone else.
I could see some complicity on the part of a person in authority who fails to reasonably enforce the law. I don’t think that this was the case with respect to the terrible school shooting yesterday.
I could see some complicity on the part of a person in authority who fails to adopt reasonable laws against evil. A legislator who does not vote to outlaw abortion would be an example. Again, I don’t think that this was the case with respect to the terrible shooting yesterday.
Applying such complicity arguments to private citizens seems dubious, to me. It is true that we have a right to vote. It’s also true that we have limited choices, and rarely have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who we believe to be correct on all issues.
Reported comments by Donald Trump on Kemp’s prevailing in the preference vote for Governor seem to fall in this category. Stacy Abrams and Democrat leadership in Georgia are the purveyors of evil.
As you suggested, Jerry, I’m not saying complicity applies in every area. But burying our heads, choosing not to vote at all (which I regret to say is a choice I’ve made in the past) empowers those who would destroy the Right. I will not make that choice again.
I have no way to tell if the reports of Trump’s remarks about Kemp and Abrams are accurate. I have heard that Trump consults with advisors. I don’t know if he listens (subject of a previous post by @iwe IIRC). Trump should know two things. Many voters who supported him in 2016 did so to avoid getting Hillary Clinton (not because they agreed with Trump on all his positions) and many others are anti-Trump no matter what they get. These should be learning experiences.
In the 30 minutes of driving I’ve done today, two people drove so aggressively I felt they’d have run me down if I didn’t get out of their way. I think this is where evil begins — having no regard for someone else’s life — maybe especially a stranger’s life. You don’t know what someone else in the car in front of you is suffering, or what they might be contributing to society. Is it so important to you to get to your destination two minutes faster to put their lives at risk, not to mention your own?
As our Judeo-Christian sensibilities regarding the inestimable value of every life as made in the image and likeness of God fade away, we’re going to get more and more of this. We are a sick society — a spiritually unwell nation. Time for sackcloth and ashes.
Werner Erhard said that institutional evil is when “surviving the institution” replaces the original mission. We see this all the time in the academy. I suppose personal evil is the same, but who knows what the mission is? “To know, love, and serve Him in this world and be happy with Him in the next” (from my second grade catechism I think) seems to have been a good starting point. But I don’t know if such instruction could prevent the peculiar psychoses we have been developing of late. Every story of evildoing is particular. Time will tell more about this particular wretch.
I think you’re right. A good measurement of the state of a person’s soul might be gauged by how often they perceive other people as simply in the way.
Yours is a political, policy question which requires action. Rodin’s is a personal question, which is not political but understanding begins there..
Does enabling evil, even unknowingly, make one complicit in the result?
Not if you didn’t know about it.
If not complicit, maybe responsible?
Very well put, Samuel. I often think this is the leftist outlook on the Right — we’re just in the way of their utopia.
Good point. God hates a haughty look. I think perhaps perceiving people to be simply in the way may be very good way of describing that.
To clarify our being complicit with evil, on a lesser scale than killing people–
The Climate Change ideologues have been telling lies for years. We know they are lying because they use computer models that have shown to be false, yet they continue to tell the same lies. Those who follow them in spite of the data are complicit.
I suppose there are times when we ought to know, but discerning when minding my own business is about respecting other people’s liberties versus when it’s an act of cowardice is hard work. To complicate matters, I suspect they overlap a lot.
Very true, Samuel. And by the time we figure it out, the moment is gone. Still, I think it’s worth considering, since it seems like evil continues to raise its ugly head.
For your consideration:
“Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating.” — Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace (1952)
Outstanding, Dave. Thanks. Real good fills our hearts and souls.
This is one of the quotes I have in rotation on my office door.