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.
Can the Secular Define Evil?
I’m a fan of Dennis Prager, though I split my listening between him and Rush, as they’re both on at the same time. Dennis is an unabashed advocate for religion, and the notion that goodness flows from it. He frequently challenges secular people or atheists — like me — to contradict his claim that “[w]thout God there is no good and evil.”
It’s a good challenge, and I’ve been contemplating it for a long time. Not only do I think we should always confront our opponent’s best arguments directly but I really do think its important to ask myself — as secular person — how I draw the distinction between what is good and evil if I am not going to trust religion to define it for me?
First, how does religion define good and evil? Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland defined evil thus:
Evil is a lack of goodness. It is goodness spoiled. You can have good without evil, but you cannot have evil without good.
I think this is gibberish. First, it assumes that these are measurable quantities in any meaningful sense. Second, there’s a pseudoscientific feeling to it as well which mimics the notion that cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. I don’t think this is a very good definition of evil at all. Evil is supposed to be the antithesis of good, not its absence; further, it implies that the mere act of not doing good is itself evil. It seems to negate the possibility of benign neglect.
From my outsider’s perspective, the Judeo-Christian tradition defines evil:
- As either against other people or against God;
- As acting in a fashion which is morally reprehensible, sinful or wicked;
- As violations of the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments; and
- As violations of the Golden Rule.
Being as I am secular, I’m going to write off the evils against God right off the bat. Each person who isn’t a a Jew or a Christian in the world commits these “evils” either passively or actively on a daily basis. I don’t think I or anybody else is committing a sin or acting evilly when we don’t observe the proper obeisances to God. Why? Because none of us is harming anybody by not doing so.
So, what about the rest of those commandments? I can’t imagine another morally normal person who would assert that murder, theft, rape, perjury or adultery are acceptable or not evil. The secular generally agree on these. So where do I draw the distinction?
The things that all of us — secular and religious — seem to agree on as being evil is when someone acts maliciously in one’s own self interest without regard to the harm that those actions cause others. Compare this to enlightened self interest or the Harm Principle. Violating these is an outrage to the conscience of morally normal people. The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is generally a good thing; violating it may not be explicitly evil, but to do so wantonly most likely is.
So let’s talk about some examples and see which of these responses are either good or evil:
- You come across a person on the side of the road who is unconscious and bleeding. Do you a) keep on walking, b) render aid and call 911 or c) rape, rob and kill them because they don’t know any different?
- You pull up to a red light. Standing in the intersection is a bum who is disheveled and inebriated. The bum has a sign with something cute like “Not going to lie, I just need a beer.” You have $20 in your pocket which you do not need. Do you a) Give them the $20, or b) keep on driving.
- A person who is a perfect stranger to you approaches. The stranger asks for a gun with which they can kill themselves. You have a gun. Do you a) hand them the gun and plug your ears or b) insist that this person get assistance?
Why or why not you do any of the options is just as important.
There are right and wrong answers. I’ll reveal mine in the comments.
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
I’ll concede that but I don’t think it’s any different than citing Christianity. I don’t think you should expect me to outline all of my philosophy any more than I should expect you to write a full fledged post of apologetics.
If you must, however, I’m a Lockean agnostic with strong affinity for Jewish ethics.
Because it’s not at all self-evident we are all created equal. One need not look around very much to see that some have vastly more talents and abilities to offer the world than others, and some are obvious burdens to society. Why everyone should be treated equally in the face of these manifest inequalities only makes sense if our worth is measured against a standard outside of this world. Compared to God the differences between people on earth are meaningless, only by that standard can it make sense to see each person as having equal worth.
Even historically speaking, how much of a role has fear of punishment in the afterlife played in shaping people’s behavior?
Christianity has always been about forgiving the repentant sinner. True, once we repent and are again in communion with Christ, we are enjoined to “go and sin no more”, but people have always had ways of worming around that injunction. Constantine waited till he was near death to be baptized (a not-uncommon practice at the time, as I understand it) so that his baptism would wash away as much sin as possible and his short life after baptism wouldn’t give him much scope for sinning and falling out of God’s graces. And while Christians are not supposed to fall into the habit of sinning with the intent to sincerely repent of the sin later, many have succumbed to this temptation in one way or another.
A sense of one’s own sin as a defect that should be mended (however many attempts it takes) is a good thing, but I’d also say it’s a different thing from simple fear of eternal damnation.
I think it’s pretty demonstrable that people are equal in the sense that we all have a similar level of sentience, capacity for moral reasoning, and sense of self. Close enough to count, at least.
Look, I think Shylock* pretty much nailed it:
Even from the coldest, most biological perspective — and accounting for the aggregate differences between human populations — we’re all still vastly more similar than different. Swap an American child with one from the most primitive Amazonian or sub-Saharan tribe and no one would notice anything substantially different beyond aesthetics.
* Tangentially, I’ve never understood the accusations of antisemitism in that play. Shylock’s the most sympathetic character in the whole thing!
Actually, I don’t think this is necessarily essential – at least not in Judaism. You’ll note that it is not an idea found in the Torah at all.
Improving ourselves and the world around us is its own reward. The emphasis is what we do in our life, not what may or may not happen after death.
If ever there was a case to be made for God working in mysterious ways, it was with that man. Talk about imperfect vessels!
Maj,
I will make my second attempt at this post from the Kantian perspective.
Kant would define evil as the human will disposed 100% to a maxim other than the categorical imperative (a very sophisticated version of the golden rule). All evil behavior is a resultant of this.
Question – Answer #
1 a) Indifference to human suffering would imply adherence to a maxim that was at best mixed between the categorical imperative and heteronomous maxims. This response implies evil in the Kantian system.
1 b) Aiding other humans imply adherence to the categorical imperative. This response implies good in the Kantian system.
1 c) Brutal destructive treatment of other human beings imply a will disposed completely to heteronomous maxims. This is a purely evil personality.
2 a) Encouraging others to not treat their own persons with dignity is indicative of a mixed maxim. evil.
2 b) Not encouraging others to not treat their own persons with dignity is indicative of a maxim conforming to the categorical imperative. good.
3 a) Encouraging others to destroy their own human life is indicative of a severely mixed maxim. evil.
3 b) Actively trying to prevent others from destroying their own human life is indicative of a maxim conforming to the categorical imperative. good.
Gd is a necessary postulate of the Kantian system. Without the Gd postulate there would not be reason enough to believe that behavior following the categorical imperative, a maxim based on transcendental freedom, would result in success in a physical world based on natural causation.
Regards,
Jim
I think it only normal for Christians to have mixed feelings about the man.
Tell me if this has already been discussed. Do atheists accept moral absolutism and from what authority?
I include the belief in eternal rewards/punishment because for me, and I think most of Christianity, it adds coherence to the point of our existence, the belief that God is just and good, and why we should persevere and believe in the innate moral worth of others despite the unfairness and injustices of this life.
To say that the threat of eternal damnation doesn’t really affect behavior seems a bold claim, IMO. How can we know all the choices small and large that were made, the sinful and evil acts not taken because a person feared for their soul? Certainly it’s true that we all continue to sin despite the threat of hell, and that many a rationalization has been created and employed to try and get around Christians’ hypocrisy. That doesn’t mean that things couldn’t be even worse if people didn’t believe in some form or divine retribution.
But, more importantly, I think all of that is beside the point. Divine justice remains a theological underpinning of the Christian moral system and supports the notion we are all equal and ultimately accountable before God, and therefore should be understood to have the same moral worth and be held to the same moral standard.
This is a part of judaic belief that puzzles me. It seems so obviously untrue that doing what is right will produce rewards on this earth. It seems also very obvious that many who do what is evil reap tremendous rewards. I understand the teaching from Job, that God can do whatever he wants since we are all his creation and we cannot possibly have the understanding to question that, but the Christian view point seems much more satisfying to my god given sense of justice.
If you’d like people to take that up, I’d suggest you make an effort to strip out the metaphysical argot and make the argument more accessible.
Sorry, but that strikes me as quite the facile argument. That we all (probably should be almost all) have much in common doesn’t address the fact that the differences between us all are also profound and real. Just because we’re alike in most ways doesn’t make us all equal from a materialistic viewpoint, and glossing over the differences doesn’t really make sense if your ultimate justification for a moral system is its utility.
I’m not sure that’s an answerable question, on the grounds that atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. What they do believe in varies greatly.
It’s like asking “What do gentiles believe?”
If we have atheists here who accept moral absolutism, will they say by what authority?
To doubt the threat of eternal damnation affects behavior as much as many Christians claim it does is not the same as claiming it has no discernible influence at all. Most likely it has had a nontrivial impact on many people’s lives over the years (including my own*), but is that impact quite as big as many Christians would apparently like it to be? Is the impact big enough to justify the moral weight you give it?
Is it possible having a relationship with God in the here and now has an even bigger impact on a person’s moral behavior than fearing eternal damnation does?
________________________________________________
*At one point, I considered it a sufficient argument against suicide; however, the pain I would have left my family in if I took my own life ultimately proved to be the more enduring argument.
Please read what I wrote more carefully! I did NOT say that goodness is rewarded or evil is punished: I said that what we accomplish is its own reward.
I should clarify that there is a strong theme in Judaism of heaven and hell. My point is that it is not found in the Torah itself, and that Jews do not have anything like consensus on the issue. Personally, I think the idea of afterlife was a crossover from pagan religions, and was compatible enough with Christian ideas to stick.
The problem with a focus on the afterlife is that it becomes a crutch in this world, an excuse for not being more active. When people believe that suffering now will translate into heavenly rewards, then they suffer more willingly.
There is an old joke about a Jew who pretends to be non-Jewish to get into a country club. He aces all the answers, until they ask: “what religion do you practise?”
“Goy, of course!”
Actually, Abraham, Moses and many others do precisely this. And so do most Jews today: we question, we criticize, we argue, we plead. We never simply obey (there is no word in Biblical Hebrew for “obey.”)
It is a marriage. Marriages are dynamic, with pushing and shoving, with questions and answers. We may accept the Torah as G-d’s word, but we don’t accept the things that happen to us as inevitable outcomes of divine will.
I agree with all that Midge, but I think you misunderstood why I thought eternal reward/punishment helped to justify a belief in the moral worth of each individual.
I didn’t think our eternal judgement was important because it influenced better outcomes here on earth. I thought it was important because it helps us make sense of the fact that even though we are all obviously different and contribute in very unequal ways to society, we cannot hold people to different standards. In God’s eyes we all will be judged by the same standard, how well we accepted His truth and tried to love Him. Our worldly gifts and achievements don’t buy us anything in the afterlife and therefore don’t bear on our ultimate moral worth.
That is in part why we should be judged by adherence to a moral standard rather than a materialistic one.
Okay, apologies for the misinterpretation. I still find that cold comfort in the face of all the suffering here on earth. Without the promise of eternal reward and retribution, I would have a hard time reconciling existence with the notion of a just and benevolent God.
Right, I agree. Instead of saying “question God” I should have said lose faith or renounce Him.
I hadn’t read your comment carefully enough before composing my prior reply. My apologies.
When man chooses to suffer and not act, the necessary consequence is the suffering. We are here to fix the world, not be blown about like leaves in the gale.
If people are cold, invent and build heaters. So if there is evil? Fight it. Sickness? Cure it. G-d done you wrong? Dispute it! There is tremendous happiness in working hard and doing your best, even with the certainty that we will not live forever, that we cannot be perfectly successful. Think: Happy Warrior.
But sit around and wallow in our suffering, in hopes of a reward in the afterlife? Not what the Torah tells us to do. At. All.
Every time I read the word hierarchical I think of Mark Steyn riffing on multiculturalism. The relevant passage starts at 6:04.
John,
I already have done that. Sorry, everything can not be as simple as you find comfortable. A little complexity won’t hurt.
Regards,
Jim
I doesn’t hurt me, Jim. I’m just not interested in spending the time right now. I’ve devoted more time to this conversation than I can afford already. I only suggested you try and make the argument more accessible in a sincere effort to get people to consider it seeing as you seemed to believe it was being ignored.
I’ll go back to ignoring it now.
iWc and John,
I can’t like this enough. For people to think that believers are a bunch a sheep is cartoonish. If there is one thing that comes through in the Bible, it is God is a person who deals with men. The other thing is God’s sense of humor. It reads like history since history makes no sense at times.
John,
I apologize if I have failed on the accessibility test. Actually, it was the theme of this post to ask about secular versions of morality. Kant’s secular philosophical system is the most powerful. For over 100 years it has been ignored by the intellectual establishment for that very reason. Since it is secular but justifies many of the ideas of faith, it has been shunned by those who wish to differentiate themselves from religious faith at all cost. Even if at all cost means accepting a moral system that is neither moral nor a system.
I didn’t mean to high jack your time or the discussion. Sorry, I’ll try harder.
Regards,
Jim
Rape, murder, etc. are easy. Those aren’t even limited to Judeo-Christianity. The subtle shifts “around the edges” examplify the subjectivity of not basing it on objective principles. Over time and masses of people, societal values creep and change. Divorce, SSM, abortion – all these things once were immoral. Today in many circles they are positives. Objective principles are relatively fixed; subjective principles evolve. That’s my point. Sure, you may have had a good Judeo-Christian foundation, but is that carried forward through your progeny and their progeny.