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.
In the Face of Evil
The word “evil” has become trivialized, particularly in this election season. Just like the words racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, it is casually thrown around like a ragdoll: who gets to play with it next? When people don’t like other people, or dislike their positions or the way they comb their hair, they just call them evil. Who can argue with evil?
I was going to write on this topic later, but then Doug Watt posted on the horrific practice in China of stealing organs. And the question slapped me in the face: how do we act in the face of true evil? What about other evils, such as abortion and murder? How do we take back the word “evil” so that we demonstrate its power and resilience? Do we even recognize what evil is anymore? Is there anything we can do about the commission of evil in this country or elsewhere in the world? Or must we resign ourselves to wringing our hands, condemning the careless use of the word, and praying for clarity and a strategy for action?
What do you think?
Published in Religion & Philosophy
No. I’m saying it naturally arises, that it isn’t like a “thing.”
I’m only saying we need to identify it first; action, then, is essential.
Not clear on this comment, Jim. Do you mean they’re not even trying moral relativism anymore?
Could you tell us a little about it? I know of CS Lewis but haven’t read him.
Really? By devout Jews? Haven’t heard that, Henry.
https://www.ou.org/torah/nach/nach-yomi/job_-_introduction/
Wow. I’ll have to look into this further. Thanks!
Writ small, this is the story line of Huckleberry Finn as well.
Now you have undone me. I could not possibly do Lewis justice. This particular book, That Hideous Strength, was written around 1945 and (of course) is set in England. I think it would be remarkably easy to revise it to be set in this country today. Two threads intertwine throughout this allegorical novel: The battle between good and evil on a personal level, and on a state level. On a personal level, it follows a newly married couple and on a state level a national institution (N.I.C.E.) scheming to take over complete control of all elements of society and life, ostensibly to save humanity from itself but in fact to serve itself. The state depicted has brought many comparisons to Orwell’s 1984 but I think I’d rather live in 1984 than in the world of N.I.C.E. There is another big difference, but if I told you that I’d be giving away the ending.
I think evil has fallen prey to the same trivializing that has happened to “love”. The only institutions left are all the ism’s that people use to separate and label one and other. It’s the sad decay of a society where there are no longer ny absolutes.
Am I the only one who has a real problem with children stating that they are “corrupt in every part of their being”?
Sounds like another book to add to my list! Thanks, Chuckles!
Which kids? Why would they be saying such a terrible thing? That’s awful!
Pretty obvious that they were taught to recite that, and they probably have no idea what it means. (I certainly have no idea what it means.) But I agree with you, and it goes to show that you have to be careful to whom you entrust the power of teaching religious faith – it can be badly abused.
Years ago I went to an exhibit called “The Body”, basically it took human bodies and rubberized them through a process. The remains were then dissected and laid out for the world to see. The Chinese had provided cadavers though who they were in life was not specified. When I first viewed these people I became physically sick, I knew I was seeing a form of evil.
I remember hearing about that, John. It was ghastly and evil as well.
See Comment Number 57, which is where I got the children’ answer about them being corrupt.
It’s actually standard Protestant doctrine. It’s easy to misunderstand on its own. It’s a reference to the doctrine of original sin. Here’s the Westminster shorter catechism.
Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.
It is pointing out that our fallen nature is in rebellion to God. We do not please him on our own. We are dependent on God’s grace to be saved from our sins.
Of course, as I’ve stated several times (or maybe I said it on the post re Andrew Klavan, this is contrary to Jewish teaching.
Children are easily corruptable but they are corruptable in a different way then adults. I wouldn’t say that people are bad but it they can become bad pretty easily.
Nope. But corruption in this sense does not mean “as evil as imaginable.” It means an inability to know God, to please God and obey God in the way he originally intended us to. A kind of “brokenness.” Think of a computer file being corrupted. The actual intrusion may be very small but it prevents the program from functioning as it should and presents a huge risk to your entire computer. The only real cure is to wipe off your hard drive and install a new program. I have raised five kids and I never recall teaching them to be selfish or to rebel against my authority. That came quite naturally.?
I always found Soren Kierkegaard’s thoughts on evil illuminating: “Since boredom advances and boredom is the root of all evil, no wonder, then, that the world goes backwards, that evil spreads. This can be traced back to the very beginning of the world. The gods were bored; therefore they created human beings.”
As I said, I’m agnostic. I don’t claim to know any answers. I’ll happily concede that what you say is reasonable, but if there is an all-powerful master and creator of the universe I have no basis to believe that such a being is bound by the rules of human reasoning. Our powers of reasoning may derive from God, but they may also be only a tiny sliver of the overall thinking powers of God. As I said, I just don’t know.
Ok, I agree with everything you just said. That’s why I used the word, “reflection.” The moon might not have the
candlepower of the sun (an understatement–I guess the moon originates no luminesence), but it’s “shining”(even much more dimly) is evidence there is a sun. I would like to continue this dialogue (via messaging) if you are game. I really appreciate your honesty and you can push my thinking.
Feel free to message me if you like, but I can’t promise to push your thinking very much. After all, my only claim here is to my own ignorance. At least that’s a claim that is hard to dispute. I have lots of evidence to support it.
The Left never applied moral relativism to its own ideas of morality. It is merely a tool to undermine traditional morality.
It never ceases to amaze me that apparently intelligent Leftists will profess moral relativism while simultaneously expressing outrage over any transgressions of their own moral code.
That is an interesting musing by SK, but as far as I can recall, Kierkegaard was a fairly Orthodox Christian believer and theologian. His main challenge was to “official Christendom” or state-sponsored Christian government which Denmark had at the time (although I am no Kierkegaard expert, by any means). He never doubted that Jesus Christ was “the ultimate authority in matters of personal faith.” (WIki) He stressed dedication to Christ. Most orthodox Christians today would whole-heartedly agree with these positions, though I am sure he wrote things some would have disagreed with either at the time or now. Am I wrong?
But there are leftists who at least intellectually believe in the lack of any metaphysics. They are almost always atheists who believe that humans are naturally “good” and leftism flows naturally from that goodness. It’s kinda Roussean. Once traditional morality is abolished via the general will, genuine humanity will take over.
I don’t know if learning about the human body is evil. I recall a fantastic scene from the movie, The Physician were Ibn Sina discusses what it was like to dissect a human cadaver with another doctor. I paraphrase,
Doctors cut up human cadavers all the time to improve their knowledge. My father who is a veterinarian describes it as more beautiful than terrible. Besides, if it weren’t for donations to medical science what would have happened to Jeremy Bentham?