Posted on 01/01/2007 9:10:09 AM PST by ventanax5
I have long been preoccupied by the problem of evil. Not being a philosopher, I have no satisfactory explanation of evil to offer, nor even, indeed, a satisfactory definition of it. For me, evil is rather like poetry was for Doctor Johnson: easier to say what it isn’t than what it is. All I know for certain is that there’s a lot of it about - evil, I mean, not poetry.
Why? Is the heart of man irredeemably evil, or at any rate inclined to evil? What are the conditions in which evil may flourish?
My medical practice, admittedly of a peculiar kind, in a slum and in a prison, convinced me of the prevalence of evil. I was surprised. I had spent a number of years in countries wracked by civil wars and thereby deprived of even minimal social order, precisely the conditions in which one might expect evil to be widely committed, if only because in such situations the worst come to the fore. But nothing prepared me for the sheer malignity, the joy in doing wrong, of so many of my compatriots, when finally I returned home. Every day in my office I would hear of men who tortured women - torture is not too strong a word - or commit the basest acts of intimidation, oppression and violence, with every appearance of satisfaction and enjoyment. I would once have taken the opening sentence of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments for a truism:
(Excerpt) Read more at newenglishreview.org ...
But in reality countries that are or were led by atheist regimes like North Korea, the Soviet Union, or China have all been afflicted with evil.
The believer knows there is such a thing as a greater good. But the non-believer thinks it is all subjective and therefore impossible to assign absolute moral value to actions.
Upon what standard would a 'non-believer' base a standard of 'right'? This is the secular humanist dilemma--if you will allow that distinction--since the basis can be changed according to whom holds the reigns of power to direct public attention.
Thanks. Great site.
Did I miss some thing...Are you saying that failure to believe is a sin ( qed evil) So the notion of the moral non-believer is an oxymoron?
Sorry if I'm being a bit dense here...( Got a bit overly festive last night.)
If you talk about Hate... you are getting close!
We would disagree then, Dan. The Theist-Atheist Split is merely a dichotomy. Nations of believers can be as vicious and depraved as nations of non-believers. 1933 Germany was one of the most fervently religous nations in Europe. Croatia was one of the most fervently Catholic nations in Europe and unimaginably vicious via the Ustasha. They claimed the imprimatur of God as an instrument. The capacity for evil is not tied to ones capacity to believe of disbelieve.
The examples of staggeringly vicious believers and non-believers throughout history points out the disconnect.The only difference is the religious sociopath claims God as his justification while the non-believer claims " historical inevitablity" or " justice" as his rational for slaughter.
Great article. Thanks for posting. Thanks to all contributors.
Words and deeds bump! Criminal behavior is caused by criminal thinking. Identify the INDIVIDUAL criminals. Incarcerate or kill them, depending on their crimes against INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS. We the living can, have, and will continue to do it in the future. It is what allows us to live in peace and freedom.
Life/Optimism BUMP!
Plotinus has one section of his basic writings on Evil. He was highly religious yet pre-Christian. You might say his Platonism would be Pagan, and it was, but he was very thorough and can hardly be beat even by Aquinas.
How very true.
I think it depends on how you define the word. To me, evil is the act of diminishing life. Life is free will. Take away a man's freedom or his life and you are doing an evil thing.
But many living things depend on killing to survive. And we need to incarcerate criminals. So we have the concept of a "necessary evil". We kill a chicken so we have food but tell a child it is wrong to kill a chicken for fun.
The principle is that we do things that serve the greater good. The life of a chicken is less than that of humans. And the freedom of a criminal is less important than the lives of his many victims.
Moral relativists don't do calculations like this. They will say that Saddam did things things that were good looking at it from his perspective. But if you tally up the sum total of human misery and subtract it from whatever enjoyment was derived from the pleasure of Saddam and his minions, you come up with a big negative.
I see no dilemma in it at all...The commonly accepted standard of moral right action is threefold...1. The Law ( baseline) and 2. Conscience ( the internal standard) and The Ideal ( The moral aspiration).
I admire anyone who comes to moral right action by either method. Both however are equally subject to moral affirmation or hypocrisy.
It's been said that no man does evil in his own eyes. All interest is self-interest. The difference is in how we choose to see our 'self'.
Once again, your range of info astounds my humbled mind.
Sorry, but all three are based in the might of the declarer, if you look carefully.
The fact that islam rules 1/5 of the planet proves to me that there is no supreme being and that humans are fundamentally primitive, hopeless beings. Until islam withers, I'll feel the same way. Communism in the USSR in my younger days made me feel the same. We'll see if both evils can be reduced.
Use any engine to search 'argument from evil' to see how widely discussed this question is and how nobody can find an answer other than to use the existence of 'random' evil as proof that there is no involved God.
Thanks for the heads up on Plotinus...terrific stuff. I can see where you made the Plotinus- Aquinas connection. Plotinus thinks with all the rigor of full bore Jesuit minus the Jesus.
Maybe, but the regime was not religious at all. They would pretend to be but Hitler destroyed and subjegated Jews and Protestants. Only the Pope compromised with Hitler for the survival of the Church.
Tens of millions of people were exterminated by regimes commanded by atheists. I don't know of any Christian leader who has killed that many.
The only difference is the religious sociopath claims God as his justification while the non-believer claims "historical inevitablity" or "justice" as his rational for slaughter.
Some religions become corrupt and commit evil. Today Islam is like that and the Catholic Church once was.
But Christians do have a common moral compass even if it can be attracted to evil at times. Without a belief in a greater good, your moral compass tends to point towards yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.