Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Evil is a dirty word.
When you call something evil, you are making a conscious decision not to engage with it. There is no point negotiating with evil; there's no point in talking with it or attempting to uncover some motive behind it. In the absence of good, there is no hope of common ground, no chance of understanding. Evil is beyond our powers of comprehension, so why even try?
When you call a person evil, you absolve yourself of your past and future obligation to relate to that person. When you call a belief system evil, you transfer that charge to its adherents. You decide to shut down conversation and withhold relationship. You appoint yourself judge of the spiritual and moral value of an entire group of people, people you've never met, and you simultaneously destroy your chances of ever meeting them in trust.
And what exactly do you gain? Moral satisfaction? What do you achieve? More important, what are you hoping to achieve? When you broadcast your belief in the evil nature of a group of people, what are you asking your listeners or readers to do? What are you expecting them to do? Do you want them to be angry alongside you? Do you want them to act somehow to stop the evil? What good do you expect your action to accomplish?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Without context this is difficult to understand, but it is safe to say that, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Evil should never be applied to a person. People are good, made in the image and likeness of God. However, evil can be applied to belief systems (Communism, Aztec child sacrifice) and not to every adherent. Evil can also be applied to actions (drunkenness, murder) without being applied to the perpetrator.
Perhaps I am misreading you, but this whole post seems to be a slam against individuals who use the word evil. By your own definition, isn't your post "shutting down conversation and withholding relationship"? Isn't this post "appointing yourself judge"?
Sorry. Originally posted under the wrong account.
This is going to be long. I should have included some context, yes. A slew of acquaintances, pundits, and journalists have been using "evil" a lot since the Boston bombing, applying it to the bombers, Islam, and Muslims overall. I don't like that.
Evil cannot be remedied; it's outside the scope of human understanding or reach; it is irredeemable because it is devoid of goodness. I think this term is often misapplied.
I disagree that an action or an ideology can be called evil. Evil requires consciousness, a recognition of wrongness and rightness. Part of what makes evil evil is its intention to do wrong. An action in itself is not conscious. The action of pulling a trigger cannot be objectively good or bad; an action, as a thing in itself, is unconscious, it has no mind to know right from wrong anymore than a door does. It is the mind controlling the action that is either doing right or doing wrong. The intent is critical and cannot be segregated from the result. So I do not agree that an action can be considered evil, nor do I think that the rightness or wrongness of an action can be separated from the actor.
I also don't agree that ideologies can be evil. I haven't ever come across one that wasn't rooted in a single drop of good intent, however wrongheaded that intent might be. Again, an ideology, like an action, is unconscious and as a thing in itself cannot therefore be called right or wrong in a moral sense; its rightness or wrongness is inextricably linked to the intent and spirit of its creators. Communism was developed out of a desire to ensure a greater good -- modern communism rose as a reaction to the poverty and oppression suffered by the lower classes. So even if it were a conscious thing it could not be classified as evil, because evil denotes the absence of good.
I also don't think my post sits in judgment or shuts down conversation. The questions I'm asking are ones I genuinely want answers to. If you publicly call a person, ideology or action evil, what do you hope to accomplish in doing so? In the case of my acquaintances making such statements in public forums, I'm particularly curious. Many of these folks identify as conservative Christians who espouse the view that God's desire for them is that they reach the world for Christ. Because of this, I really do want to know what such individuals hope to achieve in loudly proclaiming people and ideologies "evil." Would they want Muslims to see these proclamations? If so, their use of the word likely has ruined all chances to speak to that group in trust. I don't hold Christian conversion as a goal, but many of the folks crying "evil" claim to. So how does this blanket condemnation help their chances of reaching that goal?
If they are just crying "evil" for the benefit of other likeminded individuals, to what end? Do they want more people to feel angry against that evil? Why? Do they recommend their friends and family take action against it? What action?
There are about 5 deep conversations in that response. I'll try to stick to your question.
Publicly calling an action or ideology evil is presumably intended to help people choose to avoid it. It is a simple response to a complicated situation but it is a sign of love to warn people away from choices that are bad.
I'll add more as I free up brain cells. Might be a while.
Post a Comment