SECTION FIVE. EVIL

We have touched on notions of the good and evil. The concepts of good and evil are elusive; do they represent real forces in the world or are they products of human intellect? As I indicated already, the answer seems to be both. There really are forces of good and evil in the world, and it is the case that we can perceive them correctly, be mistaken about them or even subjectively conjure up beliefs which turn out to produce good or evil.

We cannot help but acknowledge that the world has enough items in it (diseases, viruses, earthquakes, poisons, and so on) that are intrinsically bad and ugly. The world would be a better place without them. In fact, we have rid ourselves of some of them --smallpox, polio. I could be mistaken and be making a poor judgment about some, perhaps many of them, but, nevertheless, there are too many natural evils left to write off as mistaken beliefs; for me, the world just has some really bad/ugly items in it which we could well do without. The question of moral evil also admits of extreme; there is too much of it. The immediate question is, is free-will worth such a price? Given the amount of suffering caused by wicked deeds, the answer seems to be, no.

On the other side of the coin, the world admits of items which are good and beautiful. These items are not hard to find, but are many times hard to understand. I may simply enjoy looking at a beautiful sunset, but it may be difficult to understand how it is that my neural system is capable of such perception. I may see that a person who has done a moral action is good, but may have difficulty accounting for how that concept of goodness arises. The beautiful and good may be more sublime than I would want to admit.

So, we know that there are good and evil forces in the world.

An important sub-question may be addressed now: why do bad things happen to good people?

A right-off-the-bat answer is that these things occur because the mechanics of the world has brought them about and/or the causes have to do with human free choices. In the former case, the realistic answer can be put in layman's terms of being "just bad luck." The innocent victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the catastrophe was unavoidable. However, I do not mean to say that we are merely passive entities with respect to these natural forces. Many times, we are able to control them or avoid them. Knowledge is a key factor in reducing the natural evils of the world, or at least not coming into contact with them. The person who is imprudent or casual about the operations of the world cannot claim to be an innocent victim of those processes. Playing golf in a lightning storm is certainly a way of attracting the attention of natural forces. On the other hand, some terrible events happen no matter what precautions are taken --just plain old bad luck.

A radical concept to which I adhere is that death itself is a disease, not just inevitable plain old bad luck. Though we are destined to die due to the aging process involved in the genetic make-up of our bodies, it seems to me that this occurrence is not " a necessary fact of life." Our untimely deaths need not be an uncontrollable part of the processes of nature. Death could be eliminated through finding the genetic components which cause aging and finally demise. In which case, persons could live as long as they wished, until they decided that death was in their best interest. At that time, they could choose death as an intrinsic good --something desired for just what it is. At any rate, a world in which death is freely chosen is better than this world in which we have no control over the long term end of our lives.

In the case of moral evil, to borrow simplistic explanations again, "some people are just bad to the bone" and do mean things which we cannot immediately control. Bad people do wrong actions and cause an immense amount of needless suffering in the world. Bad persons intentionally cause harm. It is incumbent upon us to try to remedy the reasons why they do what they do and try to prevent them from initiating their wrong behavior. The problem is how to achieve this end without treating people merely as means.

For the theist, the crux of the matter is, "How can unnecessary suffering occur, and occur with such frequency and intensity and God be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good?" The answer seems to be, "it shouldn't, but it does." Which leaves the theist, interestingly enough, in the same position as contemporary scientists with respect to how the world works. I do not know of a scientist who has a uniform explanation of the workings of the world. There are problems which scientists face which they do not even like to talk about publicly because the problems put too much strain on contemporary explanation, if there is even an explanation. Black holes, quasars, top quarks, the second law of thermodynamics, fractals, weak and strong nuclear forces: all cannot be put together into a unified whole. Some events of the world just don't make sense. Scientists take it as a matter of faith that the world has an underlying discoverable order which is systematically consistent.

The theist is in a very similar position. The problem of evil is a problem for which no entirely satisfactory explanatory theistic thesis has been found. There are mysteries to be explained in both science and religion, but the best that can be done is to put one's faith in the most believable set of explanations, which is what any good scientist or religious person does.

On pragmatic grounds dealing with the frustrations of giving truly sufficient explanations, theism may offer an explanation which suffices emotionally why there is evil or needless suffering in the world. Put another way, if a belief in God relieves the torment of enduring unanswered suffering, then the belief is worthwhile. But, of course, the belief is pragmatically justifiable only as long as it relieves the torment.

This point of pragmatism raises an interesting question concerning what constitutes God's communication with man. Many persons think that the Bible is the Word of God. Well, it very possibly could be. But, other texts could also be the word of God. In fact, God could communicate to persons in a great many ways besides the Bible. What is so problematic is that the Bible does not lend itself to rational scrutiny. Perhaps, it was not meant to, inasmuch as it is a collection of stories and histories taken by persons who may not have been good scribes. Worse, there seems to be so many different interpretations and wars fought over those interpretations that it is hard to believe that God would have left messages which could lead to such turmoil.

The gist of the matter is for us to do our best in trying to figure out what is right and do those actions. This means that if we have to interpret what God's intentions are for us, we must do so from a rational perspective. If God has made us as rational persons, and if morality is fundamentally a rational enterprise, then God, I think, would want us to behave according to the dictates of reason. We should apply rational scrutiny to any message which is purported to be the word of God. Surely, He would not wish us to do otherwise and cause needless suffering because our actions were based on bad reasoning.

I do not mean to eliminate the emotional aspect from deliberation over moral questions. Emotions are important in any deliberation, for they are usually the first indication that we are doing something wrong. We should never feel badly or guilty for doing a right action. Should we feel guilt or uneasiness about an action, there is powerful evidence emotionally that the action is wrong. We should go on to examine why we feel this way about the action in question to reveal the reasons behind the wrongness of the action. Doing so will enable the emotions and reason to work in harmony to determine right action.

There may be some instances in which reason may demand an action of us which we may not be able to perform emotionally. Reason may demand of us to perform or have performed euthanasia on a loved one; the right action may be to relieve the agony of the sick person, given that the person has requested euthanasia and the best reasons support that action. However, as rational as we may be, the performance or affirmation of euthanasia may be beyond us emotionally. In cases such as these --and there are many-- we have an emotional tragedy. One should not feel guilty of doing a right action, but the action called for may cause such stress in the person that the action provokes guilt feelings. The only remedy for such situations is for good friends to help and a lot of time to heal the sorrow.

Take me to the Next Part

Take me to the Table of Contents

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page