I don't know why (probably because I'm teaching a class on the Book of Job), but I've been thinking a lot about evil and the nature of, well, bad things that happen. Before I go any further I want to say that Job is not a book about evil. It is about the theological implications of suffering and how that relates to God and man. I simply said; it got me thinking about evil. I suppose we could argue that suffering is evil, if we were so inclined, but I don't think that is a very strong position. I was more thinking about the existence of evil and how there are many people who use the tangible reality of evil to claim God does not exist. So I'll do a few things in this short post: First, we should define evil. Then, just to clear it up, I'll demonstrate why I think it is erroneous to lump suffering (general) in with evil. Finally, in a very brief way, I hope to show that the reality of evil does not disprove God rather it acts as evidence for Him.
So, evil: the opposite or absence of good. Physical evil (like natural disasters, illness, etc.) is the result of being "en route" in a fallen world towards perfection in God where the possibility must exist for the less-perfect to be alongside the more-perfect. Moral evil is the free choice to sin, that is the freedom to act against God and thus against perfection. This evil is permitted to allow for and to respect free-will. (Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Why don't I think all suffering should be lumped in with evil? I'll have to break suffering down. The first reason is that when people speak of suffering (when rendering it evil) are talking about physical suffering. Here I mean physical as opposed to spiritual, not as opposed to mental; many mental sufferings have a physical cause and are treatable through physical means. Some not all of our physical sufferings aren't even sufferings at all because we intend them; like soreness after exercise or the pain from vaccinations, etc. Self-inflicted suffering for a good cannot be evil. Then there is the other self-inflicted suffering; the unintentional. This is the suffering that we bring on ourselves though mis-calculation (like, say, a sports injury). I certainly could not maintain with any theological certainty that because I hit myself with my surfboard trying to do a trick I never should have tried that God does not exist, or that what happened is evil. Then there is the self-inflicted suffering that that is unintentional but is a result of abuse of freedom, like the suffering that comes from drug abuse. Of course, there is always the unintentional, not self-inflicted suffering. This type is easier to regard as evil, given the definition above.
Unintentional suffering that is not self inflicted is the closest variation that we can really call evil. The famous atheist of the early 20th century Bertrand Russell once commented that a telling a child who is dying in a hospital bed that God loves him and he is going to heaven is not really any consolation at all. True. But what can an atheist like Russell say to that same child, "Sucks to be you"? If evil is the absence of good several implications are made. The most important being that when something is declared evil it implies that there is some objective, universal thing we call "good" that it is being measured against. For Christians, and most other theists, this objective and universal good we would call God, or at the very least an attribute of God. Essentially, for evil to exist it's opposite must exist, and that is God. This is because evil in-and-of itself is nothing, it is only the absence of good. Think darkness. Darkness is nothing. Darkness is only the absence of light. Darkness can only exist where light is not. They are not equals. Light always conquers dark. So, one more time, evil is nothing, it is the absence of good. Evil can only exist where good is not.
The other implication is the problem. If there is a universal, objective good that we measure evil against, then we must concede that there are absolute truths. If something is good it is always good. Evil is always evil. If not, we have nothing. If there is no objective, unchanging good then all this talk about good and evil is pointless. If good and evil are constructs of my own mind then they are just as meaningless as any other construct of my mind and only bear any weight so far as I can force others to follow them. If you and I are allowed to differ greatly on what we consider good and evil then the idea and the term are arbitrary. If they are arbitrary, they are nothing. I hope you catch where this must logically follow.
If there is no objective good then there is no objective evil. On the surface this may not sound bad. What it really means is that all of life boils down to different strokes for different folks. Again, not so bad, until my strokes and your strokes are in disagreement. Then it comes down to contest of strength: might makes right. Hitler wasn't really evil, he just had a different idea of good than we do and he had the power to institute his view of life, but we can't say that he is evil, that would be forcing our morals on him, and that's not right. But wait, the idea that it's not right to force your moral view on others is statement of objectivity. So if I think it's right to force a morality and you think it's wrong, you can't tell me I'm wrong, that would be asserting an objective morality. In the end, we have to either admit that absolutes and objective good exists and evil is the absence or opposite of that good, or we must jettison the whole idea of good and evil and start our new life in the Thunderdome.
Either God exists, or evil does not.
Another great, well-thought-out post.
ReplyDeleteNice work, Jason. I've been enjoying your blog.
I have my own views on morality. Briefly, mine boil down to what is actually observable. Even the pious disagree on finer points of morality. I think that if there was an absolute morality distributed by god to man, then those devoted completely to prayer and following god's will would agree on every minute detail of what constitutes good and what constitutes sin. Obviously that isn't the reality we observe.
The Earth is The Thunderdome. :(
BlaryPhoto's response still falls into the trap of relativism, that "there are no objective, absolute truths." But, that is an absolute, and objective in itself, which is a contradiction. And, anything that is a contradiction is false. So, it is an untenable position. Moreover, there are objective moral principles that all the Saints and holy people of God have agreed upon albeit our subjective response to these intelligible entities (principles) differ, (some people do not like them, or want to water them down, or make them situational), but that is a problem of the will not the intellect, which are...and here they are: The ten commandments! We can know objective and universal principles, such as its wrong to torture an innocent child, through the transcendence of the intellect. Transcendence obtains, when the object gets credit for our knowing or proper affective response, or in other words when the object, in this case the intelligible essence of the moral principle, it’s a moral evil to torture an innocent child, is the cause of my knowing that it is evil. Notice that this principle is beyond the mind, outside of it, existing eternally, like numbers, which is mind independent and not emanating from my own consciousness or historical-cultural matrix, it transcends all of these. Some people or cultures may think that torturing an innocent child is a good thing, but it can be shown that this thinking is not coming from the object itself (the moral principle), but from some other immanent (self- motivating or self-interested sphere; or cultural or social distortion of morality). We can, and very often do transcend our own selfish motivations, societal and cultural propaganda, and have an insight into Truth, as it is in the thing itself, and coming from itself, as given to us, from on high.
ReplyDeleteThat first comment of yours doesn't make sense. Holding the view that morality is subjective automatically invalidates that view because it's an absolute position on morality?
ReplyDeleteSilly.
I think what GM is saying is, for instance, to call his comment "silly" is either a statement of fact or nothing other than subjective opinion. If it is fact, then you tacitly recognize that there are some things that are objective truths and deviations from those truths are then labeled "silly". However, if "silly" is only a subjective opinion, because truth is relative and each person is allowed to define it as they desire, then to label an idea "silly" carries no more weight than I were to enter into an argument over which of us had a "better" favorite color.
ReplyDeleteTo say that an argument is silly, is to say that they find no taste in it, but it doesn't refute or show how the argument is not true. How is it silly, exactly, that if one says, "there is no absolute truth, is in itself an absolute truth statement, and therefore a contradiction and false? Its like saying I find rocky-road icecream to be yucky, but not proving that rocky-road icecream does not exist. Another contradiction with saying morality is subjective is that it does not give us the essence of what a morality is, nor the understanding of why, if one thinks that robbery, rape or human sacrifice is something good, that it is not good. I also find this idea or position, hypocritical, because the subjectivist always has their own list of oughts or moral absolutes, like saving the whales, prohibition of child molestation, homosexual rights, etc., etc., but if morality is subjective, then the subjectivist is in a bind; they cannot claim that something is morally universal and absolute like its wrong to molest kids on the one hand, and remain a subjectivist on issues that they want to say are not objective.
ReplyDeletePlease allow my to clarify my position of moral realism. What would really impress me is if a moral subjectivist or moral relativist would actually carry their logic to its terminus point of anything goes...anything such as
ReplyDelete1. rape
2. murder
3. their spouse cheating on them
4. their boyfiend/girlfriend lying to them
5. an arsonist burining down their home
6. torture
7. torture of little animals
8. female genital mutilation
9. honor killings
10. people killed in Asia for converting to another religion
11. oppression of women
12. stonings
13. stoning or hangings for being gay (Iran)
14. beating women
15. confiscation of property
16. Incest
17. cheating a worker out of their wages
To be a consistent subjectivist or relativist, they must say, if they think that human beings create their own morality, that these things are not wrong, even if committed on them.
Good luck finding a consistent relativist. I don't think anybody has lost sight of the truth so much as to hold that position.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post and comments.