Something Evil Comes This Way

[Mistyfogg]

SOMETHING EVIL COMES THIS WAY

It is too simple to blame evil people for horrifying acts of terror, says
psychologist and science historian MICHAEL SHERMER

By MICHAEL SHERMER
Saturday, March 13, 2004 - Page A21

I once had the opportunity to ask Thomas Keneally, author of Schindler's List,
what he thought was the difference between Oskar Schindler, rescuer of Jews
and hero of his story, and Amon Goeth, the Nazi commandant of the Plaszow
concentration camp. His answer was revealing. Not much, he said. Had there been no
war, Mr. Schindler and Mr. Goeth might have been drinking buddies and
business partners, morally obtuse, perhaps, but relatively harmless. What a
difference a war makes, especially to the moral choices that lead to good and evil.

Ever since 9/11, the discussion of good and evil has migrated out of the
departments of philosophy and theology and into our social and political
discourse. U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
generously sprinkle their public orations with the terms, describing Osama bin Laden
and Saddam Hussein as the embodiment of pure evil.

Thursday's bombings in Madrid added another layer. Mr. Bush called them "a
grim reminder that there are evil people in the world who are willing to kill
innocent life."

I understand the political rhetoric, but when millions of people around the
world celebrate 9/11 as a triumphant victory over what they perceive to be an
evil America, or when others see the horror inflicted in Spain as a means to
their goals, we need to move beyond politics to arrive at a deeper understanding
of good and evil.

The myth of good and evil is grounded in Christian theology and the belief
that such forces exist independently of their carriers, either directing the
course of history toward benevolent or nefarious ends, or within individuals
driving them to perform good acts or evil deeds. As adjectival modifiers, good and
evil well describe many acts and people. But as nouns, they imply autonomous
existence, as in forces-of-evil.

In a scientific worldview, however, there is no such thing as good and evil
as supernatural forces operating outside the realm of the known laws of nature
and of human behaviour.

Good and evil are human constructs. A shift between two tectonic plates that
causes the earth to make a sudden movement is not inherently evil. It is the
effects of the earthquake that we judge to be evil. Likewise, bacterial
diseases are not intrinsically evil. By causing humans to sneeze, cough, vomit, and
have diarrhea, bacteria are simply doing what evolution designed them to do to
survive and propagate. As their human hosts, we may label the effects of a
disease as evil, but the disease itself has no moral existence.

Humans, however, do have a moral existence. We evolved to be moral animals,
but by no means always moral. Individuals in our evolutionary ancestral
environment needed to be both co-operative and competitive, for example, depending on
the context. Co-operation leads to more successful hunts, food sharing, and
group protection from predators and enemies. Competition leads to more
resources for oneself and family, and protection from other competitive individuals
who are less inclined to co-operate, especially those from other groups.

Social psychologists have well demonstrated how moral behaviour is tractable,
and that there is a range of potential for the expression of moral or immoral
behaviour. Which direction any one of us takes in any given situation depends
on a complex array of variables. A number of historical contingencies drove
Oskar Schindler to travel down a morally different path from Amon Goeth, even
though he could just as easily have gone the other way. From there, the
cascading consequences of each decision took each of them down their alternately
chosen tracks; the moral road not taken makes all the difference.

An obfuscating aspect of the myth of good and evil is an asymmetry that
exists in our moral observations about human nature. In our assessment of what
people are really like, we have a tendency to focus on evil acts and ignore the
fact that most of the time, most people are gracious, considerate, and
benevolent. For every act of violence or deception that appears on the nightly news,
there are 10,000 acts of kindness that go publicly unnoticed. In fact, violence
and deception make the news precisely because they are out of the ordinary.

The purpose of this exercise in ethical debunking is to shift the focus from
good and evil as metaphysical Platonic essences to quantifiable human
behaviours that can be scientifically studied, causally understood, and ultimately
modified. If pure evil exists, how can we hold people morally culpable? The
deepest problem with the myth of good and evil is that it implies that if only we
could rid the world of the evil, then good would triumph.

As one who would know from his experience with the gulags of the Soviet Union
(surely a den of evil if ever there were one), Alexander Solzhenitsyn
explained why the myth is so perilous: "If only there were evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them
from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts
through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of
his own heart?"

Eliminating the world's Osama bin Ladens, the Saddam Husseins or the
perpetrators of this week's latest carnage will not put an end to evil. But debunking
the myth and taking a more scientific approach to understanding good and evil
will start us down the path of immoral extrication and moral enlightenment.

Would anyone like to comment on this?

 

[Mekkala]

Would anyone like to comment on this?

I think it's right on the money. But then, I'm an atheist, and tend to take a more practical, rather than theological, view of things like this.

 

[transientlife]

I have to agree. I think it brings up a very good point. Some a satisfied as merely painting something or someone good or evil, and chalk it up to the devil or whatever without studying it further. The lack of study will only hurt us more.

 

[Zeddicus]

It raises good points, but it seems to present the fatal flaw that if we simply just work to understand and see the good that lies in those who do evil things and just accept them, they will stop doing those things. I am sorry, but all the understanding that there is some good in all people will do nothing if the person who is doing something morally degenerate as ramming planes into buildings and blowing up bombs on trains full of people is pure lunacy. It might work with a few, but most people that are willing to do this are so polarized in their views that trying to talk it out with them so that they can see the good in you and you the good in them will more likely lead to you an early grave. Sometimes you just have to act and take them out the picture and then talk with those that will talk with you.

This idea that has been presented would not require a perfect world, only a mind suitably open enough to see the good in you as well, however, people like Bin Laden, those in Hamas, and even in many of the ultra-right here in the US are not willing to do this, all they ever tend to see is the bad in those they despise.

 

[Emmy]

I am not running down Michael Shermer`s scientific outpourings,but I like to say that as a follower of the Lord Jesus,evil came into the world with Satan.We are made in God`s image;that means if it was not for Satan,we would be good like our Maker is good.As for that millions of people rejoiced on September 11th,I will not accept this.I believe that there are many Moslems who are compassionate,and will not have condoned what a minority of fanatics have done.Greetings Emmy.

 

[Validus]

evil came into the world with Satan.We are made in God`s image;that means if it was not for Satan,we would be good like our Maker is good.

...but we wouldn't be human. The thing you call "evil" is just a buzz-word to easily explain the very human traits of envy, pride, selfishness - all consequences of our survival instincts - mixed with a tidbit of unintelligence and failure to fully grasp the consequences of our actions.

From a Christian perspective, the way evil came to us by the way of The Fall Of Man, makes sense. But after that? Once we bacame these "imperfect" humans all those thousands of years ago, Satan is out of the picture, and thus Shermer's excellent arguments should still make sense, even to most Christians.

 

[Mekkala]

It raises good points, but it seems to present the fatal flaw that if we simply just work to understand and see the good that lies in those who do evil things and just accept them, they will stop doing those things. I am sorry, but all the understanding that there is some good in all people will do nothing if the person who is doing something morally degenerate as ramming planes into buildings and blowing up bombs on trains full of people is pure lunacy. It might work with a few, but most people that are willing to do this are so polarized in their views that trying to talk it out with them so that they can see the good in you and you the good in them will more likely lead to you an early grave. Sometimes you just have to act and take them out the picture and then talk with those that will talk with you.

This idea that has been presented would not require a perfect world, only a mind suitably open enough to see the good in you as well, however, people like Bin Laden, those in Hamas, and even in many of the ultra-right here in the US are not willing to do this, all they ever tend to see is the bad in those they despise.

Um, I don't think he was proposing that if we understand people, they'll be good people. He was pointing out that "evil" is not a definable force, and that you cannot call a person good or evil, because most human beings are capable of both greatest good and blackest evil, given the right circumstances. The solution to the problem is to understand the causes, not to simply remove all the "evil" people and assume everyone else will then be "good".