That's Just Not Right
I am as guilty as anyone of getting caught in the "evil" trap. Let me explain.
In nature, there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, evil or not. There just is what there is.
Yes, good and bad, right and wrong, and even evil are entirely creations of man. They are what is acceptable and unacceptable to individuals or associated groups of individuals. And, they vary widely among people and peoples.
Should a tornado strike a school and kill students, we would not describe the event as evil. We do not question whether nature was right or wrong in so doing. Indeed, the tornado was just doing what it had to do. It was, as some would ascribe, "an act of God".
Should a tiger enter a school and kill students, we would not describe the event as evil. We would not question whether the tiger was right or wrong in so doing. Indeed, the tiger was only doing what it had to do.
However, when an individual enters a school and kills students, we would describe the event as bad, even as evil. We would not question whether the individual was right or wrong in so doing, even if the individual were subsequently adjudged to be "just doing what they had to do". In might be, as some would ascribe, proof that "God acts in mysterious ways", but never that God was either right or wrong.
It seems that good and bad, right and wrong, evil or not are uniquely humanoid.
So, how is it that they come to exist?
Well, in the Western Word, it all got started with the problem Moses encountered when he delivered the Jews from Egypt. On the way home, he realized that his band of travelers were without an established system of governance. This, of course, he corrected by going upon Mt. Sinai and bringing back the Ten Commandments that have served to this very day as the basis for establishing good and bad, right and wrong, evil or not.
These codes for living and been interpreted and reinterpreted in many ways over the years. Today, we have both theological and secular versions, often overlapping one another. So it is today in the United States that we have religions, societies, businesses and governments all seeking our attention in these matters. The Baptist tell us "Thou shalt not drink for it is evil." The Anheiser-Busch Company says, "Drink responsibly." MADD says, "Don't drink and drive." South Carolina says "Drink while you drive if you want." The citizens of New Orleans say "Drink all you want and drink in public if you want." The US Government says, "It's OK to drink but only if taxes have been paid on what you drink." Yadkin County, NC says, "You can drink wine made here and but you cannot buy the wine made here that you drink here."
So it is outside a theocracy like Iran (where drinking will get you lashed, fined, jailed or even beheaded), "That's Just Not Right" can be rationalized to meet the wants and perhaps even needs of an individual or group of individuals within a society.
Assimilation, as we saw in the case of the constitutional ban on drinking in the United States, is much more difficult.
When an individual or group of individuals killed Eve Carson, most in our society were quick to say "That's just not right". Should that individual or group of individuals be caught, found guilty and executed by lethal injection, only a few in our society would say "That's just not right." And, finally, had that same individual or group of individuals killed an Iraqi combatant while wearing a military uniform , even fewer would say "That's just not right."
In all three cases the technical term for what happened is homicide and the result is death. The only difference is the motivation for killing, and, in the end, our assessment of each killing as good and bad, right and wrong, evil or not.
In nature, there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, evil or not. There just is what there is.
Yes, good and bad, right and wrong, and even evil are entirely creations of man. They are what is acceptable and unacceptable to individuals or associated groups of individuals. And, they vary widely among people and peoples.
Should a tornado strike a school and kill students, we would not describe the event as evil. We do not question whether nature was right or wrong in so doing. Indeed, the tornado was just doing what it had to do. It was, as some would ascribe, "an act of God".
Should a tiger enter a school and kill students, we would not describe the event as evil. We would not question whether the tiger was right or wrong in so doing. Indeed, the tiger was only doing what it had to do.
However, when an individual enters a school and kills students, we would describe the event as bad, even as evil. We would not question whether the individual was right or wrong in so doing, even if the individual were subsequently adjudged to be "just doing what they had to do". In might be, as some would ascribe, proof that "God acts in mysterious ways", but never that God was either right or wrong.
It seems that good and bad, right and wrong, evil or not are uniquely humanoid.
So, how is it that they come to exist?
Well, in the Western Word, it all got started with the problem Moses encountered when he delivered the Jews from Egypt. On the way home, he realized that his band of travelers were without an established system of governance. This, of course, he corrected by going upon Mt. Sinai and bringing back the Ten Commandments that have served to this very day as the basis for establishing good and bad, right and wrong, evil or not.
These codes for living and been interpreted and reinterpreted in many ways over the years. Today, we have both theological and secular versions, often overlapping one another. So it is today in the United States that we have religions, societies, businesses and governments all seeking our attention in these matters. The Baptist tell us "Thou shalt not drink for it is evil." The Anheiser-Busch Company says, "Drink responsibly." MADD says, "Don't drink and drive." South Carolina says "Drink while you drive if you want." The citizens of New Orleans say "Drink all you want and drink in public if you want." The US Government says, "It's OK to drink but only if taxes have been paid on what you drink." Yadkin County, NC says, "You can drink wine made here and but you cannot buy the wine made here that you drink here."
So it is outside a theocracy like Iran (where drinking will get you lashed, fined, jailed or even beheaded), "That's Just Not Right" can be rationalized to meet the wants and perhaps even needs of an individual or group of individuals within a society.
Assimilation, as we saw in the case of the constitutional ban on drinking in the United States, is much more difficult.
When an individual or group of individuals killed Eve Carson, most in our society were quick to say "That's just not right". Should that individual or group of individuals be caught, found guilty and executed by lethal injection, only a few in our society would say "That's just not right." And, finally, had that same individual or group of individuals killed an Iraqi combatant while wearing a military uniform , even fewer would say "That's just not right."
In all three cases the technical term for what happened is homicide and the result is death. The only difference is the motivation for killing, and, in the end, our assessment of each killing as good and bad, right and wrong, evil or not.
Comments
Post a Comment