It must be my month to have a written discourse of sorts with my friend, Tor Constantino.   He wrote earlier this month about our inability to reconcile with the evil in this world.  Why would a Supreme Being (SB) allow Evil in the world?   I will attempt to answer, while refraining from the theological argument (since I recently tried that, too); however,  I should at least explain my starting point(s).

I was taught (and I believe) that the SB created the world in 6 days. (And, to stop you short, nowhere does it state how long any given day actually was. If this great orb was stationary, it would take a very, very long time for that first revolution to have been completed.)  The rest of the world’s activities needs to be perfected by us- that’s our job here on Earth.

The concept of good, evil, murder, love- all of them are our constructs.  After all, Chava (Life or in the King James’ version- Eve) and Adam only ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (they failed to eat from the Tree of Life)- which means they learned good and evil.  It did not restrict them from being evil.  Doubt that?  Explain Kayin (Cain).

Now…

Evil is a moral problem.  Amoral entities do not consider anything either evil or good.  Being both moral and (extremely) liberal, I understand the need for tolerance- but the toleration of Evil is, in and of itself, evil. Therein, lies the conundrum.

And, the second one attempts to discern a motive for Evil- well, then, one is either dissembling or being political.  One of my largest complaints with folks who claim to be liberal is their statement that folks can steal because they have no [food, money, clothing, etc.]. And, to consider a suicide bomber (murderer) justified is just not conceivable, in my lexicon.

And, nowadays, in this time of hyperbole, where each side (or perhaps all sides) tends to envelop the other as pure Evil, it makes discourse seem absolutely pointless.  Because one feels self-righteous in its proclamations, while the other side is Evil; as such, there is no point in attempting to reach any middle ground.  Whether that is US Congressmen, Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Greece, China/Taiwan, etc.- the bases are similar.

But, it also creates other problems.  Bush and Cheney were positive that G0d was on their side; as such,  torturing the other side was justified.  After all, didn’t these other folks just personify Evil (or, perhaps, the AntiChrist?).  And, if one recalls the problems with the Essenes (and the Dead Sea Scroll Sect)- who were so positive they were correct, the only place they could live was out in the desert, away from the population they hoped to influence.   And, their kind disappeared from the face of the earth, apart and alone.

Was Roosevelt evil because he deliberately and repeatedly refused to bomb the supply lines to Auschwitz?  He knew millions of Jews were being killed.  He knew bombing would slow – if not stop- that process.  But, he also knew (or thought he did) that by NOT diverting the energy of the air campaign from destroying the war machine that Hitler had amassed, the war would end sooner- and with it, the continued eradication of Jews from Europe, among other benefits.

Going back to Bush/Cheney, fighting Evil with Evil is not only wrong, it puts the side (i.e., the entire society) willing to perpetrate evil to counteract Evil at risk.  It leads to Abu Ghraib.  It leads to MyLai.  We must fight Evil with good- or at least non-evil-processes.

The Students for a Democratic Society had a problem in the 1960s and 1970s.  They ‘knew’ the War in Vietnam was evil, they ‘knew’ President Johnson was amoral, but they also ‘knew’ that the Weathermen, the group that emanated from their midst, was also perpetrating Evil.  As such, they did not want them to be among their membership.

Sentient beings (sorry if this offends you- not) knew that segregation was Evil.  Lynching Blacks was Evil.  Preventing Blacks from voting was illegal, but not necessarily Evil.  But, killing the Ku Klux Klan members was not the proper response.  Killing the White Sheriffs that were shooting at us (or fire-hosing us) was not the proper response, either.

We need to learn to differentiate between illegal, wrong, and Evil.   Along that vein, we need to consider issues that we confront more and more often nowadays.  What should we think about targeted assassination- either via human intervention or via drones?  Is that Evil responding to Evil? Or, is that a recognition that stopping people who will stop at nothing requires the imposition of force, an effort that is often repugnant and wrong- in general, is right in this instance?  Isn’t there a difference between having a drone target Qadafi and the beating and close-range shooting that ended his life?

Share this: