In Admiration of the "Wrong" Men

Composed and posted on February 20, 2016

Steve and Fred,

A few years ago, Steve and I agreed as to the application of the Golden Rule as the best guide that governs our personal actions.  From my own personal moral perspective, that Golden Rule still applies.  However, in addition to the Golden Rule, I often find myself reflecting on the admonition to "judge not lest ye be judged". The admonition was given without the qualifier "judge not unless the person you are judging is a really evil man".  Nevertheless, I realize that such sentiments are not the way of this world or this time.  We live in a world where judging is omnipresent and where judging to the extreme appears to be part of the national pastime.  Thus, there are many who are willing to label the recently departed Antonin Scalia as evil without ever knowing the full personality of the man.  And there are some who have already cast their vote on Scalia's potential replacement without even knowing who that potential replacement may be.  That is the way things are in this country at this time.  And the way things are going, I suspect that an eye for eye will continue to dominate the political landscape until everyone becomes blind.

Steve and Fred, I suppose I have admired the "wrong" men. In addition to the words of the carpenter from Nazareth, I also came to admire a certain activist who began his life of activism in South Africa but who became famous for helping to liberate his native India from British oppression.  It was Gandhi who said

I look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won't presume to probe into the faults of others.

And, of course, there was a man whose death made my attendance at Amherst possible.  Martin said

 We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.

And, then there was a certain former "terrorist" in South Africa ... a man once considered to be the embodiment of evil by the powers that be.  He "fortuitously" spent 18 years in prison and was transformed by the experience.  Seeing where he slept and viewing the reconciled nation that he had created gave me hope that one day we could have a reconciled nation of our own.

Steve and Fred, based on these examples, I am certain that I would oppose and reject any evil that might be directed towards me.  However, based on the role models referenced above, I would hope that I would have the courage to be able to forgive those who sought to do me harm and not judge them too harshly for their transgressions.

But then again, I am a human being from a diverse background.  So who knows.

Have a great weekend guys,  It is time for some rest.

Peace,

Everett "Skip" Jenkins

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The subjective acceptance of one evil over another due to the good that may follow approaches convenient  rationalization. There are numerous cliches that fit the equation such as  everything works out for the best or adversity brings out the best in people, etc. However, Fred hit it on the head when he said that a lesson for some is based upon a tragedy for others. Evil can certainly breed strength and resilience but that doesn't make it a fortuitous occurence solely because some become stronger as a result of it.

Steve

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Skip,

You say we "may want to wonder what would this world have been like without the presence of the 'evil man' Hitler" and you then list a series of positive developments from the civil rights movement in America to going to the moon.  You conclude by saying that "Ma Tsu may be right in not rejecting evil since it is from evil that comes so much good."

To move this from the abstract to the concrete, are you really saying you would not reject some terrible evil that someone may want to do to you?  I certainly hope not.  And if you would reject it as to you, why not to someone else (or in the case of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot to millions and millions of others)?

Fred

________________________________________________________________________________________

Steve,

What makes the consideration of good and evil even more complicated is the perception held by so many that good and evil are interconnected.  There are some who believe that these two qualities could not exist without the other.  That is perhaps why Ma Tsu (Mazu Daoyi) advised not to reject evil since evil is the companion to good.  See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

for a brief preliminary discussion of these contrasting/complementary notions.  And even note that the dreaded swastika of the Nazis has its own beloved meaning in other cultures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

One of my favorite movies of all time is "It's A Wonderful Life" wherein George Bailey is shown the meaning of his life by demonstrating what life for others would have looked like in the Pottersville created by his absence.  In that movie, it is conveyed that much grief would have occurred without the presence of the "good man" George Bailey.  Following the converse of "It's A Wonderful Life", those who contemplate the koan of Ma Tsu may want to wonder what would this world have been like without the presence of the "evil man" Hitler. Would the accomplishment of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics be as significant? Would the Greatest Generation have been "great"? Would the Civil Rights Movement have found fertile soil in America without the then recent memories of the Nazi atrocities?  Would the European powers have relinquished their imperial aspirations to allow the peoples of Africa and Asia to seek their own independent courses?  Would men have gone to the moon?

No, as a "civilized people" we cannot condone the acts of Hitler and it is right to condemn him.  But at the same time, from an historical perspective, one often finds that great progress often follows great oppression and even great tragedy.  The story of Exodus, the passion play leading to the Resurrection, Muhammad's return to Mecca, the Mormons journey to Utah are examples of foundational stories of light springing forth from periods of darkness.  Accordingly, Ma Tsu may be right in not rejecting evil since it is from evil that comes so much good.

Peace,

Everett "Skip" Jenkins

__________________________________________________________________________________________

One aspect of the discussion that is often overlooked is the age old "heriditary/environment" conflict which is often debated  when defining an indiviudal. In the context of "evil", I can't help but smile and think of one of my favorite movies, "Trading Places" where Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd exchange  lives between a ghetto resident and a rich stock trader. Who is evil and why  has to do with the circumstances one finds oneself in and their contemporaries. Is evil an inherent trait in a Hitler, or is it developed by experiences or both? And where does redemption fit in?

Perhaps an answer to the issue would be if Donald Trump were to live the next six months in Appalachia and a poor  current resident with no hope of a reasonable life were to be the leading Republican candidate through Super Tuesday, we might get a glimpse of the answer to the question.:-)

Steve

__________________________________________________________________________________________

This has been one of the more interesting “out of the blue” discussions - thank you Skip!

Yesterday I was playing around in my mind whether it is the act or the person that should and can be called evil.  I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist and do not own a copy of the DSM-5, the diagnostic bible.  While there are many/must pathologies codified in DSM-5, including some really terrible personality types that would be demonstrated by acts that we might label as evil, I am not sure there is an “evil personality” diagnosis that goes by that name.

So if evil reelected in a person is a spiritual and not medical issue, then what about the capacity for redemption?

Having gotten that out of the way, what really prompted me to write were the words of the Pope today on abortion and contraception.  There was a distinction made between an “absolute evil” (abortion) and “not an absolute evil” - contraception under extraordinary (?) circumstances.  Yes, the Pope accepts the relativism of evil and circumstance.  Juxtapose this with Trump sniping back at the Pope today and….what a narcissistic bully.

In the “word” of colleague Jenkins,

“Peace”

________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael and Harold,

You are both brilliant!  I feel truly honored to be able to read such posts.  Indeed, you both have persuaded me that, yes, there are evil people in the world and that, yes, Hitler was one of them.  As for Scalia, well, I am not yet persuaded to label him such. Indeed, based on your arguments you have persuaded me that such labels should be used sparingly and reserved for those whose entire life story has been played out and fully examined.  If an evil person is given the opportunity to be redeemed, then who are we to continue to call that person evil?  So until all opportunities to be redeemed cease to exist, perhaps, we should reserve judgment as to who is evil.

Once again, thank you my brothers for being so thoughtful on this issue.  You truly have been a light unto the world.

Peace,

Everett "Skip" Jenkins

Class of 1975

_____________________________________________________________________________



Harold,

An interesting and thoughtful reply.

It forces me to be a bit clearer.

Yes, religion matters.  This is the season of Lent, and one of the readings for daily Mass, I think it was, is the temptation of Christ by the Devil after 40 days of fasting in the desert.  The story exists for a reason: to remind the reader (hearer) that the Devil, the embodiment of Evil, is alive in the world.  Therefore, for those of us who find the story compelling, it is impossible to sasy that we cannot identify evil, or evil men -- or women.

Another "semi-religious" source is the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.  Strikingly, one of the most stunning arguments Screwtape proffers to Wormwood in how to tempt people to do evil, is to persuade them that they -- devils, imps, and demons -- don't exist.

The obvious rejoinder is that evil is often mixed with good.  After all, again, according to religious authority, we are all sinners -- that is we all do evil, or are marked with Original Sin (save for Mary -- Jesus being a special case since he is not just human but also, in a mysterious way, both fully human and Divine, the nature of the union of the two being a subject of much debate in the Early Church).  But, we are called to be perfect, as God is perfect, and so on.  And since we all fail in the endeavor,  God is not only just -- punishing sinners, but also merciful -- forgiving sinners.

But the rejoinder doesn't settle the question whether there are evil men -- or women.  I just don't see how some can cavil so, not being prepared to call the likes of Hitler evil men and be done with it.  That there are hard cases doesn't mean that we have to demur from labelling some folks evil, remembering that we are all sinners.

On the other hand, labelling people evil, willy-nilly, is dangerous.  One is reminded of the rhetoric of racists who come awfully close to labelling entire races as subhuman, or even, more to the point, evil.  But there is Screwtape's trap.  If one is so confused, so concerned about not doing harm that we throw up our hands and say, "who is evil, who can judge," then, I fear, we are on the slippery slope to a kind of moral relativism pursuant to which we might as well say the Devil and his minions don't exist.

So there is, in my view, great danger in going both too far and not far enough.

I grant that we have to take into account the entirely of a person's life, the abiding truth that good and evil are found, in varying degrees, in all of us.  But as unsatisfactory as our moral calculus might be, we have to exercise it the best way we know how, calling upon God, for those of us who believe in God, to guide our steps.  We cannot avoid making judgments about other people, it seems to me, whether or not one believes in God or some Ultimate Moral Authority in the Universe.

We need to be careful, at all times, however, in making judgments.  But, as I noted earlier, there are easy cases.  Hitler is the prime example -- although not the only example -- of an easy case.  Whatever good there was in the man is far outweighed by the evil that he perpetrated.  Of that I entertain no doubt whatsoever.  And then there are the cases that are easy the other way.  In the Catholic Church we call them Saints -- here on earth, relying on proof of miracles and surviving the probing and the arguments of a person designated, appropriately enough, as The Devil's Advocate!  (Miracles are essentially the witness and testimony of Heaven.)

It does no good to suppose, as some do, that Obama as committed evil acts -- think drone attacks, for example -- and therefore we have to ask whether he is an evil man.  Of course we have to ask.  But I think a fair application of moral calculus in a way consistent with religious teaching leads to the answer that he is not.  An evil man -- or woman -- is a human being who have gone so far to the dark side as to call into serious question whether that person is anything other, in sum, an evil person.

One final observation.  I am well aware of the line in Scripture to the effect that judge not lest ye be judged.  Welll, we make judgments all of the time about all kinds of things.  We cannot live without making judgments about the moral character of people -- or at least some of the people -- we encounter of know about.  And we will be judged for our judgments.  That is enough of an incentive to be careful in making judgments, but does not justify not making any judgments at all.

If, and now I'm at the end of my post, if we can't make a judgment about the likes of Hitler, the Lord save us all!  And this is true even though we don't know what judgment God will reach about such people.  We have to order our lives, and, hopefully, as Micah, I think it is, says, be humble and walk in the ways of the Lord.  We can't do that if we can't say Hitler was an evil man, that he was in thrall to the Devil.  And the reason is simple.  If we can't find it in ourselves to condemn the likes of a Hitler, then what kind of people are we?  Are we walking in the ways of the Lord if we don't condemn him, don't call him out for what he surely is?  The whole point of the Temptation of Christ is that we, too, are tempted.  We have to recognize the awful reality of evil in the world, and be prepared to call out those who by their deeds -- and even words -- show that they have been tempted and have succumbed to an unacceptable degree, and who display no contrition whatsoever.  But, and this is the end, in making judgments, we have to be, as Micah tells us, humble.  And yes, we can argue about the contours of evil and humility, and that is a worthwhile endeavor.      

Michael

_____________________________________________________________________________

As far as “evil” is concerned, however, I find the term’s polarizing and absolute affect to be problematic. Most of us have some theodician orientation linking the concept to our faith perspective and definition of God. Likewise, our emotional intelligence demands a heuristic frame that often combines with the boxing of our moral compass to provide some practical and applicable meaning to using the term. Historically, these polarities have been applied to sociopaths and psychopaths, natural disasters lacking human agency, and parochial or personal disparagement of individual or group behaviors. Far too many levels of analysis exist to produce an absolute definition satisfactory to all contexts. As Tuffy suggests, I believe that evil is at once contextually, culturally and confoundingly relative while paradoxically demanding principled analysis for an objective attribution! Once applied, however, the term is essentially dehumanizing and licenses less than dignified treatment of others; therein lies its problematic essence for me. 

I don’t dismiss its application, however. I just believe deeply that the usage of the term “evil” carries the paradoxical risk of becoming that which it attempts defining. While doing human rights work (for a church agency, no less) the question was ubiquitous. Theological definitions from ecumenical perspectives were abundant. In the course of exploring conflict resolution across various cultures, moreover, my initial encounters with what appeared as evidence of “evildoing” often were upended by more thorough understanding of the contexts and causalities involved. For instance, my first exposure to an Aboriginal Australian bearing multiple severe leg scars in the desert and being told that he had been speared intentionally by a group just felt “evil” at first blush. Later, I would learn that outback, spearing was a ritual for punishment after repeated offenses and that it allowed transient lawbreakers to be identified at first blush in various Pintupi/Luritja communities where the practice was shared.

The one other aspect I consider is the role of relative negligence or omission and the degrees of intentionality and purpose, all within a culturally-specific context of sanity and sense-making. To bring the topic full circle, for instance, I find Scalia’s intentional negligence of history, his romanticizing an understanding of Founding Fathers’ intentions (being the racist and sexist characters who they were), and his intentional dismissal of historical legal precedent and legislative intent, a choiceful and willing engagement in evil design and objectives. Our historical moment of fundamental needs for reconfiguring our basic assumptions—demographic shifts, obsolete mechanisms of social control, technological influence and reality change, currency redefinition in politics, economics and social realms—has summoned fears and antiquated the status quo revered by conservative forces. Scalia intentionally obscured the functional and dignity-defending elements of analysis and meaning that might transform the status quo and survive all of these dynamics. His disposition was willfully polarizing and it involved an intentionality and clever (some say ‘brilliant’) omission of vital facts necessary to attain the highest levels of truthful resolution of cases. Combined with an emotional immaturity (i.e. telling folks to “get over it” during the Gore-Bush election dispute), I would call him evil and reserving some redemptive space for his human dignity with a radical forgiveness.

Just some provoked thoughts…

In praise of Ancestors, 

Harold

---