Op/Ed
VICTOR NUOVO
8th in a series
When Adam and Eve disobeyed the divine prohibition and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they couldn’t have known that they were doing anything evil, for, until then, they didn’t possess such knowledge. What they did know was that the fruit was forbidden to them and that the penalty of eating it was death, which they didn’t yet know how to fear. Yet, notwithstanding the consequences over which they had no control, there doesn’t seem to be anything inherently evil in what they did; for the tree looked “good for food,” and it was “a delight to the eyes,” which is to say, tempting.
We might better say that they did wrong. A prohibition is a rule. And we commonly judge a person’s action as right or wrong with respect to whether they obey or disobey rules they are obliged to follow, and, to complete the thought, it seems that creatures are obliged to obey whatever their creator commands, although perhaps not always — not if they are commanded to do evil. But Adam and Eve did not yet know anything of this. In any case, if creatures disobey the commands of their creator, their actions may be wrong, but having done wrong doesn’t make them evil. Something is missing here.
Moreover, if you compare the two creation narratives in Genesis, you will find that “Good and Evil” is not anything that God creates, rather it is a kind of preexisting knowledge of values that seem to exist in their own right, perhaps eternally. Or at least, we can say this of “Good,” for to some (viz. Plato and St. Augustine) Evil is not a thing in itself, but the privation of Good. This is to speak as a Platonist. But I do so purposefully, because I have come to regard Plato’s theory of the Good as true, and if so, then the Good is not merely an idea, but the source of all existence and value in all things. The Good, as the theologian Paul Tillich said, is Being itself. And it is the foundation of a moral universe. And if, as it seems, wrong is nothing more than negation of right, then we are left with the Good and the Right as the fundamental principles of being and acting. How are they related?
Now, if the being who created us is supremely wise and supremely good, we have reason to do whatever he, she or they command; and reason to regard their commandments as laws to be obeyed. But this may not yet be a sufficient reason to obey them. What is needed is a reason for each command, some worthy goal or purpose to be realized by doing the right thing; not a goal that benefits me only, or pleases my creator, but a higher transcendent good. Only then is obeying the commandment doing the right thing. It is never right to do evil, even if a creator god commands it.
But our minds are not a storehouse of rules. Rather we are rational animals, free creatures endowed with hearts and minds and wills. Moral knowledge is the product of rational enquiry and reflection; our primary quest is for general rules, which we may apply to specific situations; rules like the following: Always tell the truth; Have compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged; Be kind to animals and mindful of their welfare; Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. But for the rules to take effect in how we live our lives, our hearts as well as our minds must become active. And if we do this, then through our actions there is a possibility that we will create a just world, where the needs of no one are forgotten or neglected.
But a truly moral society depends also upon attitudes, even more so than upon rules. Kindness must take precedence over duty. Doing one’s duty may cause you to feel righteous; being kind is better, for it makes you feel good — because you’ve helped someone other than yourself.
This leads me to take back what I wrote earlier. There is indeed a positive evil in the world: it is cruelty. Human history is a narrative of immense cruelty, fomented by a host of human emotions: jealousy, ambition, resentment, envy, which when coupled with armed force wreaks havoc, and causes unspeakable horrors: war, rapine, genocide. I need give no examples: human history is full of them.
In 1984, Judith Shklar (1928–92), a professor of government at Harvard, published a book entitled “Ordinary Vices.” She observed that while moral philosophers have written a great deal about virtues, i.e. courage, self-control, justice and wisdom; they have neglected vices: cruelty, snobbery, hypocrisy and betrayal. Her book was intended to fill the gap. And it did so splendidly. Her opening chapter is especially provocative; it’s entitled, Putting Cruelty First. If courage is the first of the virtues, surely cruelty is the first of the vices. It has filled the world with pain and sorrow, but with little remorse among its most vicious perpetrators. Cruelty is absolutely evil. Its eternal remedy is kindness.
Postscript: “Ordinary Vices” (published by Harvard University Press) is still in print and worth reading. Consult your local bookshop.
More News
Op/Ed
With the world’s problems at everyone’s doorstep each morning, or at their fingertips any … (read more)
Op/Ed
All methods of producing and distributing energy have costs, or downsides. We need to be c … (read more)
Op/Ed
New things can be scary, but they also can open us up to better ways of living, better way … (read more)
"right" - Google News
March 24, 2022 at 09:42PM
https://ift.tt/FUhMr0l
Victor Nuovo: The right and the good - Addison County Independent
"right" - Google News
https://ift.tt/uQhXTM4
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Victor Nuovo: The right and the good - Addison County Independent"
Post a Comment