Does Evil Exist?
Exerpt from Peggy Noonan's article: "Cold Standard":
The last testament Cho sent to NBC seemed more clear evidence of mental illness--posing with his pistols, big tough gangsta gonna take you out. What is it evidence of when NBC News, a great pillar of the mainstream media, runs the videos and pictures on the nightly news? Brian Williams introduced the Cho collection as "what can only be described as a multi-media manifesto." But it can be described in other ways. "The self-serving meanderings of a crazy, self-indulgent narcissist" is one. But if you called it that, you couldn't lead with it. You couldn't rationalize the decision.
Such pictures are inspiring to the unstable. The minute you saw them, you probably thought what I did: We'll be seeing more of that.
The most common-sensical thing I heard said came Thursday morning, in a hospital interview with a student who'd been shot and was recovering. Garrett Evans said of the man who'd shot him, "An evil spirit was going through that boy, I could feel it." It was one of the few things I heard the past few days that sounded completely true. Whatever else Cho was, he was also a walking infestation of evil. Too bad nobody stopped him. Too bad nobody moved. - Noonan
I have seen a very interesting phenomena appear in the secular media in the aftermath of the VT mass murder. With all the psychotherapists chiming in we still end up in a strange place - evil is mentioned.
Do we believe in raw evil external to ourselves? What evidence is there? How do we know?
Joey
No takers?
Evil - it does exist
Evil - it does not exist
Voting requires explanation, either way.
js
One need only look at the cadre currently occupying the white house.
Mark,
I thought you were a moral relativist. If so then are you judging the White House occupants? And if you judge then based on what moral code?
Have you turned to objectivism whilst eating chinese dinners?
Help us understand you. . . .
JS
Sorry about that. Your font on my monitor is so small you appear and weak nothings to me. The other problem is that my office sucks and my monitor is too far away. Finally, I need the computer glasses. . .
Is 12 pt Arial blue O.K. ?
JS
This couid explain why nothing that Jonathan and I say seems to sink in.
I shall try to use 12 point. Although, it appears that this system is Windows-specific and won't let me change font size. How does Arial Black work for you?
I can pretend I'm a REPUBLICAN!
Of course, I prefer being correct.
.. what kind of evil are you talking about?
- personified evil
- evil people
- the idea of evil
-people who do evil
i guess my answer to all four would be yes, but i am presupposing that the definition of evil is "that which destroys happiness" ("happiness" used in the sense of the integral of happiness over time over all people).
Peter,
Consider that happiness might not be the opposite of evil. I have often encountered people happy about their evil actions. May I propose that holiness is the opposite of evil?
Joey
note the integral in my formula runs "over all people over all time". localized happiness of the perpetrator is more than canceled by the destroyed happiness of others.
not sure how to integrate over eternity, though. i wouldn't want to carry the math analogy too far,
at least not without further consideration.
I suspect there are things that tend to destroy happiness that aren't necessarily evil. Supposedly, finally achieving all your goals destroys happiness because it is the journey, the struggle that makes us happy.
I suspect there are things that were evil that may have led to increased happiness when integrated over all the people that benefited from the evil in the future. What was done to the Native Americans was evil. When integrated over all people and all time, maybe happiness has increased because of it (though, there's still a bunch of integrating to be done).
If we have to integrate over all people and all time to determine what evil is, I'm afraid it might make it kind of tough to make the daily decisions that might pertain to good and evil.
Does evil seem local or distributed?
js
VERY interesting comment.
One doctrine (don't ask me what it's formally called) says that God permits evil, but the net result is always a greater good. I guess in light of this, the integral hypothesis falls totally apart, as the total integral is always on the "good" side, no matter how hard we try to push it to the "evil" side.
back to square one...
So, thanks for your exploding my balloon, Jon. :-)
However, i would think that every single one of us does some kind of "integral approximation"
every day. e.g., it is probably bad to waste company time on safety meetings but the integral
is probably on the "good" side because i get to keep my job and increase shareholder value for many years to come.
or: spanking your kids' butts is "locally" bad, because they tend to get upset about it, but later on they tend to be better humans for it.
anyway, my "good" vs "evil" definition is busted, and i'm intellectually deflated. any better ideas, anyone?
Peter,
For future mathematical analysis. . .
I see three kinds of evil.
1. Concupicense - brain stem mis-function
2. Evil of this world - basically, scarcity mentaly in full force
3. Satan - smell of sulfur remains in room. . . cough, choke, ...
I think your equation works for the first two but not the third.
JS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR200705...
not sure it's essentially new, but it speaks to the "from the brainstem" kind of thing.
Peter,
This seems to be junk science to me. Surely there are some elements where Natural Law evokes a primitive moral response. But, I personally gained enormously from studying morality. I think much of it is learnable and not imprinted.
Take "thou shalt not kill". I really never knew that anger was the bloodless version of this commandment. I was convinced that I had not tresspassed on this one - but upon even a shallow study I found the true nature of anger - it is not pretty.
js
that was not what i meant at all. interesting you should respond thus... anyway, i found the notion of moral law hardwired into the brain(stem) appealing. remember your genesis? for humans, no formal teaching of moral law was required by design - unless the built-in goodness was wilfully overridden...
having said that, it may still be bogus research. no judgement there.
Imagine that you are a doctor in a hospital. Five of your patients are critically ill and in desperate need of organ transplants. A mostly healthy person walks into the hospital. Should you kill the one healthy person to save the other five? Most people would say that would be morally wrong.
Imagine that you work for a railroad. There are five people working in a tunnel and are about to be killed by a runaway train. You can flip a switch to divert to train to another tunnel where there is only one person who will be killed. Should you divert the train? Most people would say yes.
In both cases the intent and result are the same (to save lives), but one is morally acceptable and the other isn't.
Most people believe it to be morally acceptable for a doctor to withhold treatment (e.g. remove a patient from a ventilator) to end a patient's suffering by hastening death. Most people consider it to be morally unacceptable for a doctor to administer drugs to to end a patient's suffering by hastening death. Both doctors have the same intent and the end result is the same...but one is considered morally acceptable and one isn't.
Why?
Jonathan,
Sorry for the long post. In the end I have no time to summarize so I just grabbed a nice summary from the National Catholic Bioethics Center. One of the site's contributors is a priest who is also a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale, T. Pacholczyk.
Your question:
Most people believe it to be morally acceptable for a doctor to withhold treatment (e.g. remove a patient from a ventilator) to end a patient's suffering by hastening death. Most people consider it to be morally unacceptable for a doctor to administer drugs to to end a patient's suffering by hastening death. Both doctors have the same intent and the end result is the same...but one is considered morally acceptable and one isn't. Why?
The answer seems to be straightforward but is worth some review.
Case 1) Removing a patient from a ventilator to end suffering and hasten death.
One of the most important moral distinctions for end-of-life decisions is that between what is morally obligatory and what is morally optional. What is morally obligatory we are bound to perform; what is morally optional we may include or omit at our own discretion. Moral theologians use the terms "ordinary" and "extraordinary" to make this distinction, in keeping with the words of Pope Pius XII: "Normally one is held to use only ordinary means—according to the circumstances of persons, places, times and culture—that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another. A stricter obligation would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends."
Generally, a medical procedure that carries with it little hope of benefit and is burdensome is deemed "extraordinary" and is not obligatory. For example, a person may judge in good conscience that the pain and difficulty of an aggressive treatment for terminal cancer is too much to bear, and thus decide to forgo that treatment. Whether a particular treatment is excessively burdensome to an individual patient is a moral question that often requires the advice of a priest or someone well-trained in moral theology. Individual patients and their families should seek the guidance of the Church whenever there is any doubt about the morality of a particular course of action.
Most medical treatment received during the course of one's lifetime is routine and does not raise serious moral questions. Sometimes, however, medical circumstances require considerable reflection about what procedures are appropriate for a given medical condition and time of life. When aggressive and experimental methods are recommended by a physician, the Church teaches that we are free to pursue such treatment whenever there is a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient. We are also free, however, to refuse treatment that is of dubious benefit or when its burdens are clearly greater than its benefits. For example, I might want extraordinary moral means used to extend my life in order to receive the sacraments of the Church, or to see friends or relatives one last time, or to be reconciled with somebody from whom I've been estranged. The use of extraordinary moral means always remains optional, but the moral obligation to conserve life obliges us simply to act in the most reasonable manner.
Case 2) Administering a drug to hasten death.
Human life is an inviolable gift from God. Our love of God and His creation should cause us to shun any thought of violating this great gift through suicide or euthanasia. We read in Wisdom: “God did not make death, nor does He rejoice in the destruction of the living. For He fashioned all things that they may have being” [1:13]. St. Paul teaches us: “If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” [Romans 14:8].
“God did not make death, nor does He rejoice in the destruction of the living.” WISDOM 1:13
When formulating any Advance Directive and discussing end-of-life issues we should avoid using the expression “quality of life” because it is used by advocates of euthanasia to suggest that some lives are not worth living. “While illness and other circumstances can make life very difficult, they cannot diminish the inestimable worth of each human life created by God. ”Life itself is always a good, and is a quality that can never be lost. Still, we need not cling to this life at all costs, since the life to which we have been called in Christ is incomparably better.
Euthanasia has been defined by Pope John Paul II, in The Gospel of Life, as “an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.” Supporters of euthanasia often justify it or physician-assisted suicide on the grounds that the pain of terminal illness is too great for the average person to bear. They hold that it is more merciful to kill the suffering patient. The Pope, as representative of Christ on earth, holds that “euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” It is a fundamentally unreasonable act.
General Guidelines:
To make sound moral decisions patients must receive all relevant information about their condition, including the proposed treatment and its benefits, possible risks, side-effects, and costs (Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services [ERD], National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 1994, #27.) They must also know of any other morally legitimate options that are available. It is the patient, in consultation with the doctor, who ultimately must decide the course of medical treatment. Normally, the patient's judgment concerning treatment should guide others in their decisions unless it is medically unwarranted or contrary to moral norms.
When patients act with free and informed consent, they may use the most advanced medical techniques even when these are experimental or involve a certain measure of risk. The patient may also interrupt such methods when they fall short of expectations of benefit, but such a decision should take into account the reasonable wishes of the patient's family and the advice of one's doctor. The patient may also consider the expense the treatment may impose on the family and the community at large (ERD, #57).
When death is imminent one may refuse forms of treatment that would only result in a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. There is a presumption in favor of continuing to provide food and water to the patient, but there is a stage in the dying process when even these may no longer be obligatory because they provide no benefit. Normal care always remains morally obligatory, but refusal of additional treatment when death is imminent is not equivalent to suicide. It should be seen instead as an expression of profound Christian hope in the life that is to come. An instruction not to provide such treatment, when communicated ahead of time to family and friends, may give great comfort to loved ones during emotionally stressful times.
Joey's version:
The disease has to take me, not the drugs or machine.
js