J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about what he called "the primary world" and "the secondary world." The primary world is the real world. The secondary world is the world of fiction – stories, myths, fairy tales. Good and evil, he said, exist only in the secondary world. They don't exist in the real world. When I first read that comment it surprised me. How can good and evil not exist in the real world? Isn't that what I was always taught?
Whittaker Chambers, author of Witness, wrote this in his famous review about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: "...everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly."
The concepts of pure good and pure evil, as Bruno Bettelheim pointed out, generally exist only in "children's" fiction, such as fairy tales. It's a simplistic view of things, but it allows children to start getting a grasp on right and wrong. When they get older, they should move beyond it and start seeing the complexities in people and the world, and realize the "intermediate shades."
Sometimes, the child's view of good and evil does exist in "adult" fiction. The example I often use is that of the aforementioned Atlas Shrugged, in which the characters are the whitest of whites and the blackest of blacks. Chambers referred to the plot as the "war between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness."
Tolkien and Chambers are right. In the real world, no one is pure good or pure evil. Such "good" and "evil" exist only in fantasy. Everyone is imperfect: no one is "good" or "evil."
After thinking about this for a few years, I've decided that the definition of good and evil that most of humanity uses has been the cause of most of our problems throughout history. I'm not saying "good" and "evil" don't exist; I'm saying our incorrect concepts of them have been the cause of a horrendous amount of death and destruction.
Here is why: when people talk about "good," they almost always define themselves as good. This means anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Not merely mistaken, but evil. Since they are evil, they have to be destroyed. This has been the tiresome history of the world. The term for this behavior is "scapegoating."
Throughout history people, tribes, nations, religions and ideologies have invariably defined themselves as "good." They then have regularly defined their opponents as "evil." Since they are evil, all problems are projected on them. The logical, indeed inescapable, conclusion: annihilate them. Then there won't be any evil anymore, since the cause of the problems has been eradicated.
The Nazis defined themselves as good. Then they defined their opponents as evil. We know what happened: dead Christians, Eastern Europeans, Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped, Jews, Masons.
The Socialists defined themselves as good and their opponents as evil. In the 20th Century, historians estimate 177 million people lost their lives because of scapegoating. Those who had gained control of the State decided they were good, others were evil, and those defined as evil had to die.
One of the early interpretations of the story of the Garden of Eden is that Adam and Eve were expelled for scapegoating. Adam blamed Eve for his transgressions, and Eve blamed the serpent. Neither would accept responsibility for what they did. Then they were kicked out and evil came into the world.
What's interesting about the story, and little-noticed, is that Adam and Eve did not know what good and evil were until they ate of the fruit. What's the first thing they did? Adam pointed his finger at Eve, and Eve pointed hers at the serpent. They knew "good" and "evil" and instantly started scapegoating. Each said, "I'm good and blameless; you're bad and at fault."
The story makes perfect sense if it's realized that Adam and Eve had the wrong concepts of good and evil. If they didn't they wouldn't have instantly started scapegoating each other and gotten kicked out, bringing misfortune into the world. Why would they get kicked out for knowing the right concept of good and evil? It's the wrong concept of good and evil that brings evil into the world, not the right one.
Currently, we have Islamic fundamentalists claiming they are good (and have God on their side), so we are evil – the "Great Satan." We return the favor. We are good (and have God on our side), and they are what Bush called "the evil ones" and "the axis of evil." Or could it be that both sides are mistaken, confused, arrogant? That they are the blind leading the blind, and heading toward a ditch?
The late M. Scott Peck, author of The People of the Lie, correctly called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil." He's exactly right, but I don't think he goes far enough. The genesis of human evil is because people have false concepts of good and evil. People falsely define themselves as good and others as evil. That is what leads to scapegoating. Nearly everyone ignores the fact that all people are imperfect; therefore no one is "good" or "evil." They may say they know people are imperfect, and not pure good or pure evil, but their actions belie their words.
When we set ourselves up as good, we automatically set someone else up as evil. That's the incorrect view that has led to appalling slaughter throughout history. But it's human nature to do this.
Modern psychology may have found an answer as to why we have these deluded concepts of good and evil. The only school of psychology I pay any attention to is Object Relations Theory. This is what it has to say about scapegoating:
Theorists believe that starting soon after birth babies split their selves into an "all-good" one and an "all-bad" one. The "all-good" self is grandiose and god-like. The "all-bad" one is envious, hating, rageful.
Psychoanalysts Melanie Klein and Joan Riviere (among many others) believe the origins of rage, hate, envy and the desire to destroy are rooted in the initial relationship between the infant's self and what can be called "the primary caregiver" (usually but not necessarily the mother). They write, "For the infant child, the mother is the original and most complete source of satisfaction. Yet this total pleasure is inevitably frustrated."
Theorists believe infants experience this frustration as a threatened destruction of the entire self, since their existence at this age depends completely the care-giver/mother. This frustration generates rage, hatred and a wish to annihilate the "bad object" – the mother. Later, these feelings can be transferred to other people in the world the adult sees as a threat.
What the above means is that our incorrect concepts of good and evil are what leads to rage, hate, envy, jealousy, vengeance, intolerance, and murder. Nearly every bad thing that humans do, in my opinion, is because of our false concepts of good and evil. "I'm good; you're evil. I hate you and want to kill you because you are the evil that is cause of all my problems. I believe the story of the Garden of Eden supports this idea.
I also find it interesting that researchers believe that babies first scapegoat their mothers, just as Adam scapegoated Eve, the mother of all. Science catches up with religion, several thousand years later.
When I looked at other religions to see what they had to say, I found this in Taoism: "As a concept, Taoists do not hold the position of Good against Evil; rather they see the interdependence of all dualities. So when one labels something as a Good, one automatically creates Evil.
"Another way of understanding this is that the sage person knows the reality of Good and Evil, whereas the fool concentrates on the concept of good and evil. The sage knows that any evil will soon be replaced by good; the fool is forever fruitlessly trying to eliminate evil.
"The semanticist Alfred Korzybski expressed this distinction between the concept and the reality with the saying, 'The map is not the territory.'"
"The fool is forever fruitlessly trying to eliminate evil." Humanity has for thousands of years been trying to eliminate "evil." We call something "evil" and then try to destroy it, be it drugs, alcohol, tobacco, guns, SUVs or fatty foods.
I've also recently come to the conclusion there actually is no "evil." The universe it not evil; animals are not evil. The only thing that can be "evil" are some human beings. A very, very small minority, actually. But since all of us are imperfect, not pure good or pure evil, then there are no evil people. "Evil" does not really exist: it's just a convenient fiction, one that when we take it too seriously causes catastrophic problems.
Mind you, I'm not defending immorality or amorality. Far from it. I'm just claiming the opposite of Good is not Evil. The opposite of Good is "sickness," or, to be more specific, hubris. I believe this is why many theologians claim that "evil" is "twisted good." "Evil" is good that's become sick. C.S. Lewis suggested something similar when he wrote of "bad" people being "bent." Twisted. And we should remember that Lucifer was originally an angel, one whose name means "light-bearer." He became a twisted, bent, or "fallen" Good. And in Christian theology, St. Augustine made the argument that evil is not a "thing," i.e., it doesn't really exist.
Good is often defined as "wholeness." Wholeness is related to the words "healthy" and "hale." It comes from the root word for "unbroken unity." What's the opposite of wholeness and health? Not evil, but disease (which really stand for "dis-ease," or lack of ease. "Unholiness" (unwholeness), minus the moral connotation.
Interestingly, the Greek word diabolos is the root word for "diabolic." It literally means "to throw across," to divide, to disrupt, to separate – to make "not whole." (One of the opposite words, "symbolic," means "to throw together." The flag, for example, is supposed to be a symbol that throws us together.) The concept of sickness as unwholeness and fragmentation has been noticed for thousands of years. The story I keep in mind is when Jesus asked the possessed man his name, and was answered, "My name is Legion, for we are many."
I believe the concept of the opposite of Good being the sickness of hubris and not Evil is supported in the Gospels. In them, Jesus' main opponents were the Pharisees. The Pharisees looked down on ill people, believing they somehow deserved their sickness for offending God. They saw these sick people as bad people who had done evil. That's one of the things that happened in the past, and even happens today. Sick people were considered evil; that's why they were sick. Jesus never spoke one word about sick people being bad people. In fact, he healed them, and spoke of healthy people not needing a doctor, but the sick. Not evil, but sick.
When the human race is seen as imperfect – or fallen – there is the possibility of compassion. When people are seen as evil, there is the certainty of hate.
The word usually translated as "sin" in the Bible doesn't mean "evil." It's the Greek word hamartia, which comes from archery, and means "missing the mark." In many modern versions it's translated correctly.
But is not every one of the Seven Deadly Sins based on our narcissism, the unconscious idea that we are good and others are bad? When people are seen as "bad," they are reduced to "things," and the "sinner" becomes a selfish, irresponsible person.
It also didn't surprise me when I found the Buddha said one of the main characteristics of existence was dukka which translates as "suffering." Not evil, but suffering, a kind of dis-ease of the self. He claimed it was the inevitable result of attaching oneself to false ideas and concepts. He said there was a way out of it, as all religions do. And it's not by hate and destruction.
It also sounds to me that incorrect concepts of good and evil allow people who define themselves as good to become self-righteous and pompous. Sometimes even arrogant, grandiose and, worst of all, hubristic.
The worst people who have ever existed, the ones who have caused untold misery, are psychopaths. The story of Satan is a clinical description of a psychopath. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung were psychopaths. Saddam Hussein is a psychopath. The clinical term for a psychopath is currently Anti-Social Personality Disorder. It's listed as an incurable sickness. Not an evil, but a sickness. A sickness, that since it can't be cured, requires that psychopaths, when they break the law, either be locked up for the rest of their lives or else killed.
People have probably argued since before recorded history whether some people are "sick" or "evil." I opt for sick, because the concept of defining them as evil will sooner or later will slop over onto innocent people. It always has in the past, without fail, with unimaginably horrible consequences. You can say, in an oversimplified sentence, that our incorrect concepts of good and evil are what generates "evil."
I consider myself a conservative libertarian. Or a libertarian conservative. Take your pick. A conservative, in the true sense, is someone who believes one of the purposes of society is to "hold down" all the imperfections in human nature. A leftist, on the other hand, holds to the massively destructive view that "oppressive" society is repressing all the goodness in humanity. Change society radically, or get rid of it, and all the wonderful good stuff in people will blossom.
The incorrect view of good and evil is part of imperfect human nature. It needs to be held down by society. Unfortunately, most societies see the incorrect view of good and evil as a "good" thing, and one that should be taught to citizens. Hence, the unbelievable destruction these concepts have caused in societies. These concepts don't support societies. They destroy them.
The State uses propaganda to manipulate our mistaken notions of good and evil. The essence of propaganda is to say we are under attack because we are good and our opponents evil, to dehumanize and demonize the enemy, and then to claim that those who disagree are evil. Hermann Goering, when he stood in the dock at Nuremburg, said, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Then the sheeple march off to war, as they have for thousands of years.
The correct view of good and evil – dis-ease as the opposite of good – is the one that should be taught, because it supports societies instead of destroying. I want to repeat that not all sickness can be healed. Some people are so bent, so twisted, so murderous, they have to be killed, because they are a permanent danger to everyone. But seeing the guilty as evil ultimately leads to seeing the innocent as evil.
What would happen if we gave up incorrect concepts of good and evil? We'd stop scapegoating, and most of the problems caused by people would disappear. We'd reenter the Garden of Eden, as much as possible in this fallen world. Of course, this will never happen. "Bad" people – and "good" – will be with us until the end of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment