This is something I've been pondering for a few years, and I'll try to stay on topic. It started close to when I really got into philosophy for my bachelor's degree. Namely, what is evil? What is sin?
From what I understand, most religious people would probably say that evil is equivalent with immoral actions. Sin would therefore be the willful committance of those immoral actions. And immoral actions are those things that God has forbidden. But... I want to find the more basic truth than that.
I think that the best definition of evil comes from philosophy and the dictionary. Evil is suffering. I like this quote from Raymond Smullyan's book The Tao is Silent: All arguments of the moralists - all the alleged reasons why people shouldn't commit evil acts - simply pale into insignificance in light of the one basic truth that evil is suffering (100).
Evil acts are kind of unavoidable for sentient beings. We can be self-absorbed, or get distracted, or simply experience a moment of thoughtlessness that can create immense suffering. Is it really good enough to say that evil is suffering? Sin would then be purposefully creating suffering. That could work...
But then I think of natural disasters. They create suffering, but they can't truly be said to purposefully be creating that suffering. Is a hurricane evil? Is an earthquake?
I honestly believe that evil is a thing that can truly be created only by beings who are aware of themselves as humans generally profess to be (you can't expect me to believe that every homo sapiens sapiens is self-aware). The state of things, be it hurricanes, or volcanoes, or simply wolves eating deer... I can't call that evil. I can't really call it good either. They simply are. Evil only gets thrown into the mix when you're conscious of things beyond immediate material needs.
What if... what if evil is simply the awareness of suffering, and good is the alleviation of suffering? Sins would be the willful actions of creating of suffering, pain, and destruction, and virtue would be willful acts of replacing that with succor, hope, and growth. I'm liking this one, although I'm not sure if everything lines up exactly right. You don't want to define things so broadly that good kind acts are labelled evil (such as a surgeon cutting away diseased tissue. Cutting a person is bad, but sometimes you must harm a little to heal a lot) and you don't want to define so narrowly that things most people instinctively know as evil and intrinsically harmful go unnoticed or unpunished (as the case may be).
I've just kind of gone in circles with this one. I hear that happens a lot when you go after the big nebulous ideas like evil, or 'the good'. Evil is suffering, and Sin is creating suffering, whether for yourself or for others. So listen to Bill and Ted and be excellent to one another. Right? Right. Good. Go get'em, tiger.
And here's a little last bit of food for thought in a video I saw last week. Enjoy.
I should really think about a more fun subject for next week. This was too serious. Or not serious enough.
Oh, all right. Here's a llama for your time.
I really enjoyed your comments. I think that often in religious cultures, evil or sin can come to be represented by very specific or certain acts. I like the broader definition and I like that it puts responsibility on all of us when we recognize evil. I also liked the video- it was a nice way to emphasize what you were saying. And thanks for the llama :)
ReplyDelete