EVIL:
Naming things is a dangerous game.
We name things so that we can communicate with each other. We name things out of necessity. The first word ever uttered was probably "Lion !!". Which was a really useful word to know if one wanted to avoid being eaten.
Nevertheless, this habit of naming things became really problematic when people started naming imaginary concepts like the Heffalump. The lines became blurred and the end result is everyone on the planet now has a large amount of imaginary concepts that colour their lives. Everyone lives according to imaginary concepts that have become part of our cultures, religions and political systems. These ideas are taken for granted and are so common that we forget that they are imaginary.
One of my favourites is the word "Ego". I love using it. Yet it's just a concept made up by Freud. It has no basis in reality at all. If it did refer to something real it means that our insight or language was somehow deficient before the good doctor came along. Well, that ain't so. Any perusal of old texts will indicate that all the major useful ideas were described almost as soon as people learnt how to write. Alas, a few red-herrings were thrown in for good measure. That is the nature of being human I suppose. We need an element of fantasy to make life more interesting than it is.
I'm not arguing that modern language usage is useless. I think that it is a measure of man's malleability that we can survive with such imprecise language-skills and with varied, often incompatible, world-views. Yet it is a sad fact that the more we "discover" about our world the more words we concoct and this leads to confusion and distraction as much as it assists clarity and precision.
The concept of Evil has bugged me for as long as I have been alive.
Anyone with the time to reflect on world-affairs or with more than a surface experience of life will despair at man's "inhumanity". We can do very little about natural disasters and thus tend to view these events as "destined" or unfortunate. If we anthropomorphise them then we say that they are "unfair". Yet we rarely call them Evil. We reserve that special term for those horrific actions committed by man upon man that tend to boggle the mind.
What throws us is not the scale of the action. It is the lack of empathy or "feeling" behind the act. Genocide says that the victim is not "human". The victims do not have the same status as the perpetrators. This mindset allows the perpetrators to "distance" themselves from actions. There is no empathy. They have objectified the victims.
Our response to hurting children, the aged and the infirm is of a similar nature. We say that the perpetrators are "animals". They too cannot be "human". Real people don't commit these acts. So we objectify the perpetrators because that is the easiest way to "deal" with the problem. God forbid that we see Adolph Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot as humans. Just like us.
This objectification of the "other" is where the problem lies. If Hitler is guilty of Evil then so are those that refuse to recognise his humanity.
This is the crux of the dilemma. If objectification is Evil then we are all Evil.
My deepest questions regard the process of this objectification. It would appear that to objectify (de-personalise) a person necessarily means that our ego, our self, is made greater relative to the "other". We are Big. It is small. We are egoististical. We are Selfish.
Conversely, to act humanely is to act "selflessly".
This is a nightmarish scenario. De-personalisation is objectification. (Like pornography objectifies people. Like racism objectifies people. Like child-abuse objectifies children. Like war objectifies the opposition.) Objectification is ultimately egoism. (I am worth more. I am more important. It is less than that which I am.) All these things are Evil.
Self-orientation is Evil because it sets up the self in opposition to the world. One "conquers" the business world. One "fights" to survive. One "battles" with one's conscience. One "hoards" money. One "desires" fame. These phrases all display manifestations of the ego and illuminate the essential conflict at the heart of living in the modern world. A world seemingly designed to be a zero-sum game.
The world rewards those who are successful at operating within this mindset. War heroes who are responsible for the death of millions live to a ripe old age and get monuments raised to them. Royal families whose forefathers slaughtered and stole to maintain their lifestyles continue to reap the rewards. Banking dynasties whose families did nothing but charge interest on money lent grow ever more powerful and manipulate world-affairs in pursuit of more. Film stars who are willing to prostitute their souls, and often their bodies, and who are willing to sacrifice family life, or their families, in pursuit of More are handsomely rewarded and idolised like deities. We do not call this Evil.
We do not call Evil the common man who works extra-long hours in the business world and sacrifices his family's well-being. We do not call Evil the advertisements and magazines and movies that tell us to Buy More of that which we don't really need. We do not call Evil the interest-rates applied by banks that accrue more wealth to those that don't need more and cripple the families that need to survive. We do not call Evil the entertainment that so easily stereotype us into good and bad, ugly and beautiful, rich and poor.
But they are Evil. Namby-Pamby excuses that say we need to do these things in order to survive just delays the day of reckoning.
In Africa the concept of Ubuntu (i.e. Being Truthful, Loving and Caring towards others.) is held up as an ideal. Like many similar laudable ideas it is is merely distraction from the essential problem.
Selfless behaviour does indeed make the world a "better" place to live in. This is just a matter of degree and is not an Absolute. People who are "selfless" still eat. In order to eat we find the wholesale massacre of animal life needed to sustain human life. Becoming vegetarian does not solve the problem.
The farms that feed us are created by clearing land and that means the destruction of the natural habitat. People pay lip-service to environmentalism while choosing to ignore the fact that every wheat-field implies the death and extinction of whatever life-forms naturally occurred in that area before. The same applies to every town and city. Wherever you are sitting now was created at the expense of something vital and living.
(It is interesting to note God's brief to man in the Judeo-Christian story of Creation. Man was meant to be caretaker of the animals while the plant-life was intended for eating. It is easy to find sympathy for the lot of animals. Sensitivity to plant-life tends to come slowly but one cannot help but be horrified at the route we have gone by going down the road of "exploiting" cultivatable plant resources at the expense of the natural habitat. I feel for Redwoods and Tropical Rainforests and the Fynbos of the Western Cape and I don't think it's because they support disappearing wildlife or are a metaphor for something larger. I think those brave souls who are willing to give up their lives to stop logging companies feel it too. There is something deeply amiss with what we are doing.)
If one had to take this seriously then we would only eat the fruit that had fallen to the ground. But this is also no real solution. We may not have destroyed or killed anything in the process but we have certainly interfered in the natural order of things. How will the next generation of apple-trees grow if we keep eating the apples and throwing the seeds into huge landfills ? Apple trees don't grow in city dumps.
There is a huge misconception in environmental groups that living "naturally" can salve this conscience. They observe the natural habitat and declare that animals live more "naturally" than we do. this ain't so. It may seem true if all one observed was the surface tranquillity of protected American National Parks but if one really wants to know what is going down "in nature" one should come to Africa where even the animals seem to live more on the edge.
Elephants destroy their own habitat. Once the trees are stripped bare or knocked over and the pickings are slim they just move on. Ants create cities that are as tall as the average Los Angeles suburban house. With more ants in them than there are people in New York City. Lions kill buck that look like Bambi. And they do it all day long. I've seen Baboons masturbating. But I digress...
It is a strange kind of Political Correctness that declares that Death and Life are all part of some continuous natural cycle in the animal kingdom and yet says we should not be killing Arabs to protect oil-resources or lynch Black men for looking at white women. If it is "natural" for alpha male animals to kill in order to protect their domain then how is it that the same rules do not apply to humans. Hell, it's Natural ain't it ?
There's the rub. We somehow believe that humans should aspire to something more humane. But every breath we take means the death of a microbe. Every step we take kills an ant. The food we eat is soaked in the blood of innocent animals. The money we use is the unfair profit on the labours of others. Our safety is guaranteed by the police and armies we pay taxes to so that they kill on our behalf. We are willing to pay huge sums to entertainers so that they can distract us from this reality.
Can you imagine your life if you could never escape into movies, TV or books ? If you could never have a stiff drink or find other chemical distractions ? If you couldn't drink coffee at work in New York, London or Tokyo ? If all you ever did was to work, sleep and eat ? How long before the alarm bells start to ring ?
Something is wrong. Wrong with a capital W.
We are so fucking guilty it's difficult to appreciate the enormity of what we are doing.
On a personal level ; how does one go to work when one knows that to work means getting into a state of mind that damages one's humanness ? We become too aggressive. Too self-centred. Too selfish. Too negligent of our responsibilities to our children. Too alienated to relate emotionally to others. Too preoccupied to consider the implications of our actions. Too blasé and jaded to care.
We objectify the world we live in so that we can live in it. Our very language does this for us. If you analyse what is being written here you will find that I am writing it and this implies egoism to the exclusion of the Other. I crystallise certain ideas at the expense of others. While you read it you cannot hold another idea in your head. This stops real thinking. The text occupies a space. A space that is better used by something "better". It is using up enormous resources. Think of the electrical power used to create and disseminate this page. It is now wasted and definitely could have been put to better use. The computer was created out of raw materials that could have been better used and the end product contains plastic and other toxic chemicals that are not biodegradable. Is this not Evil ?
Does this not display a lack of empathy ? This text is now part of the problem. If I am a concerned writer would I not stop writing ? Writing implies further pollution. This pollution being both physical and mental. If I were a concerned musician would I not stop creating CDs ? Inaction seems to be more beneficial than activism. In a very profound way it would appear that Gandhi had more insight than Machiavelli or Lenin. Yet Gandhi lived in the world and used the media to disseminate his ideas. So we are really talking about degrees. It is still a choice between two evils.
I should be hugging my child. At least that would leave the both of us feeling a little bit better.
Yet I can't help feeling that this would be like Adolph hugging Eva before the Russians arrive.
I just don't see how one could create a balance. If one accepts the premise that life is just about Survival of the Fittest then one has to also accept Genocide, Colonialism, Eugenics, Western Medicine, Capitalism, Totalitarianism, Steroids, War, Penicillin, Coca Cola, The Spice Girls, Tupperware and James Bond as being the epitome of excellence.
If one accepts the principle that there is Evil in the world then we are all naturally evil beings and just attempting to survive in the world perpetuates this Evil.
There is an alternative....
We are all born innocent and this is Hell. The Hobson's choice that we face is Hell. If we impose ourselves on the world we are evil. If we try to live in a more humane fashion we can't but help commit wrong by accident. The more we sensitise ourselves and open our eyes then the more we become aware of this. At which point "ignorance" is no excuse. If one started out by believing that "All you need is Love" then one will invariably find that "The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions."
Is suicide a valid option ? This burden of responsibility have led many to madness. Or paralysis.
My daughter's eyes tell me that something is good in the world. Love can do that.
Love doesn't stop Evil. Love gives one hope in the midst of Evil. So what am I hoping for ?
It is at this point that man finds solace in religious belief. Some would say that man invented religion at this point. Some would say that the presence of Evil in the world is due to Satan. Some would say that God allows Evil in the world so that mankind has a choice. It would appear that the choice exists whether or not one has a religious belief. There are some very famous atheists and agnostics that have faced this particular form of existential crisis.
There is another alternative....
Shit happens ! This bumper-sticker is either a cop-out for the brain-dead or a perfect Zen insight. Whatever it is hardly matters because it stops all forms of thought and allows one to continue with one's life. Only in America.
You see, there is a nagging suspicion that the label "Evil" is part of the problem. Naming things is a dangerous game. It enables us to live in the world. It simplifies things. But once a word has a certain "meaning" and resonance it can lead one up a cul de sac. If the word/concept Evil had no resonance for us then would we worry about it at all ? What if we hadn't decided to batch a whole bunch of behaviours under the label "Evil" ? What if we removed the word Evil from the lexicon ?
A Murderer becomes an "Afterlife Facilitator". A Capitalist becomes an "Income Maximiser". A Polluter becomes a "Landscape Diversifier". A Rapist becomes a "Selfish Lover". A Child Molester becomes a "Child Sex-Educator". A Meat-Eater becomes a "Reincarnation Expeditor". And so on.
Just like the Politically Correct terms that are meant to stop the objectification of sexes and races and other sensitive interest-groups and to avoid potentially "offensive" terminology it becomes rather interesting if one displayed empathy to criminals as well.
At what point does one stop removing criminals from society ? People forget that definitions of criminality are part of the social contract that each society defines. Drinking alcohol was once criminal. Smoking tobacco will soon become criminal. Cannibalism was encouraged once in Borneo. Beating one's wife is still legal in some countries. In some parts of India it is still legal that if the husband dies then the wife's gotta die. Female circumcision/clitorectomies (ouch!) are still legal in parts of Africa.
In part, one is dealing with the ever-changing definitions of criminality that is best dealt with in a political essay. My gripe has to do with the language that surrounds the question. If one retains a clear definition of Evil or criminal behaviour then one has a clear logic for protecting the citizenry from criminal behaviour. If one acts more humanely and starts to alter the language (labelling/naming) then one opens up the possibility of undermining the moral outrage one feels regarding these actions. As the cliché goes : "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But that is cold comfort to the innocent victims.
If one "calls a spade a spade" then one hardens one's heart and one is equally Evil. If one finds empathy and forgiveness then one becomes sensitive to one's own actions and the realisation that we are all equally Evil. Hobson's choice.
Hell.