Good vs. Evil, Indignation vs. Indigestion

Good vs. Evil, Indignation vs. Indigestion June 8, 2009

Imagine three situations that come up in real life:

1) You are made aware in the local news that lives were lost in a fire that could have been prevented if a recent safety inspection had been as thorough as it ought to have been.

2) You read on a blog about human trafficking in Thailand.

3) Someone serves you a salad with dressing on top. The dressing needs to be stirred, and yet the salad fills the bowl, so that if you attempt to stir it, lettuce and other vegetables will inevitably fall out of the bowl.

Let’s be honest. Of these three, which is most likely to cause our blood to boil? I suspect that most of us would answer three. Our degree of aggrivation about something like this, or the slightly slow driver in front of us, tends to be far greater than in the case of serious injustices or genuine tragedies. We get upset about minor things that affect us directly, more than about major things that affect others in ways we can scarcely imagine.

Christianity historically spoke about the fallenness of human nature. Rabbinic Judaism spoke of good and evil impulses. In light of the best scientific understanding of human beings available, it is better to talk about our evolutionary heritage and our instincts. It is not clear that any other beings on this planet can reflect in the way humans can about those instincts, and can decide that some instincts should not be followed for moral reasons. For us humans, however, it is possible to reflect on our instincts, and in this case to identify an underlying selfishness behind our reactions to different scenarios. And even if we cannot eliminate the instinct (indeed, as Rabbinic Judaism maintained, the “evil impulse” was necessary for life, and was only evil when it wasn’t kept in check), we can decide to reject the instinctual response and adopt a different one.

In demythologized or updated form, the religious perspective offers something important, I believe. It draws to our attention that there are instincts that will lead us to certain ends if we follow them, and it further emphasizes that humans who have chosen to cultivate a morality that at times overrides those instincts have found the resulting approach to life far more rewarding, satisfying and fulfilling than the alternative.

That doesn’t give us moral absolutes. As I’ve posted before, even positing the existence of God doesn’t seem to help. It gives us an eternally-existing person (or three persons in one substance, perhaps) with moral views. It may provide for punishment of those who do not submit to the deity’s morals. But is there any sense in which that allows one to demonstrate that what God wills is good? Perhaps morality is like taste: It is not something one can prove, but it is something one can cultivate by exposure to diverse cultures and experiences. And in the process we can find principles on which we feel we must stand firm, even if they cannot be proven, while also realizing that others who seem to likewise be pursuing goodness may disagree with us on how to best achieve it.

This is, at any rate, an important issue. Absolutist claims often lead to troubling actions and seem ready to make that which seems evil to us into good and vice versa with a simple “God wills it”. Relativism seems to provide no basis for standing up to injustice – or dealing with the salad issue, for that matter, since the chef’s moral judgment may have been that the bowl-salad proportions were exactly right. And so in particular for those of us who wish to reclaim the outlook of being liberal with conviction, of finding a middle way between the extremes, figuring out what it means to evaluate moral matters from our fallible human standpoint is a crucially important issue.

"Yes. And as I said above, I think Phil's suggestion that Jesus embodies God's Wisdom ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"Yes, that makes sense - God is the source of all things, but has a ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"I'm not sure. I don't think Paul would have thought his house needed spiritual transformation. ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"Sorry, I just added my reply next in the conversation. I should have made a ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I'm curious. You read a lot about these extreme relativists but do they really exist? Sure, there is a professor or new-ager somewhere who fits the bill but are their numbers great enough to grant them any more significance than flat-earthers? Or is relativism a philosophical construct necessary to conceptualize a continuum against which to measure people's views. I personally know people who rate pretty far toward the absolutist end of the rainbow, at least in the views they claim to hold but I have also seen enough of these friends act in a manner completely at odds with what they profess. So maybe we are all mulling about in the middle, trying to create a theory we can cling to while we do whatever the hell it was we were going to do anyway.

  • It is a distortion to say that Rabbinic Judaism claimed that the yetzer hara is necessary.You are no doubt referring to Breishis Rabbah 9:7 ("without the yetzer hara one would not build a house, marry a spouse, give birth, or engage in commerce; and that is what Solomon meant [Eccl. 4:4], 'all toil and all skill in work come from a man's envy of his neighbor.' ")But this reflects a partial quotation of the Rabbinic literature. It is easy to find conflicting passages, e.g., Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52a explicitly states that God will kill the yezter hara. (This is a widely cited amud of Talmud among gentiles, since it includes a number of Messianic references.)In Rabbinic Judaism, medieval mystical Judaism, and contemporary observant Judaism, the elimination (or suppression) of yetzer hara is a major theme.

  • Interesting post. I was obsessed with this question for a couple years. I really enjoyed Levision's "Creation and the Persistence of Evil" and Marjorie Suchocki's "The Fall to Violence." Have you read either of those before?Your Sermon was sweet btw.

  • Tripp, I don't recall having read either. I probably should rectify that!Theophrastus, sorry for the generalization, and thank you for the clarification. Anyone who has delved into the Rabbinic literature even a little ought to know better than to say "Rabbinic literature says", since it says a great many things, and indeed, often provides a wonderful example of theology and practice developed through dialogue and disagreement.