"The way to avoid evil is not by maiming our passions, but by compelling them to yield their vigor to our moral nature. Thus they become, as in the ancient fable, the harassed steeds which bear the chariot of the sun" - Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887). Life Thoughts, 0. 76, rec. Edna Dean Proctor, 1858

    What is evil? That which is undesirable, or that which is desired too much. When evil is undesirable we do not want it, we reject it as both an action for us to take, or as an event we want to experience. What we find evil is what we do not want to do, do not want to experience, and do not want to happen. We say that some evils are necessary, or we find that some evils are regrettable yet worthwhile. When an evil is necessary, we think that we cannot stop it. When an evil is regrettable yet worthwhile, we believe that the evil also takes place with some good, and that on the whole, the good outways the evil. Thus, evil is a function of wanting. We might be tempted To say that we can thus abstain from evil if we give up wanting, but then it also seems that we give up the opposite of evil - good. This is to say that if there was no evil, there would be no good. There would be only the actions we took, and not the actions we should or should not take. Thus, to give up wanting or emotion is also to fail To improve the world more than it is at this moment. Extended to the people, this seems to me to be a great evil, a death of change and growth. Shall we say that "This is fine", for all things? Shall we be intensely logical and stick strictly within our worlds? It seems that to fight evil by giving up emotion is itself an evil path. It may not lead to evil every time, but if taken to its total conclusion it will. If we are not to accept this outcome, then we may either tend to the opposite, find a balance in the middle, or find another, oblique, path. The oblique path involves leaving the path of emotion and humanity, becoming something else or understanding ourselves as beings that are beyond mere emotion and logic. The path of balance necessitates a growth of wisdom, requiring us to recognize and realize when we should and should not apply to our emotion or our rejection of emotion. This is itself a 'should' issue, and so is a moral one. Therefore, the middle path of balance simply places us again In a moral mire. As for the last path, the path of accepting our emotions, this is what the quote above advocates. We do not reject what we think and feel, do not hide away from our anger or fear. Yet, we also do not let it rule us - rather, we rule it. We as people are inclined to grow morally enraged at what affects us personally, or at what is personally known to us. Thus, we have things like caring more homelessness when you have experienced it yourself, or thinking of bullying as a major problem because you have been bullied yourself. We may disapprove of these things as moral people, but it is rare that, if we have not experienced them ourselves, we truly care about them. The empathy we feel for others is first of all for ourselves. This does not mean that we do not care about what does not affect us. Rather, it means that what affects us is what we care about. We have moments of moral realization. When we are ruled by these emotions, these realizations overpower us, but it is when we are aware of our moral nature that we can best reach these moments. There are at least two types of anger. One is the anger of the moment, which is wrapped up with fear. F-anger about living expenses, the future of the state, the dirtying of city streets, the unfair theft of funds. The second type of anger is righteous anger. R-Anger is about issues of right and wrong which do not directly affect you, and is tied up with our basic moral and empathic nature. This is worrying about an issue of good and evil not because of what it may or may not lead to, but because you feel that there is a fundamental issue of fairness, justice, or world-limits at stake. In the case of F-anger, the more you understand the reasons why you think this will be bad, the more you can understand and harness your moral anger. In the case of R-anger, the more you understand why you feel there is something wrong happening, the more you can harness and direct your moral anger. I have used the example of anger here, but we may also conjecture that there is a corresponding F/R-pity, F/R-shame, and so on. Beware of mixing the two issues up, for if you think that one type of anger or concern is of the opposite type from what it is, then you will have a very difficult time understanding your own moral concerns, and understanding how others react to your moral concerns.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

“The highest art…sets down its creations and trusts in their magic, without fear of not being understood.” - Herman Hesse

  “The highest art…sets down its creations and trusts in their magic, without fear of not being understood.” - Herman Hesse (1877-1962). Reflections, 516, ed. Volker Michels, 1974 It is a terribly frightening thing, to send your art out into the world. Who are you to have created something which is worthy of remembrance, worthy of care, worthy of immortality? We are always afraid of two things when we show somebody our art - We have the fear that it will seem unremarkable, and we have the fear that it will be totally misunderstood. As regards the fear of our art being unremarkable, there is no sure way to tell that it is remarkable for other people except by showing it to them. The only way we can even begin to guess whether it will be so is by trusting in ourselves, and in our own sense of good and bad. We constantly alternate between being the most brutal and the most forgiving of our critics, for we may look on a doodle we dew or a poem we wrote in the middle of a rainstorm, o...
Read more

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” - H.L. Mencken

  "Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” - H.L. Mencken (1806-1956). In Christopher Matthews, Hardball: How Politics Is Played - Told by One Who Knows the Game, 2, 1988 When is it worth trying to convince someone, and when is it not worth the effort? It is perhaps too simple to say that this always depends on the odds of them being convinced, because it may be very important that they be convinced - Important enough that the odds don't matter, you still have to try. However, in some cases, this will never work. That is, if the person you are trying to convince has a vested interest in not being convinced, then it is very likely that you should not waste your time trying to convince him. Instead, you should aim to change his mind by some other means than argument. You may want to try and convince him not that you are right and he is wrong, but that he actually has a vested interest in holding to your view. You may try and direct him to do what you ...
Read more

“An army, like a serpent, travels on its belly.” - Frederick II

  “An army, like a serpent, travels on its belly.” - Frederick II (1712-1786). Attributed See Statesmen: B.H. Liddell Hart (2) An army travels in its belly. It runs on food, on supplies, on oil and blood. It runs itself into the ground, it runs itself ragged, it runs itself into a state of dire need for repair, simply by the regular maintenance of its machines, the standard training it needs, and the slow drip of experience caused by the old and wise constantly leaving, while the young and foolish are always entering. Battles, battles are won by the courage of the people who fight them, the advantages in technology and Intel one side has over the other, and by clever and quick commanders. However, one of the most important lessons of War comes to us out of antiquity, by way of our phrase 'A Pyrrhic Victory' - This event is named after king Pyrrus, an ancient king of Epirus in Greece, who won a great victory - and lost a war, because he paid too terrible a price for his win, a...
Read more