[FONT="] So, let me pose some timely ethical-philosophical questions that might seem to many to be regular no-brainers. Was Osama bin Laden utterly and definitively ?evil?? Was the abominable atrocity of 9/11 an expression of ?evil? beyond the moral pale for decent human beings? And is ?terrorism? per se ?evil??
[FONT="]The simple answer to the above questions is of course yes. That is, the answer is yes in the simple sense that the violence, loss, and pain that bin Laden and other ?terrorists? have inflicted on the lives of innocent people is heinously cruel and contrary to the supreme ethical axiom of the sacredness of life. So much for the questions above for now, I really just wanted to get them out of the way, I?ll get back to them again later but I?d like to cut now to the chase of a more knotty ethical-philosophical problem.
[FONT="]
Namely, I?d like to think critically about whether it?s morally right-minded to pick out and stand pat with the kind of questions I?ve just posed and answered, the kind of questions many people right now are asking and reducing to simple moralistic answers.
[FONT="]Huh?! Well, since the assassination of bin Laden many of us have been asking the question Was he, and are those of his terrorist ilk, quite simply and categorically evil? And is it therefore morally justified to harbor hatred for them, and to expediently exterminate them when the opportunity presents, without any compunction and without due process or respect for their human rights? Which is to say that thanks to current events we?ve been provoked to think about the fundamental ethical question of the nature of ?evil?, and of how ?good? people should respond to it.
[FONT="]Unfortunately, and predictably, however, many of us seem to be approaching these quite deep questions in a rather superficially and self-righteously selective fashion. What I mean to say is that we?re not really exploring them in a critical and enlightenment-seeking way at all; rather, we?re blatantly begging the question of evil. That is, we?re framing our questions about evil with a black & white reductiveness that turns them into leading questions, leading questions that lead us right to the self-satisfying answers we desire.
[FONT="]We mechanically ask Was bin Laden evil? with a complacently one-sided simplicity that makes it a foregone conclusion that nice Western middle-class people are the preeminent paragons of moral goodness with the divine right to define our enemies as pure evil. For all sanctimonious intents and purposes we pare down the question of evil to the point that it?s partisan, devoid of complexity, and virtually rhetorical. Indeed, we turn it into a mere shell of the heady, profound, and self-critical question it should be, because the sorry truth be told a great many of us are far more interested in self-validation than sincere philosophical reflection that might knock us off our moral high horse.
[FONT="]When someone does try to add some philosophical multi-dimensionality to the problem of evil, when one tries to look at it with an approach that isn?t closed-mindedly holier-than-thou, the brickbat of ?moral relativism? and the epithet of ?situational ethics? start flying. Even worse, he who would inquire into the nature of good & evil too questioningly and thereby threaten to take away his neighbor?s unexamined sense of entitlement to harshly judge his enemies is liable to libeled as a sympathizer with evil.
[FONT="]
Well, I?ll accept these risks and ask again the questions I led with, this time trying to tease out a bit more ethical complexity. Was Osama bin Laden purely evil in the broader context of the evils visited upon the Third World by globalization, aka the West?s modern form of economic, political, and cultural imperialism? Was Osama more evil when he fought the West than when he fought the West?s Cold War foe, the Soviet Union? That is, are we being morally relativistic when we deem him an evil terrorist for violently hating us, and a praiseworthy ?freedom fighter? when he directed the same violent xenophobia at the commies? Are bin Laden?s ?terrorist? brethren all morally inferior to the men and women in our armed forces who often take part in wars (terrorism on a massive scale) that lack moral justification every bit as much as the attack on 9/11? In other words, is it really righteous of us to be piously black & white in our morality when we judge our enemies, and to make excuses for our own society and its military personnel when it comes to the terror and death we perpetrate? Doesn?t our duplicitous double standard belie our definition of evil?
[FONT="]
Come on here, aren?t the hypocrisy and injustices of the self-proclaimed ?good guys? usually more relevant than we?d like to admit to our understanding and assessment of the evil of the ?bad guys?? Which is to say, isn?t justice, or the lack thereof, a pivotal moral issue, one that frequently and fundamentally factors into the real-world nature of ?evil?? I.e., doesn?t the justice factor in many cases significantly change the face of evil? And doesn?t it often transfigure what at a cursory glance appears to be pure and unilateral evil into a transpersonal bigger picture that we all have a hand in drawing together? Sure, this cosmically composite big picture of evil that we all co-create remains as ugly as ever, but not as clear-cut and not one that depicts us somewhere up on a saintly plane above reproach. By all rights it should force a soul-searching reevaluation of our basic concept of evil, and the convenient way we tend to morally pigeonhole our adversaries.
[FONT="]No, I?m not saying that there?s only the morally commutual big picture, that there?s no such thing as true evil and personal responsibility. There most certainly is such a thing as evil. What exactly is evil, evil qua evil? Evil is simply one?s choice to reject, and to do something that opposes the creativity, beauty, and sacredness of existence. The view I?m expressing here, then, is not the amoralist view that evil is a mere illusion that doesn?t exist; rather, the view I?m expressing is the critical view that pure evil is a simplistic and smug-making notion that seldom if ever really exists, that no one ever really makes a pure and unmitigated choice to reject and oppose the good. ?No man is an island?, the wrongful choice that individuals make to commit evil, the culpable choice that they make inwardly, in their own hearts and minds, is always shaped by external circumstances of some kind. Whether it?s the home a ?bad guy? grew up in, the socioeconomic environment he was born into, the waves of history he finds his life swept up in, or what have you, the choice for evil is never contextless.
[FONT="]In the case of ?terrorists?, the larger, extenuating context they must be viewed in is the imperialism, inequities, and injustice meted out to the disenfranchised masses of the modern world order. From the blighted boroughs of New York to the brutal slums of Bangkok, a sinful imbalance of economic and political clout is leading many onto the path of violence, in one form or another. Whether it?s the domestic imperialism of the corporatocracy directed at the poor of our own inner cities, i.e. the increasingly appalling asymmetry of wealth and power in our own society, and the way it drives young people into criminal gangs and a life of predatory violence; or the neocolonialism and exploitation practiced overseas by the affluent nations, and the way it impels aggrieved campesinos and lumpenproletarians to take up arms and take on the role of guerrillas and terrorists, in either case the poverty and privation, inhumaneness and injustice endemic to the current world system breeds evils.
[FONT="]The world?s evils are not merely the product of the sick and twisted minds of the likes of Osama bin Laden, they?re underlyingly engendered by a cruel status quo that poisons people?s character and degenerates their humanity ? on both ends of the politico-economic food chain. ?Tis the vicious circle of evil that the greedy behavior of the ruling class debases them into a predacious, parasitic pox upon the house of man, whose underprivileged habitants in turn are infected with a vexation of spirit that can turn them to the dark side. The ranks of al-Qaeda and Hamas are full of average Joes (or Yusefs) whose powerlessness, poverty-strickenness, disgruntlement, and rankling desire to retaliate is the direct result of the depraved indifference that?s been shown for their human worth and dignity by the governmental and plutocratic powers that be.
[FONT="]
Alas, being morally right-minded and righteous does not mean self-servingly glossing over this existential reality, and exclusively and judgmentally focusing on the badness of those whom you fear; it does not mean glibly dismissing the reasons for their actions as mere excuses; and it does not mean denying our assailants the same excuses we so generously give to our own leaders and warriors.
[FONT="] The conclusion is located directly below
[FONT="]The simple answer to the above questions is of course yes. That is, the answer is yes in the simple sense that the violence, loss, and pain that bin Laden and other ?terrorists? have inflicted on the lives of innocent people is heinously cruel and contrary to the supreme ethical axiom of the sacredness of life. So much for the questions above for now, I really just wanted to get them out of the way, I?ll get back to them again later but I?d like to cut now to the chase of a more knotty ethical-philosophical problem.
[FONT="]
Namely, I?d like to think critically about whether it?s morally right-minded to pick out and stand pat with the kind of questions I?ve just posed and answered, the kind of questions many people right now are asking and reducing to simple moralistic answers.
[FONT="]Huh?! Well, since the assassination of bin Laden many of us have been asking the question Was he, and are those of his terrorist ilk, quite simply and categorically evil? And is it therefore morally justified to harbor hatred for them, and to expediently exterminate them when the opportunity presents, without any compunction and without due process or respect for their human rights? Which is to say that thanks to current events we?ve been provoked to think about the fundamental ethical question of the nature of ?evil?, and of how ?good? people should respond to it.
[FONT="]Unfortunately, and predictably, however, many of us seem to be approaching these quite deep questions in a rather superficially and self-righteously selective fashion. What I mean to say is that we?re not really exploring them in a critical and enlightenment-seeking way at all; rather, we?re blatantly begging the question of evil. That is, we?re framing our questions about evil with a black & white reductiveness that turns them into leading questions, leading questions that lead us right to the self-satisfying answers we desire.
[FONT="]We mechanically ask Was bin Laden evil? with a complacently one-sided simplicity that makes it a foregone conclusion that nice Western middle-class people are the preeminent paragons of moral goodness with the divine right to define our enemies as pure evil. For all sanctimonious intents and purposes we pare down the question of evil to the point that it?s partisan, devoid of complexity, and virtually rhetorical. Indeed, we turn it into a mere shell of the heady, profound, and self-critical question it should be, because the sorry truth be told a great many of us are far more interested in self-validation than sincere philosophical reflection that might knock us off our moral high horse.
[FONT="]When someone does try to add some philosophical multi-dimensionality to the problem of evil, when one tries to look at it with an approach that isn?t closed-mindedly holier-than-thou, the brickbat of ?moral relativism? and the epithet of ?situational ethics? start flying. Even worse, he who would inquire into the nature of good & evil too questioningly and thereby threaten to take away his neighbor?s unexamined sense of entitlement to harshly judge his enemies is liable to libeled as a sympathizer with evil.
[FONT="]
Well, I?ll accept these risks and ask again the questions I led with, this time trying to tease out a bit more ethical complexity. Was Osama bin Laden purely evil in the broader context of the evils visited upon the Third World by globalization, aka the West?s modern form of economic, political, and cultural imperialism? Was Osama more evil when he fought the West than when he fought the West?s Cold War foe, the Soviet Union? That is, are we being morally relativistic when we deem him an evil terrorist for violently hating us, and a praiseworthy ?freedom fighter? when he directed the same violent xenophobia at the commies? Are bin Laden?s ?terrorist? brethren all morally inferior to the men and women in our armed forces who often take part in wars (terrorism on a massive scale) that lack moral justification every bit as much as the attack on 9/11? In other words, is it really righteous of us to be piously black & white in our morality when we judge our enemies, and to make excuses for our own society and its military personnel when it comes to the terror and death we perpetrate? Doesn?t our duplicitous double standard belie our definition of evil?
[FONT="]
Come on here, aren?t the hypocrisy and injustices of the self-proclaimed ?good guys? usually more relevant than we?d like to admit to our understanding and assessment of the evil of the ?bad guys?? Which is to say, isn?t justice, or the lack thereof, a pivotal moral issue, one that frequently and fundamentally factors into the real-world nature of ?evil?? I.e., doesn?t the justice factor in many cases significantly change the face of evil? And doesn?t it often transfigure what at a cursory glance appears to be pure and unilateral evil into a transpersonal bigger picture that we all have a hand in drawing together? Sure, this cosmically composite big picture of evil that we all co-create remains as ugly as ever, but not as clear-cut and not one that depicts us somewhere up on a saintly plane above reproach. By all rights it should force a soul-searching reevaluation of our basic concept of evil, and the convenient way we tend to morally pigeonhole our adversaries.
[FONT="]No, I?m not saying that there?s only the morally commutual big picture, that there?s no such thing as true evil and personal responsibility. There most certainly is such a thing as evil. What exactly is evil, evil qua evil? Evil is simply one?s choice to reject, and to do something that opposes the creativity, beauty, and sacredness of existence. The view I?m expressing here, then, is not the amoralist view that evil is a mere illusion that doesn?t exist; rather, the view I?m expressing is the critical view that pure evil is a simplistic and smug-making notion that seldom if ever really exists, that no one ever really makes a pure and unmitigated choice to reject and oppose the good. ?No man is an island?, the wrongful choice that individuals make to commit evil, the culpable choice that they make inwardly, in their own hearts and minds, is always shaped by external circumstances of some kind. Whether it?s the home a ?bad guy? grew up in, the socioeconomic environment he was born into, the waves of history he finds his life swept up in, or what have you, the choice for evil is never contextless.
[FONT="]In the case of ?terrorists?, the larger, extenuating context they must be viewed in is the imperialism, inequities, and injustice meted out to the disenfranchised masses of the modern world order. From the blighted boroughs of New York to the brutal slums of Bangkok, a sinful imbalance of economic and political clout is leading many onto the path of violence, in one form or another. Whether it?s the domestic imperialism of the corporatocracy directed at the poor of our own inner cities, i.e. the increasingly appalling asymmetry of wealth and power in our own society, and the way it drives young people into criminal gangs and a life of predatory violence; or the neocolonialism and exploitation practiced overseas by the affluent nations, and the way it impels aggrieved campesinos and lumpenproletarians to take up arms and take on the role of guerrillas and terrorists, in either case the poverty and privation, inhumaneness and injustice endemic to the current world system breeds evils.
[FONT="]The world?s evils are not merely the product of the sick and twisted minds of the likes of Osama bin Laden, they?re underlyingly engendered by a cruel status quo that poisons people?s character and degenerates their humanity ? on both ends of the politico-economic food chain. ?Tis the vicious circle of evil that the greedy behavior of the ruling class debases them into a predacious, parasitic pox upon the house of man, whose underprivileged habitants in turn are infected with a vexation of spirit that can turn them to the dark side. The ranks of al-Qaeda and Hamas are full of average Joes (or Yusefs) whose powerlessness, poverty-strickenness, disgruntlement, and rankling desire to retaliate is the direct result of the depraved indifference that?s been shown for their human worth and dignity by the governmental and plutocratic powers that be.
[FONT="]
Alas, being morally right-minded and righteous does not mean self-servingly glossing over this existential reality, and exclusively and judgmentally focusing on the badness of those whom you fear; it does not mean glibly dismissing the reasons for their actions as mere excuses; and it does not mean denying our assailants the same excuses we so generously give to our own leaders and warriors.
[FONT="] The conclusion is located directly below
