Beware of Evil (and of Good also)

***

1

In one of T. S. Eliot’s plays, a mysterious leading character says that we must distinguish between sin (which was very important to Eliot, who was a deeply spiritual individual) and immorality. Sin is an example of evil, which we can distinguish from immorality, which is “wrong,” of course; but especially when discussing public issues, it is useful strategy to say that immorality is wrong, but is not evil. Sin is evil; immorality – on the other hand - is wrong. The opposite of immorality is morality. Immoral action, which is not “right,” is “wrong.”

At least when discussing contentious public issues, it is a good strategy for everyone to deliberate about the difference between right and wrong, rather than the difference between good and evil. As I will mention below, this is a strategy more likely to lead toward resolution of serious and lasting public issues than would be the confusion of “immoral” behavior for “evil” actions.

2

But first, we need to sharpen our understanding of the difference between these two important concepts by looking at some examples.

In Eliot’s play, the context of the discussion about sin and immorality is boiling Christian missionaries in Africa! We can all agree that such a barbaric and heinous act seems wrong or immoral, I presume.

But it may be more complex than that. If the missionary’s real goal had been to colonize the indigenous people and to subjugate them, I hope everyone would agree that that too would have been immoral. Or if the means of converting the Africans was bribery (as in “We will provide you with irrigation if you will worship Christ…”), then at least to some that also might seem wrong.

On the other hand, if the missionary’s fault were naiveté, ignorance of the indigenous culture, even not understanding the colonial result of religious conversion – if so, we might say that was not right, and may be wrong… but boiling the naïve, ignorant missionary would seem at least what we might call an overreaction, to a wrong but not a sin. That’s the character’s point in Eliot’s play.

3

At every time in a society, there is disagreement about moral issues; some people are convinced that something or some action is wrong, while others say that same thing is right. We all know that from everyday experience.

Let me ask you to think for a moment and identify a very significant issue which right now divides us, splits American society, an issue about which various people have very different views, even profound disagreement. Think of one or two at least.

We might use capital punishment as an example of such a divisive, contentious issue. Capital punishment is certainly an important public issue about which people profoundly disagree, but at this moment in our history, the issue of capital punishment is probably less burdened with emotional baggage than the ones you may have thought of.

The point is, we can imagine someone’s thinking that, on balance, capital punishment is moral, and of course it is legal in many states. Some, that is, would say that capital punishment is, sadly, necessary for maintaining social order, perhaps essential for the sake of justice, and so on. In other words, one might argue that in some circumstances capital punishment is the right action for society to take.

But even one who is making that argument is not likely to think that capital punishment is “good.” It may be moral or right, but it is not a positive good, we might agree.

To say capital punishment is indeed a positive good, speaking and thinking rationally, using terms precisely, one would have to consider the crime being punished as not simply “wrong” or “immoral,” but evil – which would not be a useful strategy in discussing this complex public issue.

We know that there are other people today who maintain, often passionately, that capital punishment is wrong, immoral, no matter how heinous the individual’s crime. It is simply wrong, they say, for society to kill that person, and they may even say that capital punishment is as immoral, as wrong, as the murder, or multiple murders, or rape- torture-and-murder that the criminal has committed. We might all agree that what he (or she) did was terrible, among the most immoral, the most wrong of all possible behaviors; but for society to kill him (or her) – this argument would run – is just as wrong.

4

The distinction between good and evil and the distinction between right and wrong are certainly both important, among the most important matters we can ponder or debate. But is it helpful for us to confuse that which is right or moral, with that which is good? Or – much more critically – shouldn’t we avoid confusing that which is immoral with what is evil?

To apply this line of reasoning: When you thought of one or two of the issues that we are actually confronting today – about which Democrats and Republicans can have contrasting opinions, or over which believers and non-believers may struggle - some of the issues thought of may involve matters that you actually abhor, whether it be abortion or homosexuality, or torture, or big corporations significantly influencing the public media, or whatever.

The question is, Is what you abhor “evil”? We would be far better off avoiding any temptation we might feel to say so. No matter how much we detest or abhor some action, in a public discussion we would do better to consider that abhorrent behavior immoral or wrong… but not evil. So, Beware of evil.

And at the same time, in regard to such contentious public issues as those current ones that you thought of, what we might support or admire we should consider, not “good,” but right, the moral thing to do. (Beware also of good, we might say.)

It is much more useful both for ourselves and particularly for our nation, or any nation, to think in terms of right and wrong, rather than in terms of good and evil. Avoiding the temptation to think of public issues as absolutes, like good vs. evil, is not just wordplay (as it may have seemed at first); it is significant too, as well as useful and valuable.

Between evil and good, there is no possibility of finding a middle ground, no possible agreement, no peace. If we think of behaviors in the contentious issues that divide us as moral or immoral, we are much more likely to be able to approach them rationally, without dogma, bias, or superstition, and with a practical chance to move toward understanding and accommodation of others’ opposing views and beliefs.

***