Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Who Is Evil?

post 079

Is a bartender evil for selling alcohol?
How about the Bar owner?
The manufacturer?
No?
How do we determine who is evil?

If a man kidnaps a young woman and takes her into the woods to kill her,
Is he evil?
Yes?
Why the difference?

Are these two scenarios different because the one victim helps, while the other does not?
Actually a high percentage of young girls molested in this way are college girls who are attacked by dates or people they know, so the differences between the two appears to be shrinking.
Don’t both lives end up destroyed? And don’t we have to factor in the number of lives ultimately destroyed by them both?
The worst serial killer only destroys a few dozen, while alcohol kills millions.

Are these scenarios different because the destruction of the one is less sure than the other? Maybe the girl might get away, so is the uncertainty really different?

Com’mon people, are we really that confused in determining who is evil?
Isn’t the truth of our determination more related to defense of our lifestyle, or those of our friends?
Most Americans drink, and a high percentage of those are often drunk, and a good share of those, are actually drunks.
But these are our friends and families.
And so we create a social “rule” making alcoholism acceptable, only openly opposing it at the extreme, when the life is fully ruined.
But why are we so willing to watch the destruction, while refusing to identify the evil element in the case of alcohol? Is alcohol the criminal here? Like the knife that kills the girl? Or is there a person involved in both cases.

A party animal young woman might live a very promiscuous life, yet when she is raped we want to burn the evil guy who attacked her.
But if a drunk guy drives off the road to his death, why do we not search diligently for the evil one who set that up?

Don’t get all worked up, I am not advocating anything, but we really need to evaluate our moral foundations that determine right from wrong.
So I ask again,
Who is evil?

We can only determine the answer, when we determine who gets to decide.
Does the Judge decide?
Do the Legislators decide?
Is that all there is to evil? Some obscure rule like a speed limit that one week makes a certain speed illegal and punishable, but the next it’s not?

Isn’t evil actually something real, and not just an opinion?
How can we know?
We can begin by asking who or what is harmed in the act, if any.
If the speed limit law is broken, who or what is harmed?
Not the potential of harm, but the expected results of the event.
In fact, no one or nothing is harmed any more or less, if the speed limit law is created or removed. Therefore we can reason that the creation of the law does not make something evil.
But is anyone harmed if a girl is raped or killed?
Regardless of the legislation, or even public opinion in the matter, some one is harmed in the event.
This is the nature of evil.
It is this nature that our original laws were designed to battle in our society.
Our original laws understood how to identify evil.
In fact according to our original laws, no crime could be committed or prosecuted, if no harm was done or expected.
The laws were not created to make something evil, but to make clear the public cost of doing evil in our society.

So if evil is actually real, by the definition that someone is harmed by the evil, can appointed men really make something evil or not evil by writing legislation?
Just because those governing our society create laws making abortion legal, does that eliminate the harm done to the unborn?
It does not.
Legal or illegal, the child still dies.
This is the definition of evil.

Who is evil?
The person who willingly and knowingly acts in a way which is harmful.

Can a businessman sell another human being the elements which he knows will do him harm, and not be participating in evil? You might be able to sell the idea to your fellow man, but how are you going to explain you actions to the Maker when you stand before him?
He is the ultimate judge of evil.
And suddenly, we are using reason and understanding to personally evaluate our actions in spite of what the present law says. We are now thinking.
See how this works?

In this way we see that the social laws are not what should regulate our conduct.
Nor should they try to.
The laws are supposed to be written to discourage those tending toward evil, and to authorize society to administer the means to limit evil in that society.
In this way the laws are there for the protection and good of the people who are themselves avoiding evil conduct.
This is the meaning and intent of a government, of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Today, outside the will of the people, our governing body is making laws which do us harm. Laws which are enslaving us. Laws which avoid defending us from evil.
This is evil.
If they do so knowingly and intentionally, they are evil.
If they do so without knowledge, and unintentionally, they are used of evil.

Now take this approach when evaluating every decision, every view, every law, and forget which party presented it.
In this way you will be better able to know if a law is good or bad.
You will be better able to determine if the legislator making the law, is good or bad.
But even more important, you will be better able to make your own life choices regardless of laws declaring something lawful, when in fact it may be evil.


* There are always those who misunderstand or misapply a concept, and so I state;
Capitol punishment, and lawful judgments do harm someone, but the judged has been found to deserve the punishment or judgment by the evil which they have done.
Yet the punishment is none the less approaching the border of evil by its nature. For this reason, our government has been given the authority to deal out this punishment, to avoid the burden being placed upon the people. It is for this reason that we do not condone retaliation, or revenge, because justified as it may be, the act is too close to evil for the citizen to take upon themselves without stepping into the realm of evil.
It is for this reason that God writes: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the LORD.” Romans 12:19

1 comment:

  1. Kyle, once again, you hit the nail on the head. "Who is evil?
    The person who willingly and knowingly acts in a way which is harmful."

    A person whose actions are done so with intent, knowing the true consequences of ones actions and committing that act in spite of those consequences.

    To use your example of bar tender versus rapist/killer, the choice is clear as society chooses the rapist/killer example of evil, it's cut and dried, the person 'acted alone', with an intended controlled consequence.

    with the bar tender, he knows his actions and 'standard'consequences of those as well, but he is not "acting alone", and those consequences are not his intent, but an undesirable outcome. the argument of "acting alone", cannot be easily answered because yes, he "alone" poured and sold a drink, but did not force the drink, he did not make the alcohol which created the drink, he did not grow the grain, etc., therefor, did he "act alone"? did the farmer? the manufacturer, the laborer, the bottler, the distributor, or the owner of the bar? in this example of evil, which would society look to? the drinker? That person "acting alone", took that drink and consumed it, with intent and knowing the true consequences of doing so, that of raping/killing someone.

    And with that being said, i have a few confusing feelings regarding capitol punishment, and since i am not versed in God's words, "an eye for an eye", comes to mind, how does that fit with "Vengeance is mine"

    ReplyDelete

Vile concepts and profanity in comments will not be posted.