In modern times, we tend to cite the actions of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot as among the extremes of recorded evildoers. At the other end of the spectrum, we find easily overlooked acts such as cruel jokes, injurious falsehoods, and minor deceits. We also find evil exposed as morally wrong but legally exonerated.
Speaking of legalities, it is for certain that,
given careful legal design, laws can, in fact, make evil legal and protect the
evildoers. Consider the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow Laws (which
seem to be reemerging) of the post-war South, and the arbitrary, but punishable,
laws promulgated in church-based states.
Media and entertainment sources even have us
emotionally lauding the evildoer. A popular film of 1974 in America was Death
Wish, based on novel of the same name by Brian Garfield. In it, Charles Bronson
played a mild-mannered architect who turns vigilante after the murder of his
wife and the sexual assault of his daughter. In short, he turns to slaying the
types of people who slayed his wife. The theme resonated with a public who saw
an increase in violence within the country.
In reality, Americans witnessed the dark side of vigilantism
in 2020 when self-style protectors of the law stalked an innocent man believed
to harbor an evil intent, resulting in the victim’s death. Lengthy prison
sentences communicated the dark side of evil for evil transactions.
Do evil interactions predict increasing intensity
of evil? This is a controversial topic but some research in psychology and
criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals do not stop
there—many of them move on to their fellow humans.[i]
This is not meant to imply that cruelty to animals is a lessor sin than cruelty
to humans, only that there is a correlation worthy of investigation.
The we come to the “but for” instances in which a
person doesn’t set forth to do evil but commits it when it could have been avoided
had not the first steps been taken. Americans are still arguing over a case in
which two deaths and a maiming could be been avoided had the perpetrator, found
innocent in a court of law, simply not decided to travel to a particular
location in a particular state of readiness. In short, but for deciding to travel
to a particular site, tragedy would not have occurred.
Intent to perform evil is a tricky concept in
American law and an equally elusive issue in the pursuit of morality.
Even trickier is the concept of forbearance.
Writers including Elie Wiesel, Victor Frankl, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela,
and the recently deceased Desmond Tutu have all spoken eloquently and all agreed
upon the fact that forbearance of evil is evil itself.
A 1996 book further argues that the German populace
was quite universally aware of, and tacitly condoned, the treatment of Jews
under the Nazi regime. The author’s explanation proved controversial, but the
facts were not. People knew and did nothing.[ii]
Picking one of the writers mentioned above, we
part with a quote from Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps
the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the
tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when
human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become
irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race,
religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center
of the universe.”[iii]
[i]
Catherine A. Faver & Elizabeth B. Strand (2003) Domestic Violence and
Animal Cruelty, Journal of Social Work Education, 39:2, 237-253, DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2003.10779134
[ii] Goldhagen, D. J. (1996).
Hitler's willing executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York:
Knopf.
[iii]
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10, 1986
No comments:
Post a Comment