Redefining Good & Evil

[davem]

Wish I had the time to join is properly - I just don't, but I am intruiged by many of the ideas brought forward - both on the thread & privately. Especially interesting to me is the idea of good intentions producing evil results - the desire to protect & support the community, even the sacrifice of oneself for the 'greater good', which actually results in evil - from the Nazi soldier who sincerely believed that the Jews were subhuman & a threat to his people & lays down his life on the battlefield to Sir David Pepper http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8087530.stm. Lewis words seem apposite

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience.

I think this is where Eddings' philosophical take on things collapses, because one can sacrifice oneself for the community - lessen oneself to make others greater, die for the cause, & still commit be wrong - if we use 'wrong' in the sense of causing harm & denying/taking away freedom. Sir David wants to severely curtail individual freedom in order to save lives (though it seems he has not thought about what quality those lives will have - you could also save lives, probably more lives, by confining everyone to a padded cell so no-one is placed at any risk at all.

And this, I think, is where Tolkien's world, ultimately guided & watched over by a source of ultimate 'good' makes such moral choices easier - if Eru or God is in ultimate control then one can trust him to take care of the bigger things & all the individual has to do is get the small, everyday things right - Frodo doesn't have to think 'If I let Gollum live he could get the Ring & bring about the rule of Sauron & everyone & everything I care about will suffer unimaginably' - I, simple little Frodo have the fate of the world in my hands at the moment! No, all he has to think is 'Is it right to kill this creature I have at my mercy? - in short, he only has to deal with issues, make choices, that are within his capacity to make - at no point is Frodo ever forced into a position where the fate of the world (in fact where the fate of anything but his own soul) is put at risk. The fate of the world is in greater hands. Simple choices are all simple folk are faced with. Trust in Eru/God to deal with the big things & simply do what's right in every circumstance - ie don't hurt someone if you don't have to at that particular moment. Act out of love & compassion - even if that seems like weakness.

Of course, if one doesn't (or can't) believe in Eru/God then one suddenly becomes responsible for the greater matters, because one's choices can (one believes) change the world -'The fate of the whole world depends on me alone - if I don't destroy the Ring everything will be lost! (er, better just cut his throat then, to be on the safe side). Remove Eru/God & the individual tends to find themselves in the position of having to take over his role Sir David clearly believes that if the UK Government don't completely rule our lives & curtail our freedoms then the terrorists will win.

So, things are actually easier for the believer than for the unbeliever, & the unbeliever is forced to make choices/take actions that the believer will leave in the hands of a higher power.

Which is fine if such a higher power actually exists - because if it doesn't then like the heroes of Pullman's & Eddings' worlds (& Sir David !), we actually are responsible for the fate of the world - evil, the Magisterium, 'terrorists' could actually win.

And I've spent way more time than I should have here.