Posts: 21362
-
Karma: 5,145
What makes people 'best' or 'worst'?
There seems to be a problem in determining what we're going to call a 'good' or 'evil' person. There is apparently some confusion between peoples' moralities and peoples' sympathies. Let me try to alleviate some of this. In the following examples, anything referred to as a 'bad morality' is a morality whose principles I disapprove of. I can't prove that mine is any better, of course, but for our purposes, if you agree with me that the principles being talked about (ie: slavery is right, killing Jews is our duty, people should suffer and others should enjoy watching it) are immoral, that is all that matters. By 'morality', I mean a set of principles of action that we adhere to, and by 'sympathy', I mean any feeling one has for another, for example pity. These latter aren't moral judgments. There are many instances where sympathy can make us want to do something immoral.
Huck Finn has been helping his friend Jim escape. Huck feels very guilty about this, because as a part of his morality, owning a person is the same as owning any other piece of property. Jim's owner had never done anything bad to Huck, so he feels badly about stealing him away. He feels sickened by Jim saying that he will 'steal' his children out of slavery, another moral wrong according to Huck's morality. This is a 'bad morality'. However, Huck's sympathy is warring with it; as he leaves the raft, intent on telling people searching for Jim where he is, Jim thanks Huck, and calls him the 'bes' fren' Jim's ever had'. Huck is no longer certain whether he wants to tell on Jim or not, and in the end, decides against it, because he feels sympathy for Jim's situation. In fact, he does wrong again by lying to people hunting for the runaway slave. He feels badly about the decision later, having betrayed his morality, but realizes that he would have felt badly, too, if he'd given Jim up. As a result, he rejects the idea of doing right or wrong. It does not occur to him to simply revise his bad morality, that maybe owning people isn't right. That isn't the point. The point is that Huck gives weight to both his sympathies and his morals, and acts rightly because of it.
Second example: Heinrich Himmler of the SS, another case of a bad morality in conflict with sympathies. Himmler was known to make speeches about trying to wipe out the Jews 'without our leaders and their men suffering any damage in their minds and souls'. He recognized that people, in following their orders and doing their moral duty as it was presented to them, would have nagging sympathies. If they did not, they would become beastly savages. His psychologist reports that he suffered from several disabilities, including nausea and stomach convulsions, apparently because of his distaste at what he felt he was duty-bound to do. He saw it as a 'great burden' to have to kill all of these people (and yes, he said this sort of thing a lot), but, unfortunately, his bad morality won out over his sympathies, and he did his duty. Because of this, he is a worse person than Huck Finn.
John Edwards was a philosopher and a rather celebrated historical figure from the 18th century, and he is our third example. His morality was worse than Himmler's. According to Edwards, God condemns some men to an eternity of unimaginably awful pain, while arbitrarily sparing others (arbitrarily because noone DESERVES to be spared). His position is that men OUGHT to be condemned to hell, and this is not only right because God wants it; rather, God wants it because it is right independently. He says that God is right in damning people, because God is infinitely excellent, so any sin against him is infinitely bad, and deserves infinitely bad punishment. Edwards HIMSELF did not torment the damned, but his sympathies didn't conflict with the approval of eternal torment. He didn't flinch at the idea of a human being, tortured for eternity:
'The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds aspider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked... he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful serpent is in ours.'
He goes on to say that the saints, in heaven will understand how horrible the suffering is of those in hell, and yet will feel no pity for them; rather, he says, just as we do when we see the problems other people have, the saints' own state of bliss will seem much better from their perspective than it already was:
''When they shall see how miserable others of their fellow-creatures are... when they shall see the smoke of their torment.. and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the mean time are in the most blissful state, and surely to be in it to all eternity, how they will rejoice!''
He also says that it is RIGHT that the saints should rejoice at seeing others tortured in hell. This suggests that there are no sympathies playing a role in Edwards' judgments of good and evil, and because of this, he turns out to be a worse man than Himmler, despite not having killed anyone.
It's worth noting that all of these people, with their bad moralities, do not see those moralities as flawed. It wouldn't make sense to accept a morality and call it flawed; that would be like believing in something one knows to be false. However, the strength of their character lies not in this, but in the sympathy factor. I'm not saying sympathy should be given a free reign, as it's often necessary to ignore it in favour of the right action (going to war against Hitler despite wanting not to kill people). However, this does give a clearer indication as to what makes a person good or evil, at least in my view. Feel free to question it.
------------
In a haze
A stormy haze
I’ll be around
I’ll be loving you
Always
Always
Here I am
And I’ll take my time
Here I am
And I’ll wait in line
Always
Always...
