Naming Evil

by Ruth W. Grant, Alasdair MacIntyre (Foreword by)

Is it more dangerous to call something evil or not to?  This fundamental question deeply divides those who fear that the term oversimplifies grave problems and those who worry that, to effectively address such issues as terrorism and genocide, we must first acknowledge them as evil. Recognizing that the way we approach this dilemma can significantly affect both the harm we suffer and the suffering we inflict, a distinguished group of contributors engages in the debate with this series of timely and original essays.

Drawing on Western conceptions of evil from the Middle Ages to the present,  these pieces demonstrate that, while it may not be possible to definitively settle moral questions, we are still able—and in fact are obligated—to make moral arguments and judgments. Using a wide variety of approaches, the authors raise tough questions: Why is so much evil perpetrated in the name of good?  Could evil ever be eradicated? How can liberal democratic politics help us strike a balance between the need to pass judgment and the need to remain tolerant? Their insightful answers exemplify how the sometimes rarefied worlds of political theory, philosophy, theology, and history can illuminate pressing contemporary concerns.

Paperback

First published October 1, 2006

Reviews

[Phoenix · Rating 4 out of 5]

Confronting Evil in a Non-Absolutist World

Nine reasonably good essays on the problem of defining and confronting evil by faculty members of the department of philosophy at Duke University. The book arose out of a combined concern over the necessity of moral discernment over the issue of 21st century terrorism. Though their arguments were honed through discussion over a nine month period culminating in a joint seminar, there is a lack of mutual reference, but one does emerge with a deeper understanding of how the moral confidence of the past has been affected by modern relativism. Underlying the book is a rejection of Manicheanism, that good and evil are necessarily external to human nature and distinct.

The three that I recommend most are Michael Gillespie's “Where Did All the Evils Go”, Ruth Grant's “The Rousseauan Revolution and the Problem of Evil” and Elizabeth Kiss's “Combining Clarity and Complexity”. Gillespie has a far ranging insight into medieval concepts of evil and the split between dogmatic scholasticism, the absolutism of Manicheanism and humanistic Pelagianism which saw the opportunity of humanity's salvation beyond the necessity of divine grace.

Grant's focus is more modern, contrasting 18th century French vs American idealism. For Rousseau God is by nature Good, therefore Man is the source of evil. Anthropodicy replaces theodicy, but for Rousseau people are basically good and the evil that they do is systemic, caused by bad social structures and institutions. Americans (Madison, Jefferson) took the opposite approach – by creating good institutions with a balance of powers we can overcome the influence of corrupt and evil individuals.

Kiss does an excellent job of tackling relativist blandishments about terrorism (all violence is equally wrong) marking it as a failure to constrain violence by ethics. For some, such as 15 year old suicide bomber Hussam Abdo (pp142), martyrdom was a choice encouraged by peer pressure, it was “better than being a singer or a footballer”. She cites Mohammed Hafez's multi-layered analysis of Palestinian suicide bombers – the individual may be high minded motivated by religion or nationalism but the calculations of those that incite them are based on tactics and publicity. Unlike Tibetans they have bombed their way into public consciousness. The last third of her essay discusses Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) took a different and rather thought provoking approach. FGM can be found in 28 African countries. 130 million women are affected and the practice illustrated is that it is possible for evil to become normalized. Westerners who attempt to change the practice are seen as arrogant colonial interlopers, and are tripped up by the desire for immediate solutions. Both of her topics proved to be very thought provoking.

Honourable mention of the completely different approach in Chapter 5 where J. Peter Euben performs a moral analysis of the butler Stevens in Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day. It does somewhat spoil the book/movie if you've neither read nor watched it, but it is a quite reasonable embodiment of Hannah Arendt's twin theses of both the banality and seductiveness of evil.

[Connie]

deep but interesting