The Sad Truth
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.
-Hannah Arendt
*******
What does this say about the nature of good? Hannah’s implication is that humanity is subject to moral entropy, which is to say that good requires intentionality. Likewise, apart from intentionality evil will inevitably prevail, an idea which evokes the quote, often attributed to Burke, “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
This quote seems to align with the Xian notion of the fall: humans are innately sinful, and thus goodness does not naturally emanate from our being. Rather, we must suppress our baser instincts in order for good to manifest itself. This, in many ways, is true to my moral experience, however, as I think about the inverse of this idea I am not sure I can fully embrace it.
If goodness requires intentionality because of the fall, then the inverse is that apart from the fall we would not need to be intentional regarding the development of goodness. Instead, it would just emanate from us as a matter of being. The problem I have with this is that intentionality, with its related concept “engagement” seems to be an innate part of goodness, whatever the context (fall or no fall). I think I am supported in making this assertion on Scriptural grounds.
Prior to the fall, God gave Adam the mandate to exercise dominion, which can be understood as an engaged exercise of power over and against the forces of creation. The thing is, humanity is itself one of these forces of creation, and thus humans are called to exercise self mastery. So, prior to the incident which led humanity into corruptibility, at a time when human nature was sound, humans were still required to be intentional about the development of their being, an ongoing action or process which is good.
I could go on, but winding up, let me just say that my assertion and assumption is that human nature is dynamic, and that this dynamism is something that requires engagement and intentionality regardless of whether we exist in a state of integrity or a state of corruption. In this light, perhaps it could be said that in our original state we would have naturally been engaged in the development of our good being, and that the fall introduced both a tendency toward a neglect of sorts, as well as the need for us to supress the baser/corrupted aspects of our present existence, as we move toward the good.
Wrote the following comment on August 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 am #
Here’s a mundane analogy: it’s like a new house or a new store. Looks all shiny and new. But if you do nothing, it’ll eventually look like crap. Ya gotta DO something. Pull out the weeds, mow the lawn, shovel the snow, clean it, etc.
Wrote the following comment on August 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 am #
Roger – Isn’t drawing from the mundane to explain the abstract and profound the point of analogies. This being the case, I think you provided a very good analogy, particularly as it addressed the issue of entropy as it is present in our common experience. On the other hand your analogy makes me see something else. Entropy is not the only force we are dealing with. Your analogy actually points to an almost opposing factor, a vitality as seen the the weeds and lawn, that encroach upon the boundaries we establish in our homes and gardens. The point, of course is that whatever the forces may be, if we don’t face them, they disorder the order we establish. And what I am asserting in all this is that our souls are a microcosm of what is true in the world, particularly as we are part of the created order.
Wrote the following comment on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm #
The sad truth is that, for all the time I’ve considered this entry, the only thing I’ve consistently thought of is my initial ponderation, which is that, before reading your entry, I looked at this one in reverse, to wit: The happy lie is that least good is undone by people who always make up their minds to be evil or good.
I wasn’t certain that significant change would be made by use of “done” versus “undone” but in keeping the sense of the opposite, I chose “undone.”
At any rate…
Before reading your entry, I looked at this one in reverse, to wit: The happy lie is that least good is undone by people who always make up their minds to be evil or good.
I wasn’t certain that significant change would be made by use of “done” versus “undone” but in keeping the sense of the opposite, I chose “undone.”
I also wonder about Adam.
Was he perfect in the beginning? That is, as an sinless creature, was he perfect? And then, what about unfallen angels? I understand they too were once worshipped – an improper activity by Biblical standards (angels tell humanity to worship the Almighty).
The correlation, and perhaps most important development I see here is the creative ability given to humanity which was/is not present in angels. The Scripture does indicate, however that before the Flood, angels apparently did copulate with humans, and thus experienced some degree, power or ability of creativity.
I have no fundamental qualm with the essence contained in your statement “God gave Adam the mandate to exercise dominion, which can be understood as an engaged exercise of power over and against the forces of creation.” I think it could be worded better, however.
I sense that in such a statement as yours, the inference is that intentionality was designated from the beginning. I would like to explore that nature – that of intentionality – perhaps more so than what I perceive as a faulty premise, vis-a-vis, the exercise of dominion as it relates to the practice of self in an uncorrupted state.
That being said, I do agree however, with your conclusion that “he fall introduced both a tendency toward a neglect of sorts, as well as the need for us to supress the baser/corrupted aspects of our present existence.” Yet within that statement is, I believe, an idea that we can somehow become better.
Can we?
I think this argument touches, in a very real way, upon the idea that by our “good” deeds – (if good can come from evil, if so, only by the Almighty’s doing, and I have experienced and seen it so, rather than by our own power) – we can improve ourselves, overcome our nature, if you will, and thereby become better than or perhaps despite our state of being.
And that, my good friend, is where your argument lies.
May I remind you that washed pig is still a pig, which would just as soon wallow in the mire?
It makes no difference if the pig wants to stay clean. It will not and cannot, no matter how strong such desire.
That’s why we need a Saviour!
Hello?
Jesus is on the main line… tell Him what you want!