It is striking (when you think about it) how it is easy to recognize - and be confident of the identity of - evil actions; but not good ones.
There are plenty of well known actions that are evil with such a high degree of certainty as to make it nigh impossible to imagine any situation in which they could deliberately and consciously be done from genuinely good motivations.
Yet, because good and evil are not symmetrical, the same does not apply to good actions. I can't think of any action that is good in and of itself - what makes it good comes from the motivation, and from that motivation proceeding from a full accordance with God's creative will.
This is why it is so much easier to talk about "goodness" in double-negatives; in terms of opposing evil rather than genuinely doing good.
It is the doing of good that is the problem; because nothing "done" is good in and of itself - we just can't get away from why it is done.
People really want good to be definable in terms of acts; because if it could be, then good could be made into a plan, described in bullet points; and "implemented" on the world and other-people.
Yet it is the fact that good cannot validly be thus conceptualized that has made all schemes for making-the-world-a-better-place (i.e. the entirety of politics and social engineering) into the realm of such self-deception, lies and horrors.
I suspect that we can only really-do real-good in those sadly-brief moments in which we are ourselves really good - when really-are on God's wavelength, as it were.
And of course that means that the real-good which is done by us is only seldom in any objectively observable or definable form - but most likely to be in our thinking, a particular choice, a word or phrase, or some very particular (maybe unnoticed) action.
7 comments:
Yes I have always been struck by how much the denizens of synlogos disagree with each other and even oppose one another whilst agreeing remarkably closely about what are the major large-scale evils in the world today.
However, if what you say is true, this to to be expected and there can't be much agreement about what's good: the nature of goodness contains unlimited variety, depending on individuals and their personal motivations.
And if goodness could be reduced to a set of actions or algorithm this would mean utilitarianism and hedonism were true, which they aren't!
@Ron "if goodness could be reduced to a set of actions or algorithm this would mean utilitarianism and hedonism were true, which they aren't!"
Yes, exactly!
Dear Bruce,
I think this is an enormously wise post of yours! If we had a plan to do "good", we could navigate our way to heaven ourselves. Do enough "good" to complete your scorecard and get the ticket to heaven. And Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross would have been superfluous at this point. I also would like to do "good" but have come to the conclusion that I simply don't know how. Avoiding evil is the best that I can strive for, and that in itself is hard enough. In our fallen state all that is left for us is to accept god's grace and Jesus' sacrifice. You have put into clear words what I have felt for quite a long time.
Best, Wolfgang
@Wolfgang.
Thank you!
I do, however, believe that avoiding evil is (usually) an insufficient motivation for human life. It also seems to lead to a depressive or anxious siege mentality; and can lead to a kind of spiritual safety-first restrictiveness, asceticism, quietism - which may become anti-life. By avoiding one especially-feared sin it is easy to overcompensate in an opposite direction - as when the principle to avoid or minimize suffering goes across to precautionary "mercy killing" and "assisted suicide".
For instance, if we are to be creative (in the broad sense of the concept, which would include friendship, marriage, raising children - as well as jobs, crafts, arts) then we must have positive ideas concerning what to aim at.
I did all that. I am 57, founded 3 biotech companies in Switzerland, one of which went public; started two families, have three kids and now live on a farm where I produce wine and have a bunch of Alpakas and more. This may qualify as successful in a worldly sense, but I am pretty certain that non of this is meaningful in any way when it comes to the salvation of my soul.
Best, Wolfgang
@Wolfgang "non of this is meaningful in any way when it comes to the salvation of my soul."
Exactly - because the actions say nothing about what motivated them.
Plus long-term socially observable (especially status-linked) motivations are generally not-good.
Bruce S. has left a comment:
"People really want good to be definable in terms of acts..".
Good must be thus defined for the high priests of Empiricism to lay claim to the moral domain. But as you infer, all such schemes for Utopia built on this foundation result in dystopian realities.
"I do, however, believe that avoiding evil is (usually) an insufficient motivation for human life. It also seems to lead to a depressive or anxious siege mentality; and can lead to a kind of spiritual safety-first restrictiveness, asceticism, quietism - which may become anti-life"
Definitely. In my case (as an agnostic, presently) this wrong turning was/is the result of me simply not being spiritually equipped to deal with the discovery that a great evil has infiltrated almost all organs of Western society. The fact that almost no one I speak to feels similarly adds to the feeling of isolation and despair. Your essays on the primacy of motivation and embracing the simple-clear positive have been helpful.
Agnosticism is not a tenable position in a great spiritual war and I though I have chosen the side of Christian morality in an intellectual sense, I’m yet to find the path to the faith itself. However, I am very thankful for having been guided to this island of wisdom in the spiritual desert. All the best.
Post a Comment