#227 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday December 21)
Good morning,
Happy Winter Solstice! Today is the shortest day of the year. From here until June of next year, the days will grow longer.
A while back, I noted the Hobbes vs. Rousseau dilemma about whether people are basically evil or basically good. I quoted a sentiment expressed by someone else that they would rather live a life believing in a Rousseauian world (man is basically good), rather than a Hobbesian world (man is basically evil). Several people commented on this, most suggesting that history and a random read of any daily newspaper must lead to the conclusion that man is basically evil. The best articulation of this idea is David Woznica, who is a rabbi and, so, has some standing in understanding the human condition as it relates to history and faith:
THE RABBI’S ANALYSIS
“Judaism teaches us that humans have free will, along with a good inclination and an evil inclination…It is significant in the Torah, after Noah makes an offering to God, God says “… the inclination of man’s mind (or heart) are evil from his youth…”. (Genesis 8:21). While this does not teach that human nature is evil, it does convey that our inclination to do evil is stronger than to do good. Additionally, If Judaism believed that human nature were good, why would our tradition give us 613 mitzvot (commandments) to shape our behavior? We wouldn’t need commandments such as ‘Honor your father and mother’ or ‘Do not Steal’ or ‘Do not commit adultery’.”
“This might be simply an interesting intellectual exercise were it not so important. If human nature were basically good, then goodness would be natural. There would be no need to teach goodness. If our natures, however, are inclined toward the bad then goodness needs to be taught and one of the most critical goals of a society becomes teaching and shaping goodness. Most children need to be taught to share their toys, not to make fun of other children who may have physical or emotional problems, and to say ‘thank you…’ “
AN ADDITIONAL THOUGHT
I agree with the Rabbi’s basic premise—that good laws make good neighbors and that we need to have guard rails to govern the interactions of people with others. But I don’t believe these rules are necessary because people are necessarily evil—rather, it is because they are self-interested. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference but I think it’s important. Few people are actually cravenly depraved (even “Doctor Evil” wasn’t all that evil). There are those who are truly “evil”—but there are contributing factors, including terrible upbringing, mental illness or something inside we can never understand. I’m not sure any rules constrain them or those acting in the heat of passion.
I think most people who do bad things do so not out of evil or a desire to do something that is demonstrably wrong, for its own sake. Rather, I believe people do things through self-interest, coupled with a lack of appreciation for (or indifference toward) the ramifications of their actions on others. My mother used to say that people spend a good deal of time rationalizing self-interested behaviors they know to be wrong. I have tried to consider bad or stupid acts by others through this prism.
I suppose what I’m getting at is that I would categorize people not as essentially evil but as essentially self-interested (to the point of disregarding or minimizing the effect of their actions on others). It is the ability to control, as best we can, the selfish desires and animalistic instincts within us, that brings us toward peaceful coexistence. We must control our desires and self-motivation, not just because their effects can be “evil” toward others but because they can be harmful to us and our families as well . Plus, controlling desires sounds a lot better than controlling evil intents…
Finally, it is easy to find forgiveness, compassion and understanding, and to create structures to constrain unacceptable behaviors (while satisfying needs), when one considers that bad deeds often come from actual needs (hunger, shelter, protecting children) or feelings a system doesn’t protect them.
There is a warped view of Adam Smith’s views on capitalism and the invisible hand of the market that pervades discussions of societal needs, taxation, and regulation. Smith never favored random pursuit of profit but, rather, capitalism within the context of a liberal society—businesses pursuing profits while acknowledging their place in a larger world, with other responsibilities. But those motivated solely by self-interest have forgotten the second part of this formula. Evil? Self-interested? Does it really matter?
There is a balance between protecting society from those who do bad things and addressing the underlying causes of their transgressions (acknowledging that their own agency of course also is a factor).
THE FINAL WORD
Rabbi Woznica ends with two important thoughts:
“I certainly wish human nature inclined toward the good. Yet I value Judaism’s honest assessment. In doing so, it can lead us to shape better people and ultimately a better world. In that regard our tradition seems cautiously optimistic about humanity.”
“…[B]y doing nothing we are complicit to some degree with those who do evil hence the [commandment], “Do not stand by while the blood of your neighbor is shed…” Goodness means standing up to and, at times, fighting evil.”
We agree. Maybe any disagreement we might have merely is a question of semantics. His message is valuable. It is another example of how religion, and religious leaders, have value beyond worship an doctrine, but serve as sentinels—reminders of our need for moral codes and self-examination in an increasingly complex and unfamiliar world.
Have a good day,
Glenn
From the archives: