NOTE TO THE READER: If you wish to watch the very graphic murder of Iryna Zarutska, you can find it here. I have not watched it—and will not—because I cannot bear to witness such a display of evil. The images above are bad enough to provoke tears. Moreover, many people who had video autoplay on wish they had never seen it. However, some felt that it was necessary to see it. Perhaps one of my readers will need to watch that video in order to know and understand what evil is. If you prefer a single bloody still photo (which I’ve seen) instead of a video, see here. I leave it all here because there are times when it is necessary to expose evil to the light.
Do not let anyone deceive you with empty words, for because of these sins the wrath of God is coming upon those who are disobedient. Therefore, do not participate with them in these sins, because at one time you were darkness, but now, in union with the Lord, you are light. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists of everything that is good and right and true), discerning what is pleasing to the Lord.
And do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them, for it is shameful to even speak of the things that they do in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light. For what makes everything visible is light. This is why it says, “Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”
As we discuss the nature of evil, keep the following in mind.
I watched the full video of the train attack. It’s very clear that all of the people immediately around Iryna did not intervene and did not make any attempt to help her or give her any aid or comfort. She bled out on the floor of a crowded train and died alone while everyone watched or pretended they didn’t notice. People mill around, walking by casually while she takes her final breaths. Nearly two minutes after the attack one man comes over to try and help. Everyone else just stands and watches. A short time later another woman, and then another man. Those three should be commended. The rest of the people on that train should be plagued with shame and guilt for the rest of their lives. But I doubt they’ll ever give it a second thought.
She knew it as she died too. Before she collapses, she looks to the woman on her right, realises no one’s coming, then begins sobbing into her hands.
Back when Cameron, Liz. and Elspeth still commented here, one of them (can’t remember which, possibly more than one) raised the issue of how we morally judge people with reduced mental capacity. How can we judge someone who doesn’t (supposedly) understand the moral implications of their choices?
The Bible insists that everyone be treated equally according to their deeds. So what about a person who is “born that way?” The Bible doesn’t indicate that they should be treated differently just because they (supposedly) lack the capacity to make good choices. In fact, scripture calls such a person evil.
We just made up a medical term for the real thing.
Many such cases, really – Galen or Augustine would describe a textbook schizophrenic as being “possessed by demons,” and I am not sure they were MEANINGFULLY wrong.
Remember this from last week’s post?
Lewis talks about the danger of pretending crime is a disease and criminals patients. What he predicts is precisely what we now have. The only way back to normal is normalizing retribution. The only solution is real justice, immediate, and radical by liberal standards.
Do you think that Lewis and Reilly are correct? Is criminality simply evil and not a disease? Should mentally ill criminals be punished to the fullest extent of the law?
Let’s examine these questions.
The blankslatist notion that moral equality is premised on biological similarity implies that the harmful acts performed by someone with biological dissimilarity—if such a thing were allowed—are indistinguishable from perpetuating evil. After all, if all people are truly blank slates, then any differences must be the result of some environmental cause. This viewpoint obligates him to make a determination as to the reason for his deeds, in order to know if they are the result of evil (one’s choice) or something else (not one’s choice).
The blankslatist has forced himself to continuously make moral judgements, to accurately read what is contained within the heart of a man. He must evaluate whether a man’s deeds are caused by external factors (for which he isn’t to blame), inherent internal factors (such as brain damage or illness for which he isn’t to blame), or is evil itself (by conscious free choice).
This is why blankslatists are so judgmental. It is why so many people feel so strongly compelled to assert, on their own authority, what is (or is not) contained within the heart of another. It is the frame in which their understanding of morality is set. Their ideologically presuppositions obligate them to do so. After all, if you believe that no actions are inherent, then all actions must have an explanation. Everything must have a cause: something or someone is to blame. “I don’t know” isn’t good enough. Nothing can simply be.
So, the blankslatist will be divided. One group (the political left) will assert that white racism is to blame and that certain “oppressed” criminals are without agency and should therefore all go free. They’ll be hard pressed even to declare the killing of Iryna Zarutska to be a murder, or at least asserting that the killer is guilty of murder. But, another group (the political right) will assert that criminals have, as blank slates, freely chosen evil and should therefore be deported, imprisoned, or killed.
The outcomes may differ, but the blankslatist is always forced to judge a man’s intentions, not merely his deeds. That judgment frames how he must view the world and of morality itself.
But what does the hereditarian do? The hereditarian acknowledges that biological dissimilarity exists. But, this fact alone is not an implicit assertion of moral superiority or inferiority. Here is a comment from Bruce Charlton:
I think the confusion arises because people conflate morality with behaviors such as theft and murder, which crimes differ considerably in incidence according to biology – eg age, sex, race.
To take a non controversial example, the peak age for violence is about 15-25, after which it declines unless psychopathology supervenes. Genetics stay almost identical, but behavior changes.
The question is whether 90 year olds are therefore superior in morality to 30 year olds? I’d state not, but for most people there are no grounds for making such a distinction.
The hereditarian view of a man’s moral worth is based on what is in his heart. That is something that no man can determine. No court of law, clergyman, or scientist can determine whether a man commits a crime because of his own freewill agency of evil or because he is damaged in some way and cannot exercise true agency. There is simply no way to definitively make such a distinction.
So, instead the hereditarian judges a man on the sole basis of what he does, not what is in his heart. He is not making moral judgments on the basis of biological similarity or dissimilarity. It is not “Racism.”
The hereditarian might even judge a man by what he is expected to do in the future. He can do so without making judgments about the unknown that is in his heart. The hereditarian is, for example, allowed to see patterns (e.g. 10 arrests) and use that information to preemptively prevent future catastrophe (e.g. 11 arrests). Hereditarians are also able to rationally justify the involuntarily commitment of the mentally ill, even if they have committed no crimes.
The hereditarian does not have to try to figure out if the 30-year old criminal is morally superior, inferior, or equal to the 90-year old criminal. There is simply no obligation or grounds for such judgment.
Unburdened from blankslatist constraints, I am free, without hesitation or inconsistency, to call the murder and murderer of Iryna Zarutska evil.
NOPE!
i had heard and knew of murders and rapes on the 11 o’clock news as a (very) young kid.
IOW?
i gave up on the human race before i went to elementary school.
IOW?
i was George Carlin as a kid!😉
IOW?
https://ayotheauthor.com/outcome-independence/
Most writers don’t fear writing. They’re to hit the publish button. They fear the judgment of other people, the stats, the response, the outcome.
If I worried about how well each blog post would do, I’d never publish anything. Of course, I want my work to do well and I’m glad when it does. But more and more I realize that doing great work for the sake of doing great work often causes the outcome you want.
By not trying to angle my writing a certain way just to get clicks, I get clicks. Regardless of what you think of my writing, I’m writing what I believe to be the truth. I put forth my best effort and leave it at that. That’s the best I can hope for and so far it has worked out well.
But this isn’t a post about writing, it’s a post about true confidence.”
”Outcome Independence”-IT WAS NEVER JUST FOR ”PLAYAS” LIKE DAL’S COLLEGE ROOOMATE.
IOW?
i stopped having an emotional stake in the overall human race, the American ”culture”, and nation as a little kid.
Watch that George Carlin video above and you’ll understand what i mean,”I sort of gave up on the experiment of human beings,I decided it was all groups now, whether or not it was business, religion, or political people. People are wonderful individually,but as soon as they group,it falls apart. ”
ZLOLZZLZLZ
i forgot the link to the George Carlin video.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/de9g6bE8YuQ