Let's talk about "evil" this week. It's a word that's bandied about often enough, but what do we really mean by it?
Let me start by saying that I don't like the word. It has no real meaning to me. I suppose you could say that I don't believe in evil. I believe in right and wrong, good and bad. But the word "evil" has a connotation without opposite. What's the opposite of wrong? Right. The opposite of bad? Good. The opposite of evil? Um... Good? Sorry. We've used that one already. I suppose "divine" would be the closest to the opposite of "evil," but obviously, I can't swallow that one, either.
I used the term in my article "The Evil Puppetmaster" simply to make a point. It is a term with a specific connotation. I knew others would relate to it, and that's why I used it. But it's not a word that I feel at all comfortable using.
"Evil" is a term with supernatural overtones to it, and as such, I can't condone its use with reference to the actions of mankind. I believe we are capable of atrocities, of course. But where does one draw the line between that and "evil"? The actions of Hitler or any other mass murderer? Certainly bad. Unquestionably wrong. Definitely atrocities. Reprehensible in the extreme. But "evil"? The word has no meaning for one who doesn't adhere to a source of evil.
Ultimately, this comes down to a matter of morality, I think. So let me switch gears for just a moment and talk about that.
There are basically three types of morality:
Of these three, the only one that truly "works," in the long run, is the third. When morality is imposed upon us by society (or "the majority"), there will always be those who bristle under the definitions. The same holds true for morality imposed by a Creator, for (obviously) 100% of the populace will never agree upon that Creator and his/her/its edicts. But when morality is imposed upon us by ourselves, we never question it, right? Wrong. We do question it. We constantly re-evaluate, constantly grow. We are free to improve it over time, because it is our own. It's the only moral code that is not static and lifeless.
Is this to say that two different people will have two different moralities? Yup. But that's not a terrible thing. It does not mean, as many seem to believe, that we'll have a society full of sickos and psychopaths. If anything, we'd have fewer. Why? Because of how independent humans are. We hate being told what to do, especially when the reason given is "because I said so." And it doesn't matter whether the person saying so is your parent, your president, or your priest.
One of the things that allowed primitive society to survive from its infancy to the present day is our innate need to cooperate. If we hurt one another, we hurt the tribe. If the tribe decreases in population, there are fewer mouths to feed but fewer left to gather the food, too. Treating others well is simply a matter of self-preservation. And that holds just as true today, though it may not seem to. Treating others well, far from being a matter of "enlightenment," is actually a deep-seated instinct.
This instinct would lead to a society far more pleasant than our own, if left to flourish. But no. Rather than allow humankind to evolve in a self-preserving fashion, we have instituted governments and religions to stifle us, to program us, to make us behave by external laws rather than self-imposed rules. That's a recipe for rebellion in its most basic form. And look around you. Does it appear the imposed morality, whether by society or religion, has worked? It doesn't to me.
The only authority anyone really respects is the authority of self. But for some reason, no one trusts anyone else's self-imposed morality. Perhaps that is because so few people truly adhere to such a moral code. They rebel against externally applied morality, and if they do so in strong enough terms, they are labeled "evil."
See? You didn't think we'd get back to "evil," did you?
Chances are, some people reading this article have been labeled "evil" by others, simply because they do not believe in a deity. To those who use such labels, we atheists have no morality. These people refuse to accept any morality but their god's. If we deny god's existence, we've committed the ultimate immoral act, and are therefore evil.
There's probably no way around that particular situation, and I doubt that many freethinkers really care one way or another about what the theists think of us. However, most of us do care about our place in society. We care because we are citizens, and this country belongs to all of us, not just theists.
Obviously, we should protest the stupidity of society's morality (the opposition to same-sex marriage, for example). But at the same time, we must also learn to ignore any imagined hold that society's morality has on us.
Once you've learned to ignore it, once its power over you as an individual is gone, then you are free to embrace your own morality (which will most likely be more sensible than the one you're ignoring), and free to point out the impracticality or idiocy of the morality you're ignoring, all without reservation.
The voice of a slave protesting slavery is not often heard. But the voice of a free person protesting slavery… that causes others to pay attention.
Don't be enslaved by their labels. Laugh at them.
