Let me preface this with a disclaimer. As with most things, I'm still trying to figure this one out. And as with most things, I'm probably wrong.
There is no object that contains the metaphysical properties of bad, or evil, or wrong. And I think that that principle can be taken further.
There is no action that contains the metaphysical properties of bad, or evil, or wrong IN AND OF THEMSELVES.
The action that you may undertake may be evil, but I don't think that the action itself is evil.
But coming out and simply saying it will never explain it, or make it so. Before I explain it however, I'll explain my motives behind writing this down.
A few weeks ago, I came across a forum discussion from a group purporting to be something along the lines of 'Fundamental, Baptist, King James Bible believing [original not NKJV] Christians'. After reading through this and a couple of other of the discussions I came to the conclusion that these were Ultraconservative 'christians' who were stuck more in their tradition than the actual bible that they said that they read. However, read it they did; they could probably quote whole books of it at you and explain what they thought it meant.
The particular discussion in question was about whether modern musical stylings could ever be considered wholesome, and more specifically, whether they could be used for the purposes of worship. Where I was hoping that the discussion might be an intelligent, civil one, it ended up being little more than a slagging match on all non-hymn music that contained logical fallacies so large that Christopher Hitchens would be able to drive an incredibly oversized vehicle through them with not just room to spare, but also without being able to see the edges, so congratulations for that.
The discussion ranged from things like the associations of rock music being unsuitable for Christian worship (actually not a bad point) to things like the standard 4/4 drum beat employed in rock music was created by the devil to tempt us, and it's obvious since people dance to it (where they got that idea from I still can't figure out).
It contained arguments like, "Parents of children who listen to this music don't listen to this music. Therefore, it is not honouring to the parents to listen to this music and so it breaks the 7th commandment" - to which I thought, it was my parents who introduced me to this music. It also featured this particular doozy: "You wouldn't use the music from AC/DC's Highway to Hell to sing Amazing Grace to" (and yes that was actually the example given), so you therefore can't use any thing bearing any similarity to that style for worship. My thought here was, not only that the music doesn't have the same rhythm as amazing grace and therefore can't be used, but also that Highway to Hell isn't really particularly good musically anyway so why would you want to.
Any backwards and onwards to the original proposition - No object or action is evil. Before the piles of hate mail come in for me saying this, I will clarify.
The physical entity or movements themselves are not evil, they are merely things. What is evil, is the motives.
Let me explain further. Let's take objects first as it's less of an abstract concept and therefore easier to explain. A knife is not evil; it has a function and it carries out that function. The function of a knife is to cut things. It can cut all sorts of things; paper, bread, fabric, light plastic, meat. It is merely a thing with a function.
However, let's consider briefly the function of the knife. It is designed to cut things. Ergo it can cut humans if the user deems that that is what the knife's function should be on any particular occasion. This could be deemed an evil function, but the object has stayed the same. It has not in any way changed or altered its physical or chemical make up, so how can it now be evil?
When you consider closer, even with this theoretically evil function, there are cases when it could be deemed good even with the exact same function. You can cut a human in order to kill, maim or wound. You can cut a human in order to perform life saving surgery.
The Object, no matter the function or the motive for it's existence, says the same and can not be said to be either evil or good, it merely is.
Let's take actions now. Let's take a few different actions and see how they can vary.
We've already considered the action of cutting open a human. It can be done both to injure and to heal. Let's take the example further. Let's now kill the human with the afore mentioned knife. Let's say firstly that it was done simply for the pleasure of killing, to end a life. Most people would have no problems at all deciding that this is an evil motive. But let's now consider another scenario. What about defence for yourself or others? Could that be considered a good motive for killing a human. Certainly in the eyes of the law of most lands it is. Which means that this action is just a thing, neutral at best. So let's try another action.
Let's take an action that many people would not stop to think about. Let's take sex as an example. Sex can be good. It builds intimacy and strong relationships. It builds families which in turn have the potential to be forces for some metaphysical property of good. It is even (or so I've been told) pleasurable. It certainly seems to be off to a good start. What about rape. It is the same action, but suddenly it has a different motive. The motive in this case could be to hurt or injure either physically, emotionally or psychologically. It could be for the purposes of gaining power over an individual. It could simply be for the purposes of gaining pleasure at another's expense. These motives all shift the potentially good action to being what 99.999999% of people consider bad. But the action itself is still just a neutral thing.
Let's now take an action that could never be considered bad or evil. Let's help an old lady across the street. She's struggling with the load of shopping and she's been walking all day in the heat. Good action. Now think about why you're doing it. Did you want to help Mrs Winthrop completely out of the goodness of your heart? or instead did you want Mrs Winthrop to think you were a good person and maybe even tip you for helping out. Unless you can say that the second never crossed your mind, then the action itself was not completely good. If you helped Mrs Winthrop because you wanted to get her away from the crowds before you ran off with her shopping and handbag, then your motives were definitely bad.
I'm not trying to advocate a lesser evil mentality here. Instead what I'm trying to do is write down my still young thoughts on this topic. But it seems to me that the only thing that is evil in all of this is the motives, whether for the action or for the existence of the object, the rest is just a thing.
There is no object that contains the metaphysical properties of bad, or evil, or wrong. And I think that that principle can be taken further.
There is no action that contains the metaphysical properties of bad, or evil, or wrong IN AND OF THEMSELVES.
The action that you may undertake may be evil, but I don't think that the action itself is evil.
But coming out and simply saying it will never explain it, or make it so. Before I explain it however, I'll explain my motives behind writing this down.
A few weeks ago, I came across a forum discussion from a group purporting to be something along the lines of 'Fundamental, Baptist, King James Bible believing [original not NKJV] Christians'. After reading through this and a couple of other of the discussions I came to the conclusion that these were Ultraconservative 'christians' who were stuck more in their tradition than the actual bible that they said that they read. However, read it they did; they could probably quote whole books of it at you and explain what they thought it meant.
The particular discussion in question was about whether modern musical stylings could ever be considered wholesome, and more specifically, whether they could be used for the purposes of worship. Where I was hoping that the discussion might be an intelligent, civil one, it ended up being little more than a slagging match on all non-hymn music that contained logical fallacies so large that Christopher Hitchens would be able to drive an incredibly oversized vehicle through them with not just room to spare, but also without being able to see the edges, so congratulations for that.
The discussion ranged from things like the associations of rock music being unsuitable for Christian worship (actually not a bad point) to things like the standard 4/4 drum beat employed in rock music was created by the devil to tempt us, and it's obvious since people dance to it (where they got that idea from I still can't figure out).
It contained arguments like, "Parents of children who listen to this music don't listen to this music. Therefore, it is not honouring to the parents to listen to this music and so it breaks the 7th commandment" - to which I thought, it was my parents who introduced me to this music. It also featured this particular doozy: "You wouldn't use the music from AC/DC's Highway to Hell to sing Amazing Grace to" (and yes that was actually the example given), so you therefore can't use any thing bearing any similarity to that style for worship. My thought here was, not only that the music doesn't have the same rhythm as amazing grace and therefore can't be used, but also that Highway to Hell isn't really particularly good musically anyway so why would you want to.
Any backwards and onwards to the original proposition - No object or action is evil. Before the piles of hate mail come in for me saying this, I will clarify.
The physical entity or movements themselves are not evil, they are merely things. What is evil, is the motives.
Let me explain further. Let's take objects first as it's less of an abstract concept and therefore easier to explain. A knife is not evil; it has a function and it carries out that function. The function of a knife is to cut things. It can cut all sorts of things; paper, bread, fabric, light plastic, meat. It is merely a thing with a function.
However, let's consider briefly the function of the knife. It is designed to cut things. Ergo it can cut humans if the user deems that that is what the knife's function should be on any particular occasion. This could be deemed an evil function, but the object has stayed the same. It has not in any way changed or altered its physical or chemical make up, so how can it now be evil?
When you consider closer, even with this theoretically evil function, there are cases when it could be deemed good even with the exact same function. You can cut a human in order to kill, maim or wound. You can cut a human in order to perform life saving surgery.
The Object, no matter the function or the motive for it's existence, says the same and can not be said to be either evil or good, it merely is.
Let's take actions now. Let's take a few different actions and see how they can vary.
We've already considered the action of cutting open a human. It can be done both to injure and to heal. Let's take the example further. Let's now kill the human with the afore mentioned knife. Let's say firstly that it was done simply for the pleasure of killing, to end a life. Most people would have no problems at all deciding that this is an evil motive. But let's now consider another scenario. What about defence for yourself or others? Could that be considered a good motive for killing a human. Certainly in the eyes of the law of most lands it is. Which means that this action is just a thing, neutral at best. So let's try another action.
Let's take an action that many people would not stop to think about. Let's take sex as an example. Sex can be good. It builds intimacy and strong relationships. It builds families which in turn have the potential to be forces for some metaphysical property of good. It is even (or so I've been told) pleasurable. It certainly seems to be off to a good start. What about rape. It is the same action, but suddenly it has a different motive. The motive in this case could be to hurt or injure either physically, emotionally or psychologically. It could be for the purposes of gaining power over an individual. It could simply be for the purposes of gaining pleasure at another's expense. These motives all shift the potentially good action to being what 99.999999% of people consider bad. But the action itself is still just a neutral thing.
Let's now take an action that could never be considered bad or evil. Let's help an old lady across the street. She's struggling with the load of shopping and she's been walking all day in the heat. Good action. Now think about why you're doing it. Did you want to help Mrs Winthrop completely out of the goodness of your heart? or instead did you want Mrs Winthrop to think you were a good person and maybe even tip you for helping out. Unless you can say that the second never crossed your mind, then the action itself was not completely good. If you helped Mrs Winthrop because you wanted to get her away from the crowds before you ran off with her shopping and handbag, then your motives were definitely bad.
I'm not trying to advocate a lesser evil mentality here. Instead what I'm trying to do is write down my still young thoughts on this topic. But it seems to me that the only thing that is evil in all of this is the motives, whether for the action or for the existence of the object, the rest is just a thing.
