NOTHING'S MORE FASCINATING THAN EVIL.

This started as a comment in my 5th commandment post, in response to a question from OJ on whether I think that evil is just physical overindulgence. It's too long for the comments, so here it is.

OJ -- I'm certainly trying not to say that. There are two different issues here to be clarified. (I note that I'm leaving Jewish theology behind. The views expressed here are my own. For a good basic primer on Judaism, which takes a different view of some of these issues, see Judaism 101.)

First, although in our society physical overindulgence is a common path to sin, it is not the only path. Spiritual overindulgence can be just as wrong. In His Commandments, G-d struck a balance that we should not second guess. We are not more Godly if we "go beyond" that which is required. See bin Laden, Osama and some of the blacker episodes in religious history. If we keep kosher, then we don't eat pork. We're not more holy if we then go beyond the commandment and give up meat entirely, even if it seems to us that the rule against pork also implies vegetarianism.

Second, sin and evil are related but, to my mind, distinct concepts. If I eat a slice of pepperoni pizza, or drive on Saturday, I'm breaking a commandment, but I'm not -- I don't think -- evil. Equally, although we can distinguish between Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and Dahmer, evil is a binary concept, not infinitely variable. It would be silly to take someone who, for example, lied to his wife about how many drinks he had at a party and say, well, he's evil too, but only one-one hundred millionth as evil as Stalin.

To make this more concrete, let's consider Harry. It does seem to be pick on Harry day on the blog. (I should make clear that I am speaking of the purely theoretical Harry we know through his posts, not the actual Harry, about whom I know very little.)

I gather that Harry is a materialist. He believe that only those things exist that can be observed, measured and weighed, either directly or, through their effects, indirectly. Having rejected the Church based upon what he observed of the actions of the Bishop of Podunk, Tennessee fifty years ago (and Podunk is clearly where the Church sends its master catechists), Harry has also rejected god. And yet, unwilling to live a life of mere physicality, Harry has set his mind to develop a reason-based set of rules for living the good life. Coincidentally, his rules seem to track pretty much with six or seven of the Ten Commandments.

Now, Harry would argue, I assume, that he started with first principles and then reasoned out his modus vivendi. If he wouldn't say this, then there are any number of atheists that would. My interpretation, of course, is that his innate desire to comply with God's commands -- real but repressed -- informs every one of his moral rules, though it has been made subservient to reason, a manifestation of our physical lives. In this, we can see that this atheistic attempt to lead a moral life based on rationality -- founded on first principals that are as ethereal as any theism -- is an expression of our innate wish to follow G-d and is, in fact, a form of worship. (Of course, in saying this I'm giving in to my "physical" desire to annoy the atheists, but does that make this post sinful?)

The elevation of rationalism over G-d is error, but the desire to live a good life informed, at least implicitly, by religious values, is not in any way evil. Judaism allows for the possibility of the righteous gentile and should probably allow for the righteous atheist.

Finally, if sin and evil are separate, where is the line between them? On that, I must stand with Potter Stewart. I know it when I see it. The rest of you will just have to ask me. Posted by David Cohen at May 15, 2003 12:19 PM