“Good does not result from evil. But riches result from greed; therefore, riches are not a good.”
“It is not true,” they say, “that good does not result from evil. For money comes from sacrilege and theft. Accordingly, although sacrilege and theft are evil, yet they are evil only because they work more evil than good. For they bring gain; but the gain is accompanied by fear, anxiety, and torture of mind and body.”
Whoever says this must perforce admit that sacrilege, though it be an evil because it works much evil, is yet partly good because it accomplishes a certain amount of good. What can be more monstrous than this? We have, to be sure, actually convinced the world that sacrilege, theft, and adultery are to be regarded as among the goods.
How many men there are who do not blush at theft, how many who boast of having committed adultery! For petty sacrilege is punished, but sacrilege on a grand scale is honored by a triumphal procession. Besides, sacrilege, if it is wholly good in some respect, will also be honorable and will be called right conduct; for it is conduct which concerns ourselves. But no human being, on serious consideration, admits this idea.
Therefore, goods cannot spring from evil. For if, as you object, sacrilege is an evil for the single reason that it brings on much evil, if you but absolve sacrilege of its punishment and pledge it immunity, sacrilege will be wholly good.
And yet the worst punishment for crime lies in the crime itself. You are mistaken, I maintain, if you propose to reserve your punishments for the hangman or the prison; the crime is punished immediately after it is committed; nay, rather, at the moment when it is committed.
“It is not true,” they say, “that good does not result from evil. For money comes from sacrilege and theft. Accordingly, although sacrilege and theft are evil, yet they are evil only because they work more evil than good. For they bring gain; but the gain is accompanied by fear, anxiety, and torture of mind and body.”
Whoever says this must perforce admit that sacrilege, though it be an evil because it works much evil, is yet partly good because it accomplishes a certain amount of good. What can be more monstrous than this? We have, to be sure, actually convinced the world that sacrilege, theft, and adultery are to be regarded as among the goods.
How many men there are who do not blush at theft, how many who boast of having committed adultery! For petty sacrilege is punished, but sacrilege on a grand scale is honored by a triumphal procession. Besides, sacrilege, if it is wholly good in some respect, will also be honorable and will be called right conduct; for it is conduct which concerns ourselves. But no human being, on serious consideration, admits this idea.
Therefore, goods cannot spring from evil. For if, as you object, sacrilege is an evil for the single reason that it brings on much evil, if you but absolve sacrilege of its punishment and pledge it immunity, sacrilege will be wholly good.
And yet the worst punishment for crime lies in the crime itself. You are mistaken, I maintain, if you propose to reserve your punishments for the hangman or the prison; the crime is punished immediately after it is committed; nay, rather, at the moment when it is committed.
—from Seneca, Moral Letters 87
I must tread lightly here, since I have little patience for those who compromise their supposed principles in order to achieve the most convenient results. They nobly claim they are being pragmatic, when they are really just looking for the easiest way out.
At the heart of it is a confusion about the very nature of the good, treating our moral worth as if it could be calculated in a bank ledger. It’s all fine, they say, as long as we end up in the black, where the profits outweigh the losses, and we can therefore overlook having done a few vicious things, in order to achieve a far greater number of virtuous things.
With the Peripatetics, I do not doubt that goodness admits of degrees, but this does not override a more fundamental distinction of kind. As clever as it sounds, the ends cannot justify the means, because any evil act, however small it may appear, is inherently opposed to any good act, however big it may appear. It is just as illogical when the schemers insist that two wrongs can make a right, when they now are left with only two wrongs.
I believe Marcus Aurelius put it best: “If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.” The Stoic knows full well why fudging it is a form of cowardice. Wickedness takes us in one direction, and righteousness takes us in the other.
“Yes, I admit that stealing the money wasn’t terribly nice, but I now intend to use that money to do a whole bunch of much nicer things. Stop being such a goody two-shoes!”
It isn’t merely about being nice, and it isn’t simply about getting the preferred results. Each and every one of my thoughts, words, and deeds reflects my whole character, such that my integrity as a person depends upon living with prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice, in each and every situation. Anything less is to act in bad faith, to abandon my human dignity.
“Well, it’s not like I burned down the whole church or anything! Does it make such a big difference that I snatched a handful of bills out of the collection plate?”
Even if the quantity happens to be more or less, the quality of the offense remains exactly the same. The true harm is in the soul, not in the circumstances. The real rewards and punishments proceed from the inside, not from the outside. I have gained nothing if I have accumulated more stuff, and I have lost nothing if I have maintained my character. Why would I sell my conscience for the sake of a few comforts?
Once again, the Thomists taught me properly: a good can never come from committing an evil, though a good can always come from suffering an evil. The distinction is a critical one: we are defined by whatever we do, as efficient causes, which includes transforming whatever might be done to us, as material causes.
If we start to excuse ourselves from some of the sins, it won’t be too long before we excuse ourselves from all of the sins. When we dodge any of our responsibilities, both to ourselves and to others, we engage in the perverse practice of painting over the rot. Forgive, but do not condone.
I must tread lightly here, since I have little patience for those who compromise their supposed principles in order to achieve the most convenient results. They nobly claim they are being pragmatic, when they are really just looking for the easiest way out.
At the heart of it is a confusion about the very nature of the good, treating our moral worth as if it could be calculated in a bank ledger. It’s all fine, they say, as long as we end up in the black, where the profits outweigh the losses, and we can therefore overlook having done a few vicious things, in order to achieve a far greater number of virtuous things.
With the Peripatetics, I do not doubt that goodness admits of degrees, but this does not override a more fundamental distinction of kind. As clever as it sounds, the ends cannot justify the means, because any evil act, however small it may appear, is inherently opposed to any good act, however big it may appear. It is just as illogical when the schemers insist that two wrongs can make a right, when they now are left with only two wrongs.
I believe Marcus Aurelius put it best: “If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.” The Stoic knows full well why fudging it is a form of cowardice. Wickedness takes us in one direction, and righteousness takes us in the other.
It isn’t merely about being nice, and it isn’t simply about getting the preferred results. Each and every one of my thoughts, words, and deeds reflects my whole character, such that my integrity as a person depends upon living with prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice, in each and every situation. Anything less is to act in bad faith, to abandon my human dignity.
“Well, it’s not like I burned down the whole church or anything! Does it make such a big difference that I snatched a handful of bills out of the collection plate?”
Even if the quantity happens to be more or less, the quality of the offense remains exactly the same. The true harm is in the soul, not in the circumstances. The real rewards and punishments proceed from the inside, not from the outside. I have gained nothing if I have accumulated more stuff, and I have lost nothing if I have maintained my character. Why would I sell my conscience for the sake of a few comforts?
Once again, the Thomists taught me properly: a good can never come from committing an evil, though a good can always come from suffering an evil. The distinction is a critical one: we are defined by whatever we do, as efficient causes, which includes transforming whatever might be done to us, as material causes.
If we start to excuse ourselves from some of the sins, it won’t be too long before we excuse ourselves from all of the sins. When we dodge any of our responsibilities, both to ourselves and to others, we engage in the perverse practice of painting over the rot. Forgive, but do not condone.
—Reflection written in 2/2014
No comments:
Post a Comment