Virtue Quest

Posted over at Coalition for Clarity.

Sometimes words can hinder clear communication as much as they help it.

I’ve seen many commentators, on this blog and elsewhere, object to the phrase “intrinsically evil” with reference to torture. So I’d like to try to translate and/or clarify what this phrase really means.

Evil

From a philosophical point of view, evil is not a thing itself. Rather, evil is the twisting or destruction or denial of a good thing. Evil must have a good thing to distort; it cannot exist as a separate thing, any more than “big” can exist without some thing to be large.

Keeping that in mind, when we call something “evil” or “bad” or “wrong”, what we really mean is that the thing is not what it ought to be. A “bad” apple is one that has rotted, or perhaps one that has not yet ripened. An “evil” deed is one that fails to enact the love or truth which it should.

Intrinsic

It’s understandable to me that some would consider the phrase “intrinsic evil” to be an oxymoron. After all, what’s wrong with the apple is not that it exists; it’s that it lacks the good that it ought to have.

This is also where we get the very sane requirement to love a sinner (because he or she is good, being a creature of God) and to hate the sin (because such actions distort or pervert the goodness of being human).

Now, some evils are accidental. If I step on my co-worker’s toe because I wasn’t watching where I was going, I harm the health of my co-worker and the camaraderie between us; but that is easily remedied by an apology and (if I was wearing my steel-toed boots) an ice pack.

But other evils are actions whose entire purpose is to distort the good. A deliberate lie, for example. Or, if I were to stomp on my co-worker’s toe out of spite. Whatever good thing I might be seeking (safety or advantage or even a vengeful kind of justice) is itself ruined because my action is itself meant to harm. The intention is to attack what is good, such as truth or health, in another.

And this is what “intrinsically evil” conveys: an act with the direct purpose of attacking, distorting, twisting, breaking down, or altogether destroying some good thing. That is, the evil is intrinsic (rooted inside) the action.

Torture

Now, just as human life and human dignity is perhaps the greatest good we have in this life, attacks on human life and dignity are some of the greatest evils.

This is why torture, which directly attacks the dignity of another by physical and mental and spiritual torment, is considered an evil so great that it is absolutely prohibited. It is not an act that one can commit accidentally. It requires someone to twist and distort some part of his or her conscience in order to do it. It is literally inhuman.

Now, I’m happy to concede that there are limits to the usefulness of the phrase “intrinsically evil”. But an objection to the phrase cannot be an excuse for a twisting of one’s conscience to the point that torture becomes an acceptable practice, under any circumstances.

Cross-posted from Coalition for Clarity.

The cast of "Monk"

I’ve been watching “Monk” with my family for some time, and we all gathered around the tele last night for the series finale.

For those who don’t watch much TV, the show follows Adrian Monk (played by Tony Shalhoub), a former detective for the San Francisco Police whose OCD went into overdrive when he lost his wife twelve years ago. He’s been consulting with the department, because he has an uncanny insight into what “doesn’t fit” at a crime scene. Mostly, it’s a comedy hung loosely on a detective show with the running gag of how to set off Monk’s phobias or obsessions. Sort of an anti-Columbo.

The one case he’s never solved is his own wife’s murder. So, of course, the series had to end with the solution to this cold case. As with most episodes, the actual clues and mystery-solving aspect of the story are mostly incidental. The resolution is quick and neatly resolved. It’s all about the character quirks. But it surprised me by showing a dark side of Monk’s character that I did not at all expect from a normally light entertainment.

* * * Spoilers to follow! * * *

Monk has always been haunted by his inability to solve his wife’s murder, but when he discovers the killer’s identity, he has two very dark reactions: he grows vengeful, and he implies that his OCD derives from an inability to “breathe the same air” as Trudy’s killer.

Vengeance and Justice

You knew this had to get back to virtue at some point, didn’t you?

Justice is the act of giving to each person their due. This is obviously the principle behind civil justice: I sue someone who refuses to give me what they owe me. But it’s also the case in criminal justice. In committing a crime, the criminal owes the victim what belongs to them; and, a little less obviously but just as truly, the criminal “is due” the consequences and punishment that belong to the crime.

Vengeance, on the other hand, is the simple desire to harm someone who has harmed me. It belongs to the “misery loves company” class of motivations. Vengeance says, “I have suffered, and I want that person to suffer at least as much – maybe even more!” It’s not interested in restoring order or right; just in causing hurt.

Monk’s vengeful turn

Now, throughout the series, Monk has consistently sided with justice over vengeance. But then, he’s also consistently made an exception to all reason and logic wherever his wife was concerned. Even so, in a previous episode he was not willing to kill the person who planted the bomb that killed Trudy.

So I was surprised to see him, not only asking Stottlemeyer (Ted Levine) to kill the suspect without a trial, but actually stealing a gun and apparently threatening to kill the suspect himself. I was also surprised that he had no reaction other than “emptiness” that the suspect committed suicide.

If the show was willing to go into that area of wrath and revenge, I would have hoped that they would, well, do the topic justice. Show Monk struggle with his desire for revenge, his regret that he didn’t pull the trigger himself, and so on.

I also had hoped that, having set up that Monk didn’t want to “breathe the same air” that Trudy’s killer breathed, they might have resolved that with some idea of the world being “cleaner” now. But maybe there I’m reading more into the statement than it warrants.

Character welcome

Now, I know all too well that Monk is just a fun diversion, and is not intended to be high art or profound literature. Even so, I do wish it would reach a little higher – especially in episodes where it delves into some deeper aspect of a character. Frankly, I think any show is more entertaining – more funny, more exciting, more romantic, what have you – when it reflects the fullness of human life and motivation.

Monk’s series finale left me, unfortunately, with a rather flat character whom I just didn’t believe in anymore, much less care about or identify with.

Ah well. That leaves more time for my own writing.