Word of the Week #236:
When bad things happen to good people, we have an instant and clear reaction.
But when bad things happen to bad people? That can be conflicting, right?
Suppose you were standing over an evil dictator. He has come into contact with a deadly toxin. You have an antidote. Do you use it to save him?
Is it easy to define good and evil?
If you are good, shouldn’t you be good to everyone? If you don’t help an evil person in need, aren’t you one step closer to becoming an evil person yourself?
However, can you disregard the evil others might do based on your good actions?
If you save a dictator and he goes on to commit a massive genocide, is the blood of his victims on your hands too?
And what if an evil dictator happens to die?
I don’t think I would mourn for him. I am not one to feign sorrow. But would I celebrate? I don’t think so.
At the very least, I would be relieved. At the very least, some people would be better off.
But it has been argued in the past that if we know the world is better off without people like that, then it should be one’s moral duty to take care of them, right?
That, I believe is problem.
When we can be driven to hate someone—anyone—enough to consider them the source of all evil that needs to be extinguished for the sake of humanity… You know…
Well, you know…
That’s what it comes down to, at the end of the day, right? We cannot become what we… well, not hate or fear…
We cannot become what we disapprove.
