The Nature of Evil pt. 3
I guess if I'm going to compare Johnnie Cochrane and Pepe Lepew, I better say why it is that I can put these two on the same relative playing field--if only for the reputation of Pepe. That is, why in the world would I consider these two people to exemplify evil.
I suppose this is where I write the thesis statement and tell you all what it is that I feel is my argument concerning evil, and by its antithesis, good. Well then, I best get to it. I've become convinced that what we generally recognize as evil is not really evil at all. Or more to the point, our vision of evil--I don't think it exists. I don't think there is any such thing as the sinister. Now, I know what you're saying: get mugged. But I have been mugged, and I'm not convinced. There are certainly times that the appearance of the sinister...well, appears. But it is an appearance and nothing more.
But think of what all this means, it is the appearance of the sinister which denotes the evil, it is the evil that we feel compelled to punish, and thus it is only the sinister which is deserving in our minds of punishment, and yet, I'm saying that there is nothing but the appearance of the sinister...there is no such thing as the actual sinister. In fact, I suspect that we look to turn what is truly evil into the sinister in order for us to inspire our fears and thereby avoid moral ambiguiouty when we decide to mete out punishment for evil. We project the face of the monster on the evil we want to punish so that we no longer have to consider it for what it truly is, and avoid the hassle of wondering why the sinister do what the sinister do. Real evil isn't sinister. Real evil is Pepe LePew.
Hopping along. Stupid as can be. Unaware of the implications of his destructiveness, his perversisty, his insanity. He hurts, but never knows that he hurts. If someone were to stop Pepe and tell him that his designs on the cat ammounted to bestiality, he would be as surprised as anyone to find himself in the role of transgressor of natural breeding laws. He just doesn't know. Moreover, he never stops to consider. He is too busy doing what he is doing to worry about whether his desires for the cat ultimately ammount to rape.
Does this excuse Pepe? Of course it does. Pepe is above accusation. He doesn't know any better, and if he did, he wouldn't do this. And yet, that is my model for evil. That is what evil truly is: not knowing and not taking the time to find out; proceeding as if nature were somehow an alibi, and thus, Pepe who's nature is the lover, is excused for attempting to make love to an unwilling cat.
Thus, Cochrane, who's nature is a lawyer, is excused for helping a guilty murderer to go free.
But should Pepe be excused? I know that every aspect of his case suggests the very things that we excuse as not evil, but that is because we opt for the sinister--and Pepe isn't sinister, he's comic. I'm arguing, in fact, that we create the sinister in order to justify our punishment. We do not want to punish people who are just too ignorant of their heinousness to be held accountable for it--but that is what evil really and truly is. And if we are to worry about evil, that's where we should focus our attention.
What I am essentially saying is perhaps not new. I'm saying that if people were to take the time to understand their crimes from the victim's point of view, they wouldn't commit the crimes, and I believe this. However, what I am saying that is new is that this is no reason not to punish--it is still evil; it is, in fact, the defining characteristic of evil. Ignorance of wrong doing does not absolve you of whatever moral judgement might be passed on you. If you truly are evil, then you don't see your actions as atrocities--but that doesn't mean that they aren't and that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be stopped.
I suppose this is where I write the thesis statement and tell you all what it is that I feel is my argument concerning evil, and by its antithesis, good. Well then, I best get to it. I've become convinced that what we generally recognize as evil is not really evil at all. Or more to the point, our vision of evil--I don't think it exists. I don't think there is any such thing as the sinister. Now, I know what you're saying: get mugged. But I have been mugged, and I'm not convinced. There are certainly times that the appearance of the sinister...well, appears. But it is an appearance and nothing more.
But think of what all this means, it is the appearance of the sinister which denotes the evil, it is the evil that we feel compelled to punish, and thus it is only the sinister which is deserving in our minds of punishment, and yet, I'm saying that there is nothing but the appearance of the sinister...there is no such thing as the actual sinister. In fact, I suspect that we look to turn what is truly evil into the sinister in order for us to inspire our fears and thereby avoid moral ambiguiouty when we decide to mete out punishment for evil. We project the face of the monster on the evil we want to punish so that we no longer have to consider it for what it truly is, and avoid the hassle of wondering why the sinister do what the sinister do. Real evil isn't sinister. Real evil is Pepe LePew.
Hopping along. Stupid as can be. Unaware of the implications of his destructiveness, his perversisty, his insanity. He hurts, but never knows that he hurts. If someone were to stop Pepe and tell him that his designs on the cat ammounted to bestiality, he would be as surprised as anyone to find himself in the role of transgressor of natural breeding laws. He just doesn't know. Moreover, he never stops to consider. He is too busy doing what he is doing to worry about whether his desires for the cat ultimately ammount to rape.
Does this excuse Pepe? Of course it does. Pepe is above accusation. He doesn't know any better, and if he did, he wouldn't do this. And yet, that is my model for evil. That is what evil truly is: not knowing and not taking the time to find out; proceeding as if nature were somehow an alibi, and thus, Pepe who's nature is the lover, is excused for attempting to make love to an unwilling cat.
Thus, Cochrane, who's nature is a lawyer, is excused for helping a guilty murderer to go free.
But should Pepe be excused? I know that every aspect of his case suggests the very things that we excuse as not evil, but that is because we opt for the sinister--and Pepe isn't sinister, he's comic. I'm arguing, in fact, that we create the sinister in order to justify our punishment. We do not want to punish people who are just too ignorant of their heinousness to be held accountable for it--but that is what evil really and truly is. And if we are to worry about evil, that's where we should focus our attention.
What I am essentially saying is perhaps not new. I'm saying that if people were to take the time to understand their crimes from the victim's point of view, they wouldn't commit the crimes, and I believe this. However, what I am saying that is new is that this is no reason not to punish--it is still evil; it is, in fact, the defining characteristic of evil. Ignorance of wrong doing does not absolve you of whatever moral judgement might be passed on you. If you truly are evil, then you don't see your actions as atrocities--but that doesn't mean that they aren't and that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be stopped.
posted by Monstro D. Whale at
5:03 PM
1 Comments:
Yuzevah notice that if you say evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil over and over really fast you end up saying something like "leavil"? Just thinkin.
Fun to say. Even better when you say it while on the back of a speeding shopping cart with good wheels careening down the frozen food aisle of your shopping mart.
When the cops come you can say you were trying to warn the other shoppers about the evils of frozen dinners and eating disorders. Hence you aspousing that they leave evil, or leavil.
Why is it that Pepe LePue never gets locked up? There's evil for you. We try it and end up getting medicated. He exists in a reality where it is considered normal. Any universe with a company like ACME automatically allows for walking like an accordian after a safe falls on you.
Post a Comment
<< Home