Homework Summary Judges 19-21

HOME WORK SUMMARY “JUDGES 20-21”

1.     OUR EXPERIENCE OF EVIL

Shocked/sickened/ creeped out-  17

Angry -6

Confused

2.     Evil “out there”- what actually happened?

Callous, cowardly indifference of the 2 men- 5

The rape itself- 5

Cut her into 12 pieces- 4

Slaughter in war- 4

Oppression of women- 3

“there was no king in Israel”/ failure of law- 3

“Chain Reaction” cycle of violence- no rational thought re consequences

Apparent indifference of God

3.     “Don’t get it”/ “Not seem real”/ No relation to present experience/ “old Bible story”/ Might not even have happened -8

Some people are evil or else crazy-2

Some people don’t believe in the Bible

Some people disapprove of concubines (she deserved it)

Desensitized by war, mutilation, and rape as depicted in the media?

Some people are confident that they would never act this way

4.     Too much evil- God is not present-3

God provides encouragement and eventual victory for Israel in the war of revenge (but takes his sweet time)  3

People believe in God- even the evil-doers, but “God is not there to stop evil from happening.” “God is present indirectly through the faith of the people.” 3

Regret and sadness for the destruction of the 12^th tribe

“God allows evil to create balance- without evil, there would be no balance.”

God despises evil but allows it to occur “without interference from a higher power” so as to allow free will

Israelites “act in accordance with their own interests” and use God to ratify their actions

Israelites THINK they are sincere and correct, but we can see their blindness- i.e. “what were they thinking?”  WHAT BLINDNESS WILL PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE ATTRIBUTE TO US?

Definitions of Evil (provisional)

NATURAL EVIL:  Evil that occurs as a random consequence of natural events (floods, storms, earthquakes, illnesses), without any evident human intention.

SYSTEMIC EVIL: Evil that occurs as a consequence of the behavior of human systems, institutions, organizations, etc., with or without the intention of individuals to do harm.

PERSONAL EVIL: Evil that occurs as a consequence of the actions or inactions of individual human beings, intentional or otherwise.    

PERSONAL EVIL: "People of the Lie" by Scott Peck

Narcissism is a term originating from the myth of a young man who cannot stop gazing at his own reflection, to the detriment of everything else in his life. It refers to an excessive self-love and vanity, along with a similar need for admiration and intolerance for criticism.  Narcissism is a normal stage of development in early infancy. Primary Narcissism is when an infant cannot distinguish between “self” and “other”, and so is only aware of its own needs. “Secondary Narcissism” is when the infant recognizes the other as having a separate identity, but regards the other solely as a means for meeting its needs. Many people retain varying degrees of narcissism into adulthood. Extreme cases of this are discussed by M Scott Peck in his 1998 book People of the Lie.

Malignant Narcissism: Excerpts from M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie

The Narcissist:  Refusal to acknowledge sin

It is necessary that we first draw the distinction between evil and ordinary sin. It is not their sins per se that characterize evil people...The central defect of the evil is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it.^{p 69}

The Narcissist:  Self Image of Perfection

Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, [the evil] are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity.

The Narcissist:  Excessive intolerance of criticism

 Self-criticism is a call to personality change...The evil are pathologically attached to the status quo of their personalities, which in their narcissism they consciously regard as perfect. I think it is quite possible that the evil may perceive even a small degree of change in their beloved selves as representing total annihilation. ^{p 74}

They project their own evil onto the world. They never think of themselves as evil; on the other hand, they consequently see much evil in others...Evil, then, is most often committed in order to scapegoat, and the people I label as evil are chronic scapegoaters....The evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. ^{p 73-74}

The Narcissist:  Disguise and pretense

While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. That is why they are the "people of the lie". The wickedness of the evil is not committed directly, but indirectly as a part of this cover-up process. ^{p 76}

The Narcissist:  Unsubmitted will

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal....They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.

The Narcissist:  Coercion and control of others

[Evil is] the exercise of political power--that is, the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion-
In addition to the fact that the evil need victims to sacrifice to their narcissism, their narcissism permits them to ignore the humanity of their victims as well....The blindness of the narcissist to others can extend even beyond a lack of empathy; narcissists may not "see" others at all.
There are boundaries to the individual soul. And in our dealings with each other we generally respect these boundaries. It is characteristic of--and prerequisite for--mental health both that our own ego boundaries should be clear and that we should clearly recognize the boundaries of others. We must know where we end and others begin. ^{p 136-137}

Evil in families

It is my experience that evil seems to run in families. ^{p 80} If evil were easy to recognize, identify and manage, there would be no need for this book. But the fact of the matter is that it is the most difficult of all things with which to cope. ^{p 130} [Evil] will contaminate or otherwise destroy a person who remains too long in its presence. ^{p 65}
The evil deny the suffering of their guilt--the painful awareness of their sin, inadequacy, and imperfection--by casting their pain onto the other through projection and scapegoating. They themselves may not suffer, but those around them do. The evil cause suffering. The evil create for those under their dominion a miniature sick society. ^{p 123-124}

Excerpts from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

EXCERPTS FROM “LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL” BY Martin Luther King

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" …It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”

Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.

Systemic Evil: The Penn State Scandal

                                        Happy Valley

Senior Research Paper/ Zachary Irey/ Kettering University

 

Joe Paterno was the king of Penn State, practically deified. Some would argue that JoPa, as he was called, had more power than the president of the university himself. I argue that “Joe Paterno and the others with the power to ‘do more’ when they were told of Sandusky’s alleged crimes had acted ten years ago, some of those alleged victims looking for peace would never have become alleged victims” (Littlefield). Their main disagreement is the choice to not go to the police. In an interview Louis Freeh of the Freeh report said that Paterno “was an integral part of this active decision to conceal”. School leaders, “empowered Sandusky to attract potential victims to the campus and football events by allowing him to have continued, unrestricted and unsupervised access. [And] provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims." (CITE) Their argument would not make sense had Paterno been a simple passerby but someone employed by the university so nearly half a century. Similarly, their argument is very similar to that which Adolf Eichmann brought up in his trial of 1961. Eichmann was accused of playing a key role in the egregious crimes against the Jewish race during WWII. Eichmann argued that he was “following orders” (CITE). The outcome of the trial was not good for Eichmann. The judges saw through his lies and convicted him on all counts. But did Joe just follow his orders? Yes he did. But when you are someone who architected the corporate structure that surrounds you, it’s your duty and responsibility to see thru the corporate corruption.

First of all, I will explain the writing of John Darley contained in his article entitled “How Organizations Socialize Individuals into Evildoing”.  This article is primarily focused on corporate responsibility and the necessary elements required to create “socially negative corporate scenarios”(CITE). It also goes on to say “how individuals are heavily pressured by internal corporate culture, management structures and corporate agendas and can then go on to propagate the same.” (CITE) These individuals are not corrupt when they start at the company. Rather, they undergo a conversion and become autonomous participants in harmful actions (Darley, p.13). Thru this corruption the individuals become evil, yet they do not show the typical traits that today’s society would associate with evildoing. Darley proves his argument by asking himself a few questions. How are individuals drawn into doing harm? This is answered in four sections: Diffusion and fragmentation of information and responsibility, commitment to courses of action, abstract harm and tangible gains, and employee self-interest and job survival. The first section, diffusion and fragmentation of information and responsibility, is a very rudimentary concept. Knowledge of wrongdoing can be diffused throughout a large company and due to a lack of communication those making decisions cannot be held responsible if they did not have all of the information to making an informed decision. Secondly, commitment to courses of action, correlates to Staw’s theory of sunk costs. Once an initial investment or expenditure has been made, corporations are reluctant to withdraw from their course of action. Third, abstract harm and tangible gains, “lndividuals within the organization can lose sight of the fact that people may be harmed in the course of fulfilling the other goals of the corporation or bureaucracy.” (Darley, p. 23). A salient human is not deemed to be in harm’s way and therefore their action is justifiable. Lastly, employee self-interest and job survival, an employee’s own beliefs will be set aside to correlate with those of the company. If a worker is told to do something, they often do not gauge whether it is ethical or not. Rather they autonomously do what they were told. Answering this question in four sections brings up another question. Now that we know how organizations corrupt individuals, what corporation can corrupt individuals?

The ethical dilemma up for discussion is that of Joe Paterno’s response to the information presented to him by Mike McQueary. Did he do enough? Well, looking at the situation from the perspective of John Darley, he did not. To understand Darley’s position, I will answer this question using the sectional format he defined. Firstly, diffusion and fragmentation of information and responsibility. All of the evidence that Paterno had was second hand. Personally, he didn’t witness a thing. He was aware of the charges at the Alamo bowl and knew what McQueary had told him, but he had a history with Sandusky. After all, Sandusky was at one point in time the defensive coordinator under Paterno, a very respected position in the football hierarchy. This history could not be wiped away by the words of a graduate assistant alone. Therefore, Paterno did not have enough information to make an informed decision and is not responsible for the outcome. Secondly, commitment to courses of action. Undoubtedly, the football program is central to Penn State’s identity, brand and public image. Penn State was committed to the football program. After all, it brought the university roughly $20 Million dollars a year in profit. A flaw found is this great empire would greatly reduce their profitability. So, with the idea of sunk costs, Penn State couldn’t make this public. Thirdly, abstract harm and tangible gains. As said previously, “lndividuals within the organization can lose sight of the fact that people may be harmed in the course of fulfilling the other goals of the corporation or bureaucracy.” Could this define what happened any more clearly? Paterno built an empire, aka corporation, that he couldn’t let be harmed by a few people. Although these people were children, he was blind to the cause but rather omniscient of the result. A result that would have “abstract harm and tangible gains” to the university. Lastly, employee self-interest and job survival.  Joe Paterno was the head football coach at Penn State for almost half of a century. Before the scandal broke he had no intentions of retiring, shortly after the scandal broke he intended to retire and shortly after that he was fired. It is debatable what he was fired for but it is obvious that he felt that his job was in jeopardy. He also feared the sanctions that could have been put on Penn State by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA could have suspended the football program, limited the number of scholarships for incoming football players or even vacated wins. All of these fears, when combined, make the decision of Joe Paterno to not want to go the police more understandable. Every section defined by Darley aligns with the case of Joe Paterno. So the question of how Joe Paterno was drawn into this situation has been answered. So what did Joe do after all of this was brought to his attention?

Even more convincing is what Joe Paterno said after the allegations of the mother of an assaulted boy were brought to the attention of the media. ‘“With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more,’ Paterno said in regard to fulfilling his legal obligation, but not his moral one…” (Thamel). This has a striking similarity to what Darley says happens to individuals who are corrupted by a corporation. “...the person faces not the prospective choice to do harm but the retrospective choice to acknowledge that his or her actions have already done harm. The more it becomes clear that those harms should have been foreseen, the more guilt, shame and blame are acquired in the acknowledgment of past harms. But often failing to acknowledge past harms means continuing to commit harms in the present” (Darley, p. 28). Paterno’s guilt, shame and blame inhibit clarity. Paterno’s actions align perfectly with what Darley presents in his argument. Summing up the argument so far yields the following: Paterno was blinded by the corporate structure around him, and although was blinded, according to Darley, completely responsible that his actions did not lead to the arrest of Jerry Sandusky in 2002. There are two sides to the argument of Paterno’s actions. I have taken the side of inadequate action while the opposition says that he did what his job required of him.