TERRORISM IS is evil, and fighting against terrorism is good. It is hard to think of a more self-evident observation about last month's atrocities and their aftermath. But you wouldn't know that from the opinion pages of the New York Times, which have been advancing the idea that it is pointless — even perilous — to talk about good and evil in the wake of Sept. 11.
 A worker stands in front of rubble from the World Trade Center at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan several weeks after the September 11 attacks. |
Consider this, from Sheryl Stolberg's Week in Review piece two weeks after the attacks:
"There are dangers inherent in a moral awakening. When Mr. Bush calls the terrorist attacks evil, many Americans . . . instinctively agree with him. But philosophers and theologians worry that, as the president casts the fight against global terrorism as a crusade of good against evil, Americans will come to feel not only morally alive, but morally superior. And from that, they say, may flow an abandonment of moral principles. . ."
Got that? Discriminating between good and evil leads to "an abandonment of moral principles" — that is, to evil. Of course it is possible to commit one evil in the course of combating another, but the suggestion that we ought not feel morally superior to terrorists who commit mass murder is simply bizarre. If the fight against global terrorism is not a "crusade of good against evil," what on earth is it? And why should we support it?
Worse than this warning against distinguishing between good and evil is Stephen Jay Gould's assertion on the Sept. 26 op-ed page that goodness is common and evil infrequent.
"In this moment of crisis," writes Gould, a renowned Harvard biologist, it is important to affirm the "essential truth" that "good and kind people outnumber all others by thousands to one" — as at Ground Zero, which has now become "a vast web of bustling goodness, channeling uncountable deeds of kindness." The horrors of history are caused not by a "high frequency of evil people," Gould says, but by the terrible destructiveness of "rare acts of evil."
But it is not true that human nature is essentially good or that evil is rare. And it is the worst kind of wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
Decency and compassion may be conspicuous at the moment, but where were decency and compassion during the centuries of slavery, when men and women were reduced to chattel? Where were decency and compassion when the Nazis killed two-thirds of Europe's Jews with the approval of a vast legion of "willing executioners?" When 800,000 Rwandans were butchered by their fellow citizens? When Bosnian women were herded into camps to be raped? When Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death as dozens of neighbors ignored her cries for help?
The unwelcome truth is that most people are not innately good and kind. Our willingness to commit or acquiesce in cruelty and meanness is considerable. Gould's belief in humanity's essential goodness is an act of blind faith, and it is harmful. For if people are naturally decent and moral, there is no urgent need to teach decency and morality. If "good and kind people outnumber all others by thousands to one," it isn't necessary for people to hone their character, to work at virtue and ethics as diligently as they might work at pitching or piano playing.
As a secular humanist, Gould has to believe in human nature: For him there is no higher authority. But those of us who believe in God and a transcendent moral code don't need Gould's rose-colored glasses. We are able to acknowledge humanity's moral weakness and capacity for evil without despairing. For we understand that even though goodness and kindness don't outweigh evil by thousands to one, each of us can become — with effort — a better and kinder person. Only in that way can the fight against evil advance.
But what is "evil" anyway? In an Oct. 15 column, Stanley Fish, a leading exponent of postmodern relativism, instructs us that "we have grounds enough for action" against the Taliban "without grasping for the empty rhetoric of universal absolutes." It is "inaccurate and unhelpful" to call the terrorists evil, he says. After all, this is "an enemy who comes at us with a full roster of grievances, goals, and strategies," and to "reduce that enemy to 'evil' " is simply to confuse ourselves.
Could anything make the moral emptiness of relativism plainer? If hijacking airliners and smashing them into skyscrapers for the explicit purpose of murdering innocent victims cannot be called "evil," without qualification, then nothing can. No doubt that is Fish's real point. No doubt other academics for whom everything is relative would agree with him. But why should The New York Times want to promote such an amoral and destructive philosophy?
Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.
-- ## --
Follow Jeff Jacoby on X (aka Twitter).
Discuss his columns on Facebook.
Want to read something different? Sign up for "Arguable," Jeff Jacoby's free weekly newsletter.