I anticipate posting quite a few entries on the book On Evil, by Terry Eagleton, as this slim volume is incredibly dense with ideas and assorted philosophical musings! Right now, I'm just in the Introduction and I've already marked up my book as I dialogue with Eagleton's ideas.
He asks the question, "What is evil?" By using a case study of a couple of ten year olds who brutally murdered a toddler, Eagleton asks that if such "evil" is truly within those ten year olds then these boys should be pitied because they have no free will to self determine. Yet if these boys assumed an evil identity, thereby consciously choosing to enact evil, the boys are indeed horrific--which tends to be at odds with societal perceptions of childhood and children. Nevertheless, the idea that "reason and freedom are bound closely together" (7) remains. If the boys' actions are "rationally explicable" vís-a-vìs inherent evil, then they are not responsible for them. If, on the other hand, the boys chose their act (killing the toddler) because of bad upbringing, poverty, abuse, etc, then the boys should be treated more leniently. But is it really this simple (and binaristic)? Eagleton doesn't seem to think so.
He brings up Immanuel Kant's idea that we are all responsible for our own actions and, funnily enough, compares this idea with conservative ideology. However, Eagleton points out the simplicity of such an idea by arguing, in order to be ultimately responsible for our own actions, we must be completely and wholly autonomous ("literally: 'a law unto themselves'" 11) in order to avoid not being influenced by our surroundings, events, upbringing, etc. Thus, an abused spouse who finally turns against her/his abusive partner has not been affected by the abuse s/he underwent. And will, thus, be "as guilty as Goebbels" (11).
So far, his book is quite fascinating and as I continue reading it I'll post my thoughts and reflections here.
No comments:
Post a Comment