Category Archives: For Contemplation

Many essays here are Food for Thought for your enjoyment.

The Blame Game

Aside

Reply

The Blame Game

The two brothers were joyously wrestling on the living room floor when the leg of one of them struck their mother’s favorite and expensive flower vase. It came tumbling to the floor, landing with a “crack” as it shattered into many parts. Instantly the boys knew that they were in serious trouble as their mother rushed into the room and had a look of horror on her face as she distressingly eyed the scattered pieces of the flower vase. The glance she thrust upon the boys indicated a deep anger and an eagerness for retribution. Both boys understood that there was “hell to pay” for the broken vase. Almost simultaneously each boy pointed to the other saying, “He did it.” Neither one wanted to accept responsibility and the consequences of their act. The blame game had started.

It was advertised as a debate, but each politician spent the evening blaming the other side for their failure to provide solutions to numerous vexing problems. The alleged debate proved to be nothing more than a series of “it is your fault” accusations by each side against the opposition. Nothing was accomplished during the “debate” except that both parties demonstrated their proficiency in playing the Blame Game by pointing fingers at the other side.

It is not uncommon for all of us to enter into the blame game when problems arise, especially when we desire to avoid responsibility for the consequences of the problem. Wars are always blamed on the other side; ineffective responses to public health issues, the prevention of floods, and the consequences of past political decisions are all blamed on someone else. However, often politicians, philosophers, and others can generally agree that most major problems are the results of one source – God’s actions or inactions as the case may be. Blame God is a favorite escape for many for almost every evil. God was responsible for the evils of Nazism, Stalinism, destruction from natural occurrences such as floods, fires, and premature deaths. Name an evil or problem; it is God’s fault!

The argument for blaming God for all evils, perceived or real, is offered thusly. Since God is all powerful, all good, all knowing, He must be able to control and dictate all human and natural events. Thus it is proper to blame God for all evil and unfortunate occurrences. Blame God. Then mankind has no responsibility for any evil; it is freed from all responsibility and, most importantly, accountability.

But what is evil? Firstly, it should be noted what evil is not. It is not a thing. Rather evil is a wrong choice, the choosing against the good. In other words evil is an act of the will. As with any act of the will, there are consequences; often these consequences affect many others whom had nothing to do with the initial act. As in the case of the wrestling boys, the mother would attempt to repair the broken vase or purchase a new one. The effects of which would affect many others who had no knowledge of the original act. Similarly, the finger pointing of politicians, blaming each other for failure to provide viable solutions to problems, often leads to unsolved issues which effect the entire population. The evil choices, act of the wills, of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and their followers devastated millions of people. Evil choices are contagious in their affects. These choices are man- made.

God gave man a free will, the ability to make choices for himself. Man is not a robot and does not want to be one. Man thirsts for his freedom of choice. Thus it is necessary for mankind, not God, to make moral, loving choices. Making choices is man’s most meaningful and potentially liberating activity. Unfortunately, man frequently chooses evil rather than good, mostly as a part of his selfishness. It is man’s own freely chosen choices that create evil. Each individual is responsible for the results and consequences of his/her choices. Do not point fingers at others, especially God. All of mankind is responsible for its individual and collective choices. Mankind cannot avoid its own responsibility and accountability for choices that result in evil.

Mankind should look into a mirror for the responsible party for bad choices and evil. That is where the Blame Game will end. But will it?

Suggested Readings

While there is voluminous writings on the nature of evil, listed below are 2 insightful essays which summarize the issue of evil.

“The Problem of Evil” by Peter Kreeft at www.peterkreeft.com/topics/evil.htm

“From Defeat to Victory On the Question of Evil” by Alice van Hildebrand at  http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/avhildebrand_onevil_aug07.asp

The Lincoln Douglas Debates – Updated

Aside

Reply

The Lincoln Douglas Debates – Updated

In the 1850s Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, American politicians, engaged in several debates in which the issues of slavery and self-government were paramount. Although Mr. Douglas defeated Lincoln in the sharply contested senatorial election in Illinois in 1854, Lincoln’s moral stand against slavery was clearly enunciated in several of the speeches that he presented during the campaign. Lincoln’s opposition to slavery eventually helped lead him to the Presidency of the United States in 1860.

Noted below are key points from Lincoln’s speech in Springfield, Illinois in October 1854; a speech that was repeated on several occasions during the election campaign.

“The doctrine of self-government is right, absolutely and eternally right; but it has no just application, as attempted here. Or perhaps I should rather say that it has just such application whether a Negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with the Negro. But if the Negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself? When a person governs himself, that is self-government: but when he governs himself and governs another, that is more than self-government that is despotism. If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal,’ and that there can be not moral right in connection with slavery.”

“Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature; opposition to it is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism, when brought into collision so fiercely as the slavery brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow…..You cannot repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man’s heart that the slavery is wrong, out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will continue to speak.”

Taking the same thought process and words of Lincoln, I have changed some of the words in order to reflect the moral issues relevant in today’s society. (Those parts of the speech that are italicized are changes that I have made to the speech. Principally, the changes are the substitution of the word unborn for the word Negro and the words human being for the word man. Other changes are also included to make the change in wording understandable).

“The doctrine of self-government is right, absolutely and eternally right; but it has no just application, as attempted here. Or perhaps I should rather say that it has just such application whether an unborn is not or is a human being. If he is not a human being, why in that case he who is a human being may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with the unborn. But if the unborn is a human being, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself? When a person governs himself, that is self-government: but when he governs himself and governs another, taking away an innocent life, that is more than self-government, that is despotism. If the unborn is a human being, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal,’ and that there can be not moral right in connection with taking the life of the unborn human being.”

The taking of the life of an unborn human being is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature; opposition to it is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism, when brought into collision so fiercely as the killing of an unborn human brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow…..You cannot repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man’s heart that the killing of the unborn human is wrong, out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will continue to speak.”

When he opposed slavery, Lincoln defended the rights of the oppressed and marginalized; he knew that his fellow citizens, in their hearts, also believed as he did. He defined his opposition to the evil of slavery in terms that resonated with his countrymen. I suspect that he would defend the right to life of any individual, born or unborn, today. Lincoln understood that freedom and self–government do not grant a person license over another person. Science has determined that life begins at conception. The life that resides in a mother’s womb is the same species as the mother – a human being.

Suggested Reading

“Defending Life” By Francis J. Beckwith, Cambridge University Press, 2007   Professor Beckwith details the philosophical and legal arguments against the taking of an innocent human life though abortion. Religion is not included in his defense of life.