The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Stirring the Stew

 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Stirring the Stew

Peter Schultz

 

                  The greater the evil, the greater the good. So, confronting great evil confirms and demonstrates one’s great goodness. George W. Bush demonstrated his great goodness via his GWOT, Global War on Terror, which was for him an irresistible temptation. And it would have demonstrated his great goodness regardless of the outcome of that war. Moreover, the GWOT would demonstrate such goodness even if that war were waged savagely, even if it led to war crimes. So, ironically, demonstrating one’s goodness by waging war against a great evil makes it difficult not succumb to evil even while proving one’s goodness, a “going to the dark side” that you may and should be proud of. Once the good decide to defeat evil, engaging in evil is almost guaranteed.

 

                  There are two alternatives to this thinking that I am aware of. (1) To think that evil cannot be defeated; it can only be contained or “evicted,” moved around. A corollary here is that the amount of evil and good in the world is constant. Neither evil nor good grow or shrink and, so, acceptance, resignation, and containment are as good as it gets. The benefits of war to defeat evil are then illusory.

 

                  (2) Evil and good are illusions created by humans to endow their existence with significance, to give their existence meaning, as in war is a force that makes our lives meaningful. This view might be labeled “nihilism” – or pacifism. Is nihilism attractive then because it underwrites peace, because it undermines the case for making war morally justified, even morally attractive? Or is this why nihilism is unattractive and almost always universally condemned? Hmmm?

 

                  Almost all humans desire and strive to be good, or at least to seem good. Politicians, e.g., cover up their crimes almost automatically, as do institutions, even religious or “sanctified” institutions. They don’t stop to wonder: If being good requires covering up being bad, or repenting being bad, what is goodness? They don’t wonder, in other words, Is the good always mixed up with the bad? Are the good, the bad, and the ugly merely illusions when thought of separately? Don’t they always occur together?

 

                  If so, then maybe the best we can do is to stir the mixture, so it doesn’t congeal in a way that the scum rises to the top. Which might be taken as a reason for rejecting elitism in any form. Insofar as the good, the bad, and the ugly in inextricably mixed together, then the benefits of elitism are, like the benefits of war, illusory.