"Evil Prevails When Good Men do Nothing" at the Intersection of Faith and Culture
A man hears a sound, investigates, flees, calls his father for counsel, receives the advice and does as he is told. A man is told, tells his boss, his higher-up, and continues with his work. If they are normal human beings, one will be haunted by what he saw and the other by what he was told, and hauntings are often caught and held in the unconscious. But, again if they are normal, what is also caught is an irritation concerning what they did not do. One did not intervene when he saw what he saw, and the other did no more than tell the person he was supposed to tell.
And we are left to ask, “What is the nature of an individual’s moral lapse, the moment when what needs to be done, is not done?” Before asking how human institutions are designed to be complicit in lapses that circumscribe moral failures, a question worth pursuing; and another, how individuals in those institutions take steps to protect institutions over people, we are compelled to walk on the shifting ground of complicity borne of moral inaction.
The man who saw and fled and followed advice from his father is, of course, the graduate assistant coach who walked into the Penn State football locker room, heard a slapping noise, walked into the shower to find a grown man he knew sexually attacking a young boy whom, presumably, he did not know. Had he walked into a situation where a lone individual was in peril because of a building malfunction, like a wall crumbling down, would he have rushed in to save the life? Had he walked into a situation where a lone individual was in the process of bleeding out from a self-inflicted wound, would he have rushed in to save that life? I think, maybe yes, even if he did not recognize them. I like to think that generally, we rescue from calamity or despairing demise. But when a defenseless child is being attacked by an acquaintance and former coach who is known, why didn’t he rush in at that very moment to protect the defenseless whom he did not know? Was the scene so horrific, and his loyalties and personal allegiances so shattered, that he couldn’t do what was morally required? And the counsel from his father? Why didn’t it include any concern for the defenseless stranger?
And the man who was told, held up over decades for his moral uprightness in following the rules, coaching young men, and shaping their character, why did he only follow the rules of the chain of command? Why didn’t he seek some kind of protection for the defenseless, whom he did not know, and remedy for future defenseless strangers? Why didn’t he, over a whole decade of moments where other action could be taken, choose not to act? Did the prospect of what he was told so threaten his loyalties to an institution he loved, and his allegiances to another he had known so long, that he couldn’t do what was morally required? Isn’t character building directed related to our obligations to those whom we do not know, especially the defenseless stranger?
Both had time to reflect on what they did and did not do; almost a whole decade in fact. They had time to mull over how they could have behaved differently, and even seek to change the future, for what they hadn’t done in the past. But, they didn’t. It was for others to tell the truth and force a confrontation with doing what is moral and right for the least amongst us, the defenseless, and the stranger, the ones we do not know. Why the moral lapse, and the continuation over time? Why is there such a distance between what we see and hear and lift up as right and good, and the will to take action?
Beware, those who claim some higher authority, even God, will save us from action we do not take when it is time to take it. Heed this story. We are responsible for what we do and leave undone, not some higher authority who will rescue us if we just report what we see or are told. Beware, those who claim there is no higher authority than the individual self. Heed this story. We go to great lengths to camouflage our moral obligations from actions that will both rescue and halt horror.
By our actions we become co-creators of redemption or conspirators with collapse and ruin.
And we are left to ask, “What is the nature of an individual’s moral lapse, the moment when what needs to be done, is not done?” Before asking how human institutions are designed to be complicit in lapses that circumscribe moral failures, a question worth pursuing; and another, how individuals in those institutions take steps to protect institutions over people, we are compelled to walk on the shifting ground of complicity borne of moral inaction.
The man who saw and fled and followed advice from his father is, of course, the graduate assistant coach who walked into the Penn State football locker room, heard a slapping noise, walked into the shower to find a grown man he knew sexually attacking a young boy whom, presumably, he did not know. Had he walked into a situation where a lone individual was in peril because of a building malfunction, like a wall crumbling down, would he have rushed in to save the life? Had he walked into a situation where a lone individual was in the process of bleeding out from a self-inflicted wound, would he have rushed in to save that life? I think, maybe yes, even if he did not recognize them. I like to think that generally, we rescue from calamity or despairing demise. But when a defenseless child is being attacked by an acquaintance and former coach who is known, why didn’t he rush in at that very moment to protect the defenseless whom he did not know? Was the scene so horrific, and his loyalties and personal allegiances so shattered, that he couldn’t do what was morally required? And the counsel from his father? Why didn’t it include any concern for the defenseless stranger?
And the man who was told, held up over decades for his moral uprightness in following the rules, coaching young men, and shaping their character, why did he only follow the rules of the chain of command? Why didn’t he seek some kind of protection for the defenseless, whom he did not know, and remedy for future defenseless strangers? Why didn’t he, over a whole decade of moments where other action could be taken, choose not to act? Did the prospect of what he was told so threaten his loyalties to an institution he loved, and his allegiances to another he had known so long, that he couldn’t do what was morally required? Isn’t character building directed related to our obligations to those whom we do not know, especially the defenseless stranger?
Both had time to reflect on what they did and did not do; almost a whole decade in fact. They had time to mull over how they could have behaved differently, and even seek to change the future, for what they hadn’t done in the past. But, they didn’t. It was for others to tell the truth and force a confrontation with doing what is moral and right for the least amongst us, the defenseless, and the stranger, the ones we do not know. Why the moral lapse, and the continuation over time? Why is there such a distance between what we see and hear and lift up as right and good, and the will to take action?
Beware, those who claim some higher authority, even God, will save us from action we do not take when it is time to take it. Heed this story. We are responsible for what we do and leave undone, not some higher authority who will rescue us if we just report what we see or are told. Beware, those who claim there is no higher authority than the individual self. Heed this story. We go to great lengths to camouflage our moral obligations from actions that will both rescue and halt horror.
By our actions we become co-creators of redemption or conspirators with collapse and ruin.
posted by Brent Smith | 11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home