This is the sixteenth Chapter from the online book: Living Ethics: The Way of Wholeness. See: 1) How Should We Live? 2) Ethics and Civilization 3) Worldview and Ethics 4) Self View and Ethics 5) World as System 6) The Material Cosmos 7) Biological Systems 8) Human Systems 9) Psyche as System 10) The Collective Unconscious 11) The Collective Conscious 12) Emerging From Chaos 13) The Emerging Worldview 14) The Psychological Problem 15) Approaches to Natural Ethics
Donivan Bessinger, MD
The natural ethic is derived empirically from a study of natural systems, rather than conjecturally through reason alone. It takes life as a given, and asserts that it is good for the natural system to survive. One presumably could devise an ethics of non-survival, but it would be an anti-ethics, which would bear the same relationship to life in the real world as does anti-matter: mutual annihilation upon contact.
The practice of ethics requires an understanding of what is good and what is not. That question has occupied thinkers in both philosophic and theological worlds for centuries. It would not be useful to research or review here the many terms and many shadings of technical and often tedious meanings assigned to them. However, it will be helpful to sketch some of the broad categories of arguments about the problem of good and evil.
A prevailing view has been the dualistic view, in which good is paired as an opposite to evil, usually personified as God and Satan. The struggle between good and evil thus becomes a struggle between God and Satan. A major problem for systematic theology, however, is how there can be any doubt of the outcome if God is both all-powerful and all-good. If a good God is in control, why is there evil? How can a good God allow “bad things to happen to good people,” as the title of Rabbi Kushner’s book so well expresses it. (1) For many people, the inconsistency of that model has been an insurmountable obstacle to religious belief.
Another dualistic view (or perhaps another aspect of the same view) is the polarity between a good God and an evil mankind. The Genesis account of creation affirms that as God created, “God saw that it was good.” However, the first act of ethical consciousness for humans was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This dualistic view sees ethical consciousness as the alienation of mankind from God, which alienation was curiously symbolized by putting on clothes. In this view, mankind has been naturally evil (sinful) since Adam and Eve. At least that still leaves the rest of creation untainted.
There is still a theological problem. The concept of evil personified as an evil deity in competition with the good God, and the parallel concept of an evil mankind under Satan’s influence, both serve to taint the all-powerful God with evil. One response in early Christian theology, proposed by Origen and advanced by Augustine, has been the doctrine technically known as privatio boni. This doctrine (one of many different ones advanced in the early Christian Church to deal with this problem), holds that creation is good, as God said it was in the first place. Evil is simply that aspect of experience which falls short of achieving the good. Evil is the maiming or disabling of good, or as the term translates, the deprivation of the good. (2)
When Jung faced the problem of evil, he rejected the doctrine of privatio boni as not consistent with experience in psychology. Of course, the validity of Jung’s model of the psyche rests not on Jung’s views of good and evil and theology, but on its success in explaining human phenomena and in providing a basis for treatment of disease. Nevertheless, Jung sought to harmonize knowledge of the human psyche with these philosophical questions.
Jung does indeed find in the human psyche an inevitable dualism. This is evident in the polarizations between archetypal opposites, for example, masculine-feminine, introversion-extraversion, thinking-feeling, sensing-intuiting, etc. such as we discussed in Wholeness and Ethic. All psychic regulation seems to be directed toward achieving a natural balance (conjunction) of opposite characteristics. Further, Jung holds that in psychological terms, mankind’s access to God is through the collective unconscious, which is the image of God within. Jung thus expresses a view of God as morally neutral, incorporating potential for both good and evil. (3) It is important to consider that such a statement of potential does not necessarily imply evil intent operating simultaneously with good intent.
Much of the continuing confusion over the problem of good and evil in the world stems from a continuing reliance on a mythic model of good and evil. In defining the mythological worldview, we indicated that a mythic worldview can be true, but that its truth lies in the meaning of its symbolism. Such symbolism requires interpretation. The best test for the truth of an interpretation is the test for consistency with all other knowledge. It is in the workings of creation itself that the truth of interpretations about creation can best be found.
The systems worldview which we have presented provides a foundation for constructing a more adequate model of good and evil. A proper model will be one which consistently agrees with observed phenomena.
First, a model must answer what is natural and what is “supernatural.” Supernatural, of course, refers to that which is above or apart from the natural, that is, apart from nature. In the systems worldview as I am defining it, all process is natural process. In its whole sense, Nature (Creation) includes phenomena heretofore considered metaphysical, or above and apart from or prior to, nature. (4)
The psyche with its symbolism is a part of ordinary nature, operating in accordance with natural laws. Of course, the science of the psyche is not as well understood (or as widely understood) as the science of the external material world. However, it is not valid to claim that an action must be “supernatural” merely because it is not understood.
In the systems worldview, only the question of the nature of the Creator (Person? Process?) is reserved as a supernatural question. That question is, of course, beyond the scope of this work. In our systems model, neither good nor evil is conceived as supernatural.
Second, the model must reflect a proper perspective on mankind in the universe. In the systems view of the universe, the question “How can bad things happen to good people” does not arise. That question is framed from the perspective of our conventional egocentric or anthropocentric worldview, and asks in effect, “How can bad things happen to a god like me?”
Though mankind does enjoy an exalted position with respect to consciousness and knowledge, there is no evidence that any human has any sort of god-like control over natural process. Humans can utilize (and misuse) natural process to achieve conscious purposes, but in no sense can humans override natural law. Only from an anthropocentric worldview can humans seem to “play god.” In the systems worldview, attempting to “play god” is seen as an exercise in dealing with very real human limitations.
Third, we must distinguish evil and misfortune. Again, anthropocentrism brings on confusion. A natural event is “evil” only as viewed from the human perspective. A volcano erupts neutrally, and the event which is viewed by some as misfortune may bring fortune to others. Nature is neutral. Its processes are not always comprehensible to mankind, but natural events occur without evil intent. Nature is also impersonal, and operates to “rain equally on the just and unjust.”
We must accept that all undesired situations do not necessarily have a single or an evil cause. We must accept that randomicity is a normal and natural aspect of the functioning of the universe. There is not always someone to blame. (5)
Fourth, we must clarify the many possible meanings or states of evil. In philosophical or theological terms, it is often adequate to deal with evil generically and in the abstract. However, a model that is consistent with the systems worldview and that is adequate to describe the psychological dimensions of dealing with evil, requires greater precision. For example, we must deal with both unconscious and conscious dimensions, and with energy as both potential and active. The usefulness of these distinctions will become clear.
The systems view of the universe makes it apparent that systems are regulated toward an internal balance, at whatever level is being studied. The end of life, “that at which all things aim,” is homeostasis. We have noted that systems exhibit emergence of new states or characteristics, such as consciousness emerging at the level of human life. Teilhard de Chardin has held that the end or aim of evolutionary creation is an omega point of unity in the Creator. However, at the level of ordinary actions (the level of ethical concern), all things aim toward homeostatic regulation for the survival and development of life.
In our ethical model, the Good is creation’s state of balance. The Good is found in the balance of interactive energies. The Good seeks to resolve not just simple polarities, but to find the balance point of all of the many converging and overlapping vectors or directions of action in the universe. It is in that balance that creation is seen as good.
In my view, creation and its balance are contingent on a creator. Such a question is beyond our scope here, but I make the comment to illustrate a point of harmonization between the natural systems worldview, and theological worldviews. Nevertheless, as we have stated, in this ethical model, the Good is determined empirically, and the model is not contingent on theological reasoning.
If the ethical model were to be based on a good-evil polarization, in which good is placed opposite evil on a metaphorical teeter-totter, maintaining homeostatic balance would require that every good be always balanced by an equal force of evil. An ethical action to serve the good would add additional weight to that side of the teeter-totter, destroying balance, working counter to homeostasis. Obviously that does not satisfy the systems worldview.
Understanding the Good as the balance at the fulcrum of the systems teeter-totter requires a different ethical model. In that model, the action that tends toward restoring or preserving the balance is the ethical action. The action that tends toward destroying or preventing the balance, that is, the counter-ethical action, is the evil action.
Thus it is more appropriate to view evil as polarized against the ethical, rather than against the good. Defining the concept of balance does require a concept of non-balance. The Good should be understood as that which is dynamically complete within itself. Obviously the teeter-totter model is a severe over-simplification. The summum bonum (highest good) is a steady state or flux equilibrium, an optimally tuned balance, of the natural system, or more specifically, of the subsystem that is the immediate focus of ethical consideration. Such a concept of Good does not require an observable polarity.
As we noted before, G. E. Moore held that it is a naturalistic fallacy to impute to nature any characteristic as good. That is, we may not base ethics on some “good” merely because it is “natural.” (6) Our formulation of the Good as the flux equilibrium of unconscious, self-regulating natural systems avoids that objection. The Good is that at which unconscious natural systems are found to aim, rather than a property or characteristic of “Nature” itself. Saying that we see the life system surviving by serving the good of homeostasis is not equivalent to imposing on nature a characteristic considered by ego to be good.
Certain questions inevitably arise. For example, the universe seems to be expanding. In that respect, at the outer level of our knowledge of the universe, the universe does not seem in balance, and if not, the concept of Good as balance ultimately breaks down. Is not the model then incomplete?
We have said earlier that full understanding of a system requires at least consideration of the levels below and above the level which we are studying. There must be a limit to understanding at the level of the limits of the universe. We have also said that our purpose here is only to build an ethical model that will work at the level of ordinary actions, that is, at the level of ethical concern. We must accept that inevitable limitation of a natural philosophy of the Good, and study further the model’s application to human problems.
In such a model, the ethical action is the action that tends to restore or preserve balance, regardless of the side of the teeter-totter to which it must be applied. Of course, the counter-ethical (evil) action is one applied in the contrary direction.
Consider a simple but common example in medical practice, in which the physician must act to restore the acid – alkaline balance of the blood. Both acid and alkaline substances are necessary and thus good for life. However, sometimes a treatment must force change in the acid direction when the blood is too alkaline—that is ethical; in such a condition, even though alkaline substances can be good, intentionally forcing change in the alkaline direction would be evil.
But in a natural system, are there not several different states of equilibrium that may be possible? For example, homeostatic responses in an organism can adapt to a chronic disease process and maintain life by resetting the equilibrium. Similarly, society can adapt to a variety of economic, cultural, and environmental conditions, and maintain some degree of equilibrium for survival. Would not any dynamic state of equilibrium (of homeostasis) be good? To which of the several possible states must an action be directed?
If the state of knowledge and circumstances permit several options, the preferred action is the one that tends toward the highest state of equilibrium that the system would seek for itself. Conscious action must seek to promote the system’s own self-regulatory interactions, rather than seek to regulate the system to a particular pre-conceived equilibrium.
What about the problem of pain versus pleasure? Surely pain is evil and the absence of pain is good. However, that is not necessarily true. The distressing deformities of Hansen’s disease (leprosy) occur because of an absence of pain. The disease destroys sensation, so that pain does not provide its normal protective effect against repeated injury. For many illnesses, pain is the signal that brings intervention for healing. Pain can serve the good of homeostasis. But pain in other circumstances, or beyond that necessary for these functions, becomes evil, working against the state of productive well-being that is homeostasis. An ethical action may require causing pain for certain diagnostic studies or treatments, yet lacking such a purpose, causing pain is evil.
Pleasure too can have both ethical and evil aspects. Sexual pleasure is supportive of the physical and mental well-being of the individual and of the requirements of the species for reproduction. It is one of the necessities of life itself. Yet sexual activity that disregards the ethical requirements for safety and balance can destroy more than pleasure and well-being. As the AIDS epidemic illustrates, one’s own life can be at stake. Thus here, too, this ethical model is consistent with life experience.
Ethical action is not defined by the side of the teeter-totter to which it is applied. Ethical action is defined by the resulting motion toward balance. It follows from a study of the model that determining correct (ethical) action is not merely a matter of following a rule. Correct action requires consideration of each situation. Where must the action be applied to restore balance? How much is necessary?
What then of evil? How does the model explain the often overwhelming and autonomous force of evil that seems present in terrorism, for example, or history’s pograms, or war’s atrocities? On the individual level, how do we explain such evil as drives the serial killer? Those questions are indeed difficult. It is here that we require further precision in defining evil, and further consideration of the psychological dimensions of the problem.
In Wholeness and Ethic we illustrated Jung’s model of the psyche as a noctiluca organism, and discussed the shadow as a “black hole” which draws energy from the ego and from the self. Of course, the metaphor is not astronomically correct, for no energy escapes a black hole. The energy stored in the shadow, however, may be thrust back through the ego and onto others, projecting its identity as not one’s own, but as belonging to others. Thus one’s own inadequacies may be seen in other people, as though a magic mirror made one look like another person. One’s own darkness is the source of racial bigotry and hatred.
The concept of the shadow is so central to our understanding of evil that an extended quotation from Jung is justified:
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance.
… closer examination of the dark characteristics—that is, the inferiorities constituting the shadow—reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and accordingly an obsessive or, better, possessive quality. …
Although with insight and good will, the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality, experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistances are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognized as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary. (7)
Evil originates in these considerably powerful energies within the unconscious. As far as the ethical model is concerned, at the unconscious level these energies are only potential energies, which, while still under some degree of regulation within the psyche, may be channelled toward either evil or ethical actions. (As far as the psyche is concerned, the energies are not potential, but are actively engaged with other complexes under the influence of the self, seeking homeostatic balance.)
At the conscious level, energy that otherwise might be destructive or disruptive may be channelled into some action that is acceptable in the social group. Or, the energy may emerge destructively; through projection, the person may then blame the victim as being the cause of the impulse or “need” to “retaliate.” Nor is the effect confined to the immediate person and the victim. The effect may be felt in the collective conscious, where in the aggregate the evil looms as an autonomous “external” force that possesses not only individuals, but groups—sometimes even nations.
Psychic energy does not become evil or ethical until it reaches the action level, or rather, the level of decision about action. As affirmed in the story of Adam and Eve, it is the ego that is the seat of knowledge of good and evil. Ultimately, the decision to act ethically or evily is a function of consciousness. Even though the person may be reacting to feelings that arise in unconscious energies, it is the conscious that bears the guilt for an evil deed. Thus, though the energy for evil arises in the natural processes of the psyche, humans are not by nature evil, nor is nature evil.
It is not appropriate to classify feelings as evil or good, or even as evil versus ethical. Feelings are normal, resulting from the state of psychic regulation. Feelings are symptomatic of that state of regulation, but do not in themselves indicate that a person is good or bad. The person concerned about the quality of feelings must consider that all types of feelings are important in the psyche’s economic balance sheet. The test of the ethical versus the evil must be applied to actions (including proposed actions), not to feelings.
This ethical model, empirically based on a natural systems worldview, offers several theoretical benefits. It provides a working explanation of the phenomenon of evil, while avoiding the philosophical problem of a dualistic universe. There is no evidence that the universe is dualistic. Certainly we see dualisms and polarizations at work in the universe, but the Universe is a Unity.
The model also avoids the problem of whether evil must be contained within the good. It deals appropriately with Jung’s arguments about the archetypal dualisms observed within the psyche, while preserving some of the attractiveness of the privatio boni doctrine. Indeed, in our ordinary daily experience we find almost overwhelming evidence of a deprivation of the good, which all normal human aspiration begs to redress.
Further, the model offers the benefit of a more useful perspective from which to understand and deal with urgent human problems. The model makes clear that evil is a matter of consciousness. Defusing evil within ourselves is a matter of increasing consciousness, to include awareness of our own shadows. In Jungian terms, we each must “own our own shadow.” A collective withdrawing of projections, each of us dealing with our own feelings, would in the aggregate massively lower the aggression level. For starters, it would defuse racial and religious bigotry.
The model further illustrates that the balance (the Good) can never be achieved by evil actions. Evil must always be countered by the ethical. Obviously, complex situations require considerable analysis, and often require ethical actions at multiple levels simultaneously. Success in a particular situation may require quite a protracted process of ethical interactions, great patience, collective awareness and collective action, yet no matter how unbalanced the situation or the system, redress can never be achieved by more evil.
Obviously, we face a difficult task, as Jung’s comments above affirm. The approach to ethics is the approach to awareness. Ethical action requires “thinking sincerely,” and requires acting in awareness of one’s own self as well as of the external situation. Just as increasing one’s base of knowledge is a matter of education, so is learning to increase consciousness. That education must start with an adequate model for teaching. We must start with a model of the Good as balance, and of homeostasis as health. We must start with a model of ethics for healing.
Copyright 2000 by Donivan Bessinger. All rights reserved.
Next Chapter: Reverence for Life and Natural Ethic
More by Donivan Bessinger, MD
References:
(1) RABBI KUSHNER—Harold Kushner. When Bad Things Happen to Good People. New York: Schocken Books, 1981.
(2) PRIVATIO BONI—For an overview, see: John A. Sanford. “The Ontology of Evil” in Evil, The Shadow Side of Reality. New York: Crossroad, 1986.
(3) GOD AS NEUTRAL—See Sanford (op. cit.) for review of Jung’s thought on the subject, and bibliography.—See also CGJ. Introduction (1952) to Victor White: God and the Unconscious. Dallas: Spring Publications, 1982.—Also CGJ. “Prefatory Note” (1956) added to “Answer to Job” (1952). PJ, p 519. CW 11.—[The word morally (neutral) is added for this internet edition. Moral responsibility derives from ordinary ego-consciousness (derived from sensation of the physical world), which is a property of humanity, not divinity. In Answer to Job, Jung interprets the dialog between Job and Jahweh as a dialog between consciousness and the collective unconscious.]
(4) NATURAL VERSUS SUPERNATURAL—[I ask the reader to understand that I am not arguing for a devaluation of the supernatural or spiritual view of life (far from it !!), but in favor of a much richer and broader concept of what is “natural.” Since physics now points to a nonlocal realm, the formerly easy divide between physical and metaphysical has become much blurred. My theological position, that the natural and supernatural realms inhere within each other in a paradoxical and mystical way, is explored in my website Pleromatics Project. Note, however, that this systems approach to ethics is not derived from theological argument.]
(5) THE PROBLEM OF EVIL—[Having now given more thought to the nature of nonlocality in the Pleromatics Project (leading to a proposal for a pulsed nonlocality model of reality), I can see the outlines of a karma-like collective “pressure” toward evil, which could increase the potential for evil action by unwary (i.e. less-conscious) egos. Such “pressure” would be in tension with the (unconscious) “collective karma” of moral (conscious) intention. (To borrow the term karma is not to take a position on eastern doctrines regarding reincarnation or metaphysical merit.)]
(6) NATURALISTIC FALLACY—G. E. Moore. Principia Ethica, 1903. See G. W. Stroh. American Ethical Thought. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1979. p 175 ff.—[see also The Psychological Problem ]
(7) “THE SHADOW IS A MORAL PROBLEM”—CGJ. “Aion: Phenomenology of the Self” (1951). CW 9ii. PJ, p 145, 146.