“…for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so…”
-Hamlet, by William Shakespeare

“Evil” is a term that one hears more and more in the public square. Since Ronald Reagan branded the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” and George W. Bush identified the “axis of evil” in declaring war against terror, it seems to be creeping into the national discourse with increasing frequency.

What seems to be behind this is the voguish condemnation of “moral relativism.” There is a “right” and a “wrong” in all things, discernable by complicated religious or philosophical pontification.

Good and bad, right and wrong: It seems these are purely human constructs, unprovable ones at that. Moreover, those who deign to have found the answers to good and bad are often quick to allege that those who disagree are “evil.”

I’m with Shakespeare. In fact, we cannot prove right or wrong, good or evil. We can, like Thomas Jefferson, however, stand up for the truth as we know it. It’s self-evident that all people are created equal. We can expend profound amounts of cerebral energy parsing through socioeconomic facts and conclude, “This is good” and “That is bad.” Or, we can simply say it’s true that we’re equal, and that we have rights.

If we disagree with someone else’s understanding of the truth, we can certainly take issue with their interpretation. We might even assert our rights, perhaps even with force. But are they evil? Can we judge their very fiber?

That’s not our job, I submit. Thinking it, to paraphrase Shakespeare, will not actually make it so. We only think it does. And, thinking it only serves to corrode our sense of life.

So, is Michael Schiavo “bad,” Terri’s parents “good”? The “death tax” right or wrong? The War in Iraq is evil?

Humility, not righteous indignation, seems to be called for in human events.

The “true” and the “untrue” seem to open to interpretation. One might believe it’s true that all people are created equal, for instance. One may also make the assessment that public policies X, Y, and Z are inconsistent with the equality premise.

We then have a choice: Brand X, Y, and Z “evil,” and insist on their repeal. Or, we can question X, Y, and Z, and suggest alternatives that are helpful in unwinding X, Y, and Z. It then becomes a practical question of what works, a dispassionate inquiry.

Surely in a world where some like to determine who is wearing the white hats, and who black, makes for most excellent drama. Saddam and Osama, most definitely black hats. George Bush and Tony Blair, white hats. Or perhaps they’re all wearing black hats.

The truth is, none of them are wearing hats, not really. They are all people, created equal. They are all just people, making decisions all day long, doing the best they can. We may not support any or all of their decisions. Our assessment may be that they do not contribute to the equal treatment of all people to pursue happiness. But the question becomes, what are we going to do about that? Perhaps -- nothing. Or, perhaps we can offer an alternative viewpoint, sparing us the “imperative” to brand the current state of affairs “evil.”

-Robert Capozzi