Rescuing Evil: What We Lose by Ron Rosenbaum

Rescuing Evil: What We Lose Reviews

• 
  Jessaka

  Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler," is now trying to explain evil. It seems to me that neither of these subjects can be explained and everyone has tried.
  
  He is writing this book in light of the new science that claims there is a neurological explanation for evil, but if we were to accept this, it would take away free will and the belief that evil exists. And this is why he wants to save the belief that evil exists.
  
  For years psychologists have said that the sociopath is born a sociopath, There is a theory out there that "if a person lacks a conscience, then he/she "cannot choose evil without violating a conscience that tells them they're doing evil." To see where he goes with this you would have to read the book, as it isn't an easy read. And he doesn't go into the new science that neuroscientists are getting into that show how your brain is wired to do good or evil. But you can Google "Evil, brain imaging," and you find all the research that he only touches on, or read the book: Behave.
  
  The question Rosenbaum comes back to is this: "Did Hitler know that he was doing evil?" And, "Can we call Hitler evil if he believed that what he was doing was good?" Or my own question, "If a brain scan of a psychopath shows that a certain part of a person's brain seems to be misfiring, is this person still evil when he/she commits a heinous crime?
  
  Neuroscientist Michael Koenigs said, "But even when psychopaths know that what they’re doing is a crime, that doesn’t mean they’re in control of their behavior when they offend.”
  
  But can you change that wiring, like in this old Indian saying:
  
  "One evening an old Cherokee Indian told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, ‘My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all.
  One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
  
  The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.’
  
  The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: ‘Which wolf wins?’
  
  The old Cherokee simply replied, ‘The one you feed.’"
  
  Nothing ever gets settled in this book, but I did like the philosophy of one man that he quotes by first leading into his belief system by saying,
  
  "How can you believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God who also permits so much suffering and evil in the world? I can't hope to summarize adequately Polkinghorne's thought and its place in the history of theodicy. Here is what he argues:
  
  'The key idea is to understand an evolutionary world as a creation that is allowed to make itself. God neither produced a ready-made world nor imposed upon its history an eternally determined rigid forum. Instead the process of the universe is that of a continuously unfolding creativity, a kind of improvisation in which creates participle together with their creator. Such a world of freely developing fertility is a great good but it is a necessary cost.' " Evil and suffering is that necessary cost.
  
  It is interesting what Polkinghorne says here in regards to the problem of evil:
  
  "The well-known free will defense in relation to moral evil asserts that a world with a possibility of sinful people is better than one with perfectly programmed machines. The tale of human evil is such that one cannot make that assertion without a quiver, but I believe that it is true nevertheless. I have added to it the free-process defense, that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theatre with a Cosmic Tyrant. I think that these two defenses are opposite sides of the same coin, that our nature is inextricably linked with that of the physical world which has given us birth."
  
  Note: If you don't have a kindle you can read the pdf book:
  
  http://vps96490.vps.ovh.ca/alpukat-41...
  
• 
  Carol

  Can you have free will if we deny the existence of Evil, with a capital E? If we deny that people chose to do wicked things, commit cruel acts and are globally indifferent, because of choice....if we put all of it down to "low self esteem", "cortical atrophy" and "neuromitigation", then how do we judge courage, heroism, selflessness? By the same bio-chemical, neurological impulses? Can there be good without evil? If evil is a product of our neurobiology (or our upbringing), isn't the same true of saintliness?
  
  Rosenbaum sets out to 'rescue' evil from the dustbin of history in order to give us back free will - the choice between good and evil, right and wrong.
• 
  Christine

  Is evil real?
  
  That is the question that Rosenbaum answers, or tries to, in part of this essay. Rosenbaum makes a good case for calling evil, well, evil. He has a point; society does want to offer excuse.
  
  Perhaps, though, we do so because we want a reason. If we can understand, if we have a cause, then somehow the behavior isn't as frightening. If there is no cause, if the person is just evil, then that is terrifying. It is way the Joker in The Dark Knight is such a good villian. We don't why he is the way he is. He just is.
  
  Rosenbaum is trying to figure this out too.
• 
  Pat Welte

  Very interesting view of how some people see evil and some don't see it. Well written book about what we lose when we don't see evil.