Wednesday, October 18

Let's argue about morality

"When a wealthy Beverly Hills couple was murdered in cold blood while watching TV in their living room, America was shocked... but it was only the beginning of the tragic story. When it was revealed that the culprits were their two beloved sons, a media circus and national obsession were born. This eight-episode drama series explores the dark secrets and untold revelations about the family, the murder and the real-life trial that captured the country's imagination for nearly a decade. After all, everyone knows who did it, but one question still remains... why."

Above is the TV series teaser for one of the most popular shows on today.  The story of Lyle and Erik Menendez, who brutally killed their parents. The evidence is plain, they committed the murders; no one denies it. So, why does their guilt produce so much debate? Edie Falco, who plays defense attorney Leslie Abramson, in commenting on the case said
“She took the unpopular position that these people that she is representing — on some level, regardless of what they are accused of — are human ... People don’t like to live in that grey area. There are good people and bad people, and I think she was trying to let people imagine that maybe you don’t always know which is which all the time.”

Defense Attorney Abramson argued passionately that these young men endured a horrific childhood of abuse, and because of that, the murder was done from a kind of insanity that excuses them from first-degree murder charges. What has my interest in this post though, is that BOTH sides argued the same basic premise: evil was committed. 

The prosecution, using a common sense approach, said the brutal murder committed was evil, the defense appealing to the empathy of a society [and jury] that detests child abuse, said basically [my paraphrase] yes, it was evil, but what was done
to them was evil to the degree that it drove them to commit their evil.

This was not a matter of arbitrary human laws, "he didn't have a current insurance card with him" type of thing, it was much deeper than that. It was a clear matter of “right and wrong” [or I might even say "wrong and wrong"] — a sense that is universal and distinctive to humanity.

In every culture, on every continent and island, people recognize that some things are wrong.  And although they may differ on what they prohibit, every society condemns something as wrong/evil.  This point has been well understood and written about by others, for instance C.S. Lewis wrote:
"Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired". 
This is not just an academic matter either.  Everyone, including you and me, believe something is wrong.  We are imprinted with this moral sense that we did not create, it just is, and it is in all of us. Interestingly to our thought, there very fact that we would/could argue over morality proves that morality exists, that it isn't just some theoretical construct, because everyone, and I mean EVERYONE believes something is immoral.  An adulterer doesn't want you committing adultery with his wife, even a head-hunter doesn't want his head hunted.

There is no satisfactory materialistic, or biological explanation for it — Morality just doesn't come from random chemical reactions. But it comes from somewhere...so, where does it come from?  If nothing exists but energy and matter, how do you explain this moral sense that we all have?  Animals don't have it, plants don't have it, chemicals don't have it, rocks and water don't have it, only humans... Once again, I am struck with the sense that the most reasonable explanation is that of a personal God who created humans in His own image, giving us moral sensitivity.  Do you believe what the Menendez boys did to their parents was evil?  Do you believe what their parents allegedly did to them was evil?  You do?  Why?

11 comments:

  1. I think that what the parents did was evil and I also think what the brothers did to their parents was evil but, does that mean two wrongs make a right? No. No matter what the case may be I don't think killing them was the correct response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do believe that that what both the brothers and parents did was evil. The four people both did things that, in my opinion, are considered evil. Therefore they all did wrong even though both situations were distinctively different. No matter the situation, if one commits and act of wrong, it is evil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe that what both the boys did to their parents and what the parents did to their boys were evil. Taking away someone's life, in my opinion, is evil no matter the circumstance. However, I would be interested to know if the boys did this on purpose or if they actually had some sort of mental condition that influence them to commit the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Do you believe what the Menendez boys did to their parents was evil?” Yes. “Do you believe what their parents allegedly did to them was evil?” Yes. Why? Evil = unjustifiable and that is very fitting here. All parties wronged each other. If they had a strong sense of morale, the actions of all parties wouldn’t have taken place.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some people believe that morality is relative and that there is "no right and wrong." Morality is hidden in all of us, whether you realize it or not, God designed us to know the distinction between right and wrong

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe that both the parents and the kids did evil. Two wrongs don't make a right. Like Hailey mentions taking someones life is never right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are both sides forms of evil? Abuse and taking life. But even still, in this situation, it was not handle properly. I can understand the hatred from someone who abuses you and it can cause one to want to kill someone but when you do you have handled it wrongly. In the eyes of the law it is a felony unless it is self-defense. In this cause it wasn't. It was a hate crime.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's hard to condemn either side as being evil. Taking a life and abusing children are both deplorable actions, no matter the motive. (Stealing from big corporations to give to charity has a good motive, but stealing is stealing.) Are both sides wrong? Of course. But I'm positive evil isn't the correct word to use in this situation, especially in the case of the boys if the allegations of child abuse were factual.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1 Peter 3:9 says that we should not repay evil for evil, so to co-sign what you all were saying, killing their parents was not the Christ-like reaction that we as Christians may have been looking for. However, not everyone was raised in a Christian home with Christian values, but at the end of the day they are still responsible for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. They were wrong in their actions no doubt. Abusing your kids is not right but solving the problem by killing the abusers isn’t right because now is excelated to people being killed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. C.S. Lewis brings up a similar point on Mere Christianity. I think it’s interesting that even our morality points back to God.

    ReplyDelete