Theodicy - The Problem of Evil

I was commenting recently to an Atheist friend; the eminent Richard Dawkins had come up on her page. I was wondering what Richard Dawkins would do with a guy like Ken Miller, a well published molecular and cell biologist who gives assent to evolution and does his own debates against American Evangelical Creationism. Ken Miller is Roman Catholic and says that he is a theist in the broadest sense. Admittedly, that can only mean one thing... he doesn't give much attention to his faith.

A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.

These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.

So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.

Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.

Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.

Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.

Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?

But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.

This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.

Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?

In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."

God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.

So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
 
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Euthanasia Should Remain Illegal

In the recent decades there has been quite a bit of talk concerning euthanasia. The proponents of euthanasia say that every person has the right to die. On this point we might all agree, but this is not really at the heart of the issue. The question isn’t whether or not man has the right to die, but rather does man have the right to kill himself? Here, I will do my best to convince you that man doesn’t have that right at all. My purpose is to give you well founded and systematic reasons for why these practices are bad for society and the individual on various levels. Further, my intent is not to persuade you by means of rhetoric, but if I can win you over by reason then I have succeeded.

Euthanasia is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Also, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines suicide as the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally, especially by a person of years, of discretion, and of sound mind. However, for the purposes of our discussion we will use an expanded definition of euthanasia, which is inclusive of psychological problems as well. The reason being that those who believe euthanasia is a right, believe that the psychologically impaired should have equal access to euthanasia.

Immortalhumans.com says in its online article titled An Overview On Euthanasia; Are We the Master of Our Own Destiny, “In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize doctor –assisted suicide. Around 20% of the death toll in the country is from euthanasia and it is believed that out of this 12% is involuntary. The consent or acknowledgment of doctor-assisted suicide gave rise to illegal dilemma of falsified proof of death willingness. Imagine the ramifications of legalizing euthanasia. People would live in fear, instead of having doctors willing to treat patients, there would be doctors ready to kill them instead.”

Euthanasia is intended to be a way out for individuals who are faced with often incurable diseases, for the elderly who do not want to die in the due course of time, for those who are suicidal, and the depressed. The argument goes that these individuals have the right to do with their bodies what they please; they have a right to choose whether or not they will continue to live in such painful physical and psychological conditions. In fact, there is a wide array of arguments for doctor assisted euthanasia. This is partly due to the popularity of the issue. I’ll take a moment here to mention some of the pro-euthanasia arguments.

One very popular argument is that if man is allowed to choose how he will live, then it follows that he should be allowed to choose how he shall die. This argument seems reasonable, until we examine it further. Do we get to choose how we live? Are any of you living exactly as you would if you did indeed have the choice? The answer is no, because nature, circumstance, and society work in unison against us to put restrictions on our ability to do exactly what we want, when we want and therefore no one is living as they choose. Man does not have the right to live as he chooses, nature has not provided for that. So, if man does not have the “right” to choose how he will live, then it follows that he does not have the right to choose how he will die either. Therefore, this is a fallacious argument for euthanasia.

Another popular argument for euthanasia and suicide is that which appeals to nature. These people argue based on instances of suicide and euthanasia observed in nature across various species. The argument goes that often enough in nature there are instances where herds leave behind the elderly to die. They also make mention of the suicidal tendencies of various species. The purpose of this argument is to establish that suicide is a natural impulse, and euthanasia is a natural way for a community to deal with the eminent death of its members. They reason that if they can show euthanasia and suicide to be natural impulses then the government does not have the right to make them illegal or regulate them. 

The problem with this argument is quite simple. While animals both euthanize and commit suicide, they also have sex with their siblings and parents, lick their anuses, and not only eat each others children, but their own as well; and I might add that they do so with far greater frequency than they do euthanasia and suicide. So, if we are to allow euthanasia and suicide based off of natural evidences, we must first allow cannibalism, murder, and incest. Therefore, this is another fallacious argument.

Another very popular argument is that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone. Notice here that this argument is made only for euthanasia. This is in part because to say the same concerning suicide is ridiculous. Many of us know of someone who has committed suicide. Some of us have seen the sad slope into despair and the final self-destruction of our loved ones. No one can say that suicide only hurts the person who commits it.

So, instead the argument is made that “euthanasia” doesn’t hurt anyone else. When this argument for euthanasia is propounded it is coupled with images of the terminally ill, crippled individuals, and aging widows. It is far easier to stomach such an idea when we imagine a person suffering from AIDS in a doctor’s office receiving a painless shot that ends their suffering. It’s easier if we think of a person whose whole body is paralyzed from the neck down, choosing to end their hopeless life. Or the lonely 80 year old widow whose family never visits her; who has passed the last seven years alone without her lifelong husband.

Those scenarios are much easier for us to accept, because they appeal to our sense of mercy, hence the term “mercy killing.” They don’t involve a bloody bed spread that someone shot themselves on; they don’t involve someone vomiting to death while trying to dial 911, because they changed their mind and don’t want to die after all. It’s in a sterile environment, administered by a medical professional, and they just go to “sleep.”

But this proposition is yet another argument rife with errors of logic. Specifically, this is what is called a ‘pathetic argument’ and is an error of logic. This argument attempts to assert the rightness of itself by appealing to emotions while pointing at the pitiable and pathetic state of the object being argued; in this case a person.

We are compelled to agree with this argument, because it appeals to emotion; not because it corresponds with reason. To quote Socrates,” A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” We are sold on this argument because it makes euthanasia out to be some sort of good for those who are suffering incurable and hopeless physical conditions. However, in the same instance they try to “shoe-horn” in psychological cases as well, for instance the lonely widow scenario. They try to gain the moral superiority by making a claim to mercy. 

Further, they are pretending that it is the same species of mercy by lumping all of their scenarios together. Can we truly compare a person with a mangled and paralyzed body to an otherwise healthy elderly person who is simply tired of living? This argument creates a plethora of moral, philosophical and ethical dilemmas and in no way levies an effective argument. For instance, are those who are psychologically impaired with suicidal depression fit to make such choices? No.

The argument that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone else is based on the idea that we are all sovereign; that we are independent individuals who have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies. Let’s say that we do legalize euthanasia based on this thesis, what will the second and third order effects be? How far can we take this philosophy and what will it do to society? How will it change our laws, our world view, and our social norms? If we are the masters of our own bodies and immune to government interference concerning what we do with them, then it follows that we should legalize all illegal drugs. We should be able to do heroine, cocaine, ecstasy, crack and LSD. Prostitution should be legalized. Further, the sale of human body parts should no longer be illegal.

Where does this philosophy end? If you open the door, what else must you let in? Why don’t we allow people to do or sell crack? Because it ruins lives, and those lives add up to make communities, which add up to make society. The sale of illegal drugs has an adverse effect on society; that is why people may not do what they want to with their bodies. Similarly, the sale of body parts is illegal because people would be performing operations on each other and thousands of people would die; people might even murder in order to sell off body parts at a high price if they could readily sell it in a free market. We don’t allow prostitution because of the spread of disease, the increase of crime and the moral decay it brings to society. 

The idea that a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body is diametrically opposed not only to our laws, but to reason itself. The very idea promotes anarchy. Anarchy is the philosophy of “Do what thou wilt.” This selfish philosophy does injury to society which is a mutual necessity for the individual and the collective. 

In the end, all arguments for euthanasia and suicide are either fallacious, subjective, or both. The argument for euthanasia is not built on rational arguments or facts. Further, for the past 2,500 years the physicians and doctors of the West have take then Hippocratic Oath where in it is written: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The very idea of euthanasia disagrees with the medical arts, and with our common ancestors

To recap, there is a difference between having the right to die and the right to kill oneself. We may choose to not be resuscitated; we may even decline treatment or cure for life threatening diseases. We may choose martyrdom over self-defense, or we may even prefer to be killed instead of killing. These instances differ from euthanasia, because we are not killing ourselves, neither are we hastening the inevitable. Man does indeed have the right to die, but he does not have the right to hasten the inevitable and take his own life, because it is against the natural law. Therefore, no government can make right what is inherently wrong in nature, even if they should legalize it; and if a government cannot make right what is wrong it most certainly should not try and give license to the people to do what is wrong. There is no sufficient evidence to support the right to kill one’s self in nature, in philosophy, in science, in antiquity, or otherwise. If anyone can effectively make the argument for suicide and euthanasia, proving that it is indeed good and beneficial for mankind to practice, then let them make their argument and better mankind. 

Otherwise, we must submit to the facts. It is a question of law and not of passions and opinions. To quote John Adams,” Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidences.” We must judge this matter based solely on the evidences produced for and against euthanasia. When our liberty is destroyed through the abuse thereof, we are returned to the tyranny of our passions. We have liberty for a purpose, and not for the sake of itself. Liberty does not give us the right to do whatever we want; liberty and lawlessness are not synonyms. Euthanasia, suicide and all other such practices must remain illegal, because we are a society of laws; laws which extend from and expound on our fundamental rights as human beings.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Christian Liberty

In the modern day we have seen both the true and false liberation of women. I say true in that now a much greater dignity and task has been conferred upon womankind, which is their liberty. I say false, because they have become the victims of double tongued serpents. How so? Very simply, if a woman decides to put off marriage and children until the flower of youth withers, she is regarded as shrewd. If she goes and gets an education and pursues all the temporal advantages of business success, she is considered keen and self-sufficient. Finally, if she begins to be promiscuous, she is regarded as an all-powerful and jaded goddess who is above the emotional trappings which affect us mere mortals.

However, say that a young woman has decided to marry and have children, without having gone to college, with no aspirations of a business career. Let us say further that such a woman comes across the path of a so-called liberated woman, or perhaps one of their "emancipators." What do you suppose will happen? Do not speak to me of extraordinary instances, but avail your mind to the common occurrence. Will they not start in with all kinds of false pity, indirectly insulting her? Or the more mean spirited sort, will they not even go so far as to degrade her, putting on airs of superiority, making ostentatious gestures, and so conveniently steering conversation and venue to places the mother and wife cannot come? If they hear of any misfortune in the mother or wife's life, are they not eager to blame her children, brand her husband as a jailer, and amongst each other speak of her stupidity for having chosen such a life?

Or say perchance, there is a woman who has chosen to be a wife and a mother, and she goes out getting an education and making a career. Being surrounded with so-called liberated women, will they not prefer each other to her? Tell me, will they not incessantly propound to her that it is her being a wife and a mother that is the cause of all her troubles? Will they not attempt to exclude her on the pretense that her motherhood and her being a wife are at irreconcilable odds to her so-called professional goals?

Therefore, do they not rather propound to her an ultimatum, which is," Be a stupid animal, a slave, living with no one to care about the things you want." or," Be like us. Take charge. Free yourself. Get what you want." By this ultimatum, do they not say to wives and mothers," You have chosen to be stupid animals, slaves. You chose this; it is your fault." What sort of strange and exceedingly wicked perversity is this! These, their so-called liberators said to begin with," Women are prevented from all sorts of liberties. They are confined to specific social roles, so we are going to liberate womankind!" Yet, which of you can't see the difference between this statement and what actually is, now? I do not intend to paint every woman with the same brush, by no means. However, look at what we have already laid out. Can you not see that it was not want of liberty, but hatred of social roles which drove the multitude to revolt? The majority of women wanting merely liberty, lead on by women who had hatred for wholesome things in their hearts. Now, it seems that the liberty has been granted the hatred still remains. Where is the proof? The proof is in the scorn of motherhood, the hatred of marriage and the fear of both. The proof is in the rolling eyes of "liberated women" at pious mothers and wives who hold their husbands arms. The proof is in the gossip and ostracizing against holy women who have, because of true liberty, chosen to be mothers and wives. The proof is the torrents of implicit, and often explicit, disrespect which are blown against wives and mothers.

So, are women free? It seems they are free to do anything their hearts desire, except to be mothers and wives, especially the sort which stay at home and tend to those things. It has become taboo, even. All of society strives in sneaky and sometimes overt ways to dispossess these mothers and wives of their sacred place. They are the pillar of civilization upon which the whole human race rests, as I have often said, but the world tries to convince us," Kick out the pillar, the building will not fall." So, they strip them of their glory and honor, trying to make women like men and men like women; always doing and teaching what is perverted and abominable.

Still, as much as is written here concerning the fairer sex, I do not mean to make you think about womankind and their plights. Rather, I mean to communicate with you concerning another woman and her liberty, the Bride of Christ and Christian liberty. Part of the error of the secular feminist movement, and in truth it is the same error of the humanist movement, is that they demand liberty and give it no purpose. Liberty to do what, exactly? Whatever one wishes? That is not liberty! That is the most horrific and terrible tyranny of the senses and passions, which leads mankind away from all virtue, morality, and ethic. Liberty without a reason is the greatest of deceptions, the worst of lies. Knowing this, God has given us liberty for a reason.

What is that reason? Listen to the words of Zechariah," This was the oath He swore to our father Abraham:

    To set us free from the hands of our enemies,

    free to worship Him without fear,

    holy and righteous in His sight

    all the days of our life."

We were made free to worship Him without fear and to be holy. What does this tell you about Christian liberty, then? It says to us that we are no longer beholden to death, we do not owe a debt here to this sin and a debt there to that sin, but we have been emancipated. We now possess the ability to worship without fear of death. Before, there was no possibility that we should be holy, justified, and righteous. Now, we are made free and can be, because of our liberty, something which we could never be before, which is holy and righteous in His sight, forever.

So what, then? What point do I bring to you? That many do not know what sort of liberty it is which they have. They think," I am free to do this and that. I may wear this with that. I may eat whatever I wish. I may drink this and say this, and go here or there." This is true, but this is only what pertains to sensible things and truly, they are not even the most blessed things which pertain to sensible things! This error comes from littleness of soul, hardness of heart, and dullness of mind. These poor siblings of ours stop here and realize no more than these things which pertain to food, clothing, speech, and the body. However, which is better, that is, more blessed?     

You are free to eat what you wish, by God's allowance, this is your liberty. Does this mean that it is your liberty to offend God by eating too much or breaking His fasts? By no means! Only you have the freedom to do so, and incur judgment on yourselves. You are free to dress in garments of any material, according to the customs of whatever nations you live in. However, does this mean that you are at liberty to don impious apparel covered in blasphemies, or be clad in such fashions as are offensive to God? Are you at liberty to dress in such a way that makes your fellow human being stumble at you, or in such a way that is irreverent at the Mass, or all places? God forbid it! Only, know that you have the freedom to do such things and incur judgment on yourselves.

Some of you are saying," This is not true liberty, as it is delimited." Hypocrites! How can you say this? In your own countries where you govern yourselves as you please, is your own liberty not delimited as you call it? What sort of boundaries are these, which make your civil liberties delimited? Are they not such limits that prevent a person from infringing upon the rights of his neighbor, nor upon the rights of the collective? Will you whinge and cry because you can not go murder without consequence? Will you say that you are shackled because you can not steal? Will you say that you are oppressed because you can not rape? Will you say that you say you are slaves because you may not perjure the courts of your own country? Shame on you, hypocrite, for such reasoning. You have liberty in your own countries, of the sort which is good for you and for all and to such an extent that you consider yourselves, often enough, the freest of men. So it is with God, you are free and He has liberated you, but you do not have the liberty to trespass and offend God. Is there any legitimate government in the heavens or on earth that can truly give men the liberty to do evil, so that it is no longer evil? No, and throughout history wherever there has been such a government, it has been destroyed by it's own citizens.

So, now that we have talked generally about what we may not do, let us talk about what we may do. Now, as stated previously, unfortunately, many Christians merely view their liberty as a temporal emancipation from the Law of Moses and neglect the incorporeal aspects of that. Yet, I have no desire, right now, to talk to you about the inside of the cup, that is, incorporeal things. I desire to talk to you about the damage being done to the inside of the cup, because of the outside of the cup, through presumption.

For some strange reason, Christians look at someone who is cleaning the outside of the cup and assume the worst about them. They show how little they know, because Christ lauded the pharisees for cleaning the outside of the cup, which is bodily purity according to the Law of Moses, but rebuked them for neglecting the heart of the Law, which is the purity of the soul. Christ says to them that they had done well, but that they should not have neglected the inside of the cup. Christ does not even so much as say that they should have cleaned the inside of the cup instead of the outside. Only, he says to them that all things are clean to those who clean the inside of the cup, speaking the truth to them, but more importantly speaking of future things to come of which we in the Kingdom of Heaven have the benefit of.

Does this mean that men have the power to make holy that which can not be sanctified? Then they should not be practicing what can not be sanctified. 

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Oedipus the Akratic

The story of Oedipus is designed to inculcate into the hearers a two fold lesson; the first being that of the value of virtue and the second being of the value of reason. Oedipus lacks both virtue and reason, being of a highly akratic nature, or at least it can be argued so, especially in the Greek fashion, which I will make some attempt to prove. It is through the exposition of the consequences that arise from being bereft of reason and virtues that the man Sophocles attempts to establish their desirability in the mind of the hearer. As it is said, fear is a good.

So, proceeding from that thesis, having narrowed down our search to the akratic nature of a single man, Oedipus, I think that it is best to at first with brevity say what I mean in the main. Oedipus appears as a man of virtue, a savior even. By the priest he is called “noblest of men” (line 46). However, I will point out that he is not called this because he is in fact the noblest of men, but there is some duty in the words of the priest. It is not pedantry to point out that the priest is talking to the king and indeed I would be indolent if I did not so much as point out that Oedipus had in fact been the savior of their city. Hitherto, I have not brought down the virtue of Oedipus, but I will. It will become evident that Oedipus has very little control over his passions.
However, before I take in the hand the defamation of a character as great as Oedipus is said to be, let us first be certain of the general so that we might avail reason concerning that which is particular.

Here is my mean, we must be sure to identify precisely those things which I have claimed to be lacking in Oedipus, namely virtue and reason. Plainly, I do not say anything on my own authority, but I appeal to your own knowledge of the general and exhort you to use it in the particular. Is not virtue a vice when practiced without moderation? Can a person be just if their integrity is so great that they become merciless? Is not mercy a good? Only, again we see that mercy itself is a good, but not for all. When mercy is misapplied is it not a means of enablement for lawlessness and disorder? There can be no question. The discernment for the particular applications concerning these virtues requires reason.

Reason is precisely what makes humans human. It's the ability to think abstractly, to go beyond instinct. It's the necessity of logic and intellect to survive that makes us human; without intellect man dies. As a person Oedipus is extremely instinctual and this causes many problems for him. We see this when he is pushed off of the highway,” The driver, when he tried to push me off, I struck in anger… And then I killed them all (810-817).” Beyond this, reason is what makes virtue virtuous. As stated before, without some discernment of proper use, virtuous things cannot be applied appropriately without luck.

Where exactly does this impious nature in Oedipus come from? I say ‘impious’ because virtues and reason are holy qualities; at least they are to me and they were to the Greeks (lines 302-304). A writer for the explicator agrees, and points out the same, saying,” Light, to the ancient Greeks, was beauty, intellect, virtue, indeed represented life itself. The Choragus asks Oedipus, ‘What god was it drove you to rake black / Night across your eyes?" Further, I say impious because we discern that while they are holy things, this in fact denotes another characteristic, which is divinity. Things are not divine because they are holy, they are holy because they are divine and proceed corporeally and incorporeally, respectively, from the Divine. So, from whence does this impiety in Oedipus derive? Certainly, his impiety begins in his mother and father. In Nassaar’s exposition of Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus the King’, he points out that,” … his (Oedipus’) father Laius decides to kill Oedipus at birth, and his mother's scorn for Apollo and his prophecies is traceable to this terrible event. She defies and rejects Apollo and his priests for the sake of Oedipus, nursing a lifelong contempt for them.”

Lauis is guilty, insofar as he becomes impious by trying to thwart the gods. Instead of submitting to their omniscient ways, he rather arrogantly, from the god’s point of view, assumes he will make their prophecies come to nothing. Because of this impiety he “pierces the ball joints” of his son’s ankles and arranges to have the infant exposed, thrown out (line 1040).

So, it can be seen that Oedipus is of impious blood from the start, with many evidences in the story reiterated by many characters. However, this is only one sort of source and one source indeed for his impiety. There is another source of his impiety and it is the same as his father’s; namely fear. Despair is the mother of iniquity in these men's lives as it is in most people’s lives. Their despair and fear drive them to disrespect the gods. Instead of being fatalistic and stoic in facing their fate, they behave nihilistically. Their actions are arrogant, putting man too high; assuming that they could and would bring Phoebus’ prophecies to nothing. Oedipus tries to accomplish this by running away from Corinth.

Indeed, if there had been any flexibility and mercy to the prophecy, it would have been found in the reason of truth and the virtue of mercy. Assuming that the portent was not one of predestination, but rather of things foreseen, the prospect changes a bit. If Apollo was writing with a divine pen the destiny of the family of Laius, then such a thing is, in fact, what is called double predestination and man cannot fight such divine literature. If, however, Apollo was looking at the events of the future with time rolled out before him like a scroll, it all means another thing; I strongly suggest that this is the case.

Assuming that my theologoumenon is the case, that the god was actually doing a favor for Laius by telling the future, the onus is on Laius for all calamities. It seems unreasonable to assume that the gods would make Lauis impious only to destroy him, in order that fear be struck into the hearts of those they completely control anyway. That is asinine. It seems more right, and offends logic less, if the god solicits the use of reason. If someone says to another,” Something terrible is going to befall you.” which is better to do, act well or act evil?

The portent solicits no particular action. The portent merely “IS” and therefore, the portent being benign itself must be left aside in the question. A new question arises, namely, is it better to be good and do good or to be evil and do evil? It is clear that Oedipus, Lauis, and Iocosta repeatedly fail to attain to that which is good and because of it more sins occur. As often as possible they make twins of their sin. An example is Oedipus pronouncing curses imprudently as if it might alleviate the god inflicted suffering in the land, somehow. He foments ignorance in his own person and incenses himself, abandoning all reason and mercy. While he is making his reason less and less potent, he sins against the innocent and defames Creon with preposterous accusations of treason and plotting. Even, further, in his vain attempt to alleviate curses by pronouncing curses, he once again is found trying to bring the words of the gods to nothing. His sins are multitudinous against god and man. By these means he brings down the vengeance of a god whose judgment is sovereign and incontrovertible in Greek culture.

So, to the particular Oedipus abandons reason by first abandoning piety. Instead of making good his own goodness, he takes to cursing others in an attempt to abase them morally and lift himself likewise. This is a very “un-Greek” thing to do, isn’t it? We see that wherever an enemy is confronted in classical Greek literature, the protagonist makes a beatific litany of the antagonist’s accomplishments, virtues, honors, nobility of birth, heroisms, etc… in order that upon victory over such a person they deem themselves greater in all respects, though this person was great. Oedipus, very incongruently with the other myths, does quite the opposite and cheaply publishes a curse with his lips in order to separate himself from the sins which brought the plague. Let me point out that Oedipus’ attitude, while not only imprudent, espouses some peculiar divinity. Why do all of Oedipus’ contemporaries in the myths need other men in order to be great, but Oedipus does not? Look at mighty Hector, a man of respect, loved of the gods. Oedipus indeed is compared to other men, insofar as he solved a riddle and saved the city. But where is iron put to iron to prove his greatness? Nowhere, indeed! Not only this, but look at the prophet who is given vision from a god. Inasmuch as the prophet is a prophet the gods are glorified because it is precisely they who give vision. Or mighty Hector, slayer of men, he is great because of his loyalty to other men and because of his noble victories over many other noble men. Glory either comes from other men or from the gods, one is vanity and the other is true glory, but nonetheless does glory come from another.

So, what does Oedipus make himself out to be? When we say a man is "great," do we say it because he is greater than other men or do we say it because he is great and, therefore, better than other men? Surely, we say he is great because he is better than the rest, for he became this way and necessitates the need of others to be great by comparison. For, if and we say he is great and therefore better we make him a demigod. This is precisely what Oedipus has made himself out to be through his many vain pronouncements, one of which is when he points out the he solved the riddle with his own reason and not revelations from the gods or augury from birds (lines 400-405); this infuriates the gods. However, as stated before, logic is intrinsically a divine and holy object; notice, then, how irreverently boastful Oedipus is over his wit. He blurts this out while berating a blind prophet of the gods for being indolent with him to save Oedipus pain. He is impious in the midst of a tantrum and, of course, a tantrum is the bastard child of a person who lacks the four virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. As Aristotle said so plainly,” Wit is educated insolence.” As it turns out, this is all that Oedipus ever had, educated insolence. In the poem we see that insolence exercised against god and man, and not until calamity befalls him is that insolence exorcised from him. So, one might say, when taken as a whole, the gods had done a sore but good thing to Oedipus. It is better for his flesh to corrupt and be destroyed than to be interned to Hades owing some great debt to the gods. The gods saved his soul and purged him of insolence and impiety. It is only horrific to men because they all at once in the corporeal see what happens to Oedipus because of impiety, which is in reality only what is regularly done in the House of the Dead.


"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~