No, I’m not actually going to write about the problem of evil, but I do have a question or thought about something related. When we as a group, society or country witness acts against fellow humans that most, if not all, would consider evil what would be an appropriate response? Better yet, what ought we do? And are these two answers the same? The latter question is a bit more complicated (as if the first isn’t). Where does this ought-ness come from?

After living through wars, reading about even greater wars in the past and watching or hearing about a governments attempt to solve the problems by limiting the powers of others while, at the same time, attempting to consolidate their own it is no wonder that we draw the conclusion that violence of any kind isn’t a viable answer the the question.

To some, war seems to have been a realistic answer. But I think it is safe to say that, in the final analysis, it creates more problems than it solves. But is this enough for us to discard any sort of violent response when confronted with the scenario above? Does a violent response simply create yet another act of evil? Is it better to watch another human being be on the receiving end of some act of evil than to intervene at the expense of the aggressor?

At first glance this sounds like a moral dilemma of sorts, but upon closer examination perhaps this is just a sign of how morally confused we really are when we can no longer deal with a straight forward situation. For starters, many would scoff at the idea of some sort of norm or ought-ness. Of course, once you go down that road, can you really be upset at those that choose a different answer to the question? In a morally confused state we have a difficult time even understanding the rules that we use to answer the question. Whose rules do we use or are there rules at all?

I know this sounds insensitive to the millions that have lost their lives when “war” was the answer, but we can’t simply take the easy way out and say that all violent responses to evil acts are not permitted. Well, we can say it, but for it to have any force, we have to have good reasons for following the advice. A very important criteria should be whether following this rule will protect the innocent from death. The easy “make love, not war” sounds great, but I think falls flat when measured by this criteria. So what is the answer?