From “Evil” Precis to “Evil” Body Paragraph
Sample Precis
In Stephan Jay Gould’s essay “Nonmoral Nature,” he argues that nature is not moral; therefore, we cannot look for clues about good and evil in it. Gould first illustrates behavior of predatory wasps that eat their host from the inside out; he then examines theologians’ contradictory attempts to square the behavior of insects with the nature of God. Most telling, however, is scientist George Mivart’s attempt to argue that the parasite’s hosts do not suffer because physical suffering “depends on the mental condition of the sufferer”; Mivart goes on to apply the parasite’s behavior to human beings: “the lower races of men appear less keenly sensitive to physical suffering than do more cultivated and refined human beings” (425). Gould exposes the erroneous rationalizations inherent in looking to nature for clues about human morality in order to convince the reader that doing so could result in the justification of “a panoply of social evils,” such as “eugenics and the ‘misnamed’ Social Darwinism” (425).
Precis embedded in an “evil” paragraph—analysis highlighted in yellow:
While human beings long for justice and morality, we sometimes twist this longing into an attempt to justify or normalize poor behavior; this tendency can lead to flawed thinking—or worse, not thinking at all. In Stephan Jay Gould’s essay “Nonmoral Nature,” he argues that nature is not moral; therefore, we cannot look for clues about good and evil in it. Gould first illustrates the seemingly immoral behavior of predatory wasps that eat their host from the inside out; he then examines theologians’ attempts to square the behavior of insects with the nature of God, revealing their misguided and contradictory attempts to see nature as a reflection established doctrine. Most telling, however, is scientist George Mivart’s attempt to argue that the parasite’s hosts do not suffer because physical suffering “depends on the mental condition of the sufferer”; ludicrously, Mivart goes on to apply the parasite’s behavior to human beings: “the lower races of men appear less keenly sensitive to physical suffering than do more cultivated and refined human beings” (425). Mivart’s thinking is flawed because he begins with the assumption that the “lower races” are not sensitive to pain and from there he compares the feelings of human beings to those of insects. Other theologians Gould mentions overlook the notion that perhaps nature is not moral and cannot inform human ethics. Gould exposes the erroneous rationalizations inherent in looking to nature for clues about human morality in order to convince the reader that doing so could result in the justification of “a panoply of social evils, such as “eugenics and the ‘misnamed’ Social Darwinism” (425). Sometimes people hear Darwin’s phrase “survival of fittest” and too easily accept that human beings will hurt one another in an effort to succeed or to survive. Yet this kind of “acceptance” is merely sloppy thinking. In addition, human beings sometimes seek to justify behavior we innately know is wrong—oftentimes this involves not thinking deeply enough. A woman I have met at church has approached me several times to discuss the results of the recent election. Her primary concern is the destruction of the unborn; she feels Obama’s policies lack compassion, particularly when it comes to partial birth abortion. She passionately argues that our humanity is at stake if we do not support life. And while I am sympathetic to her cause, I have not made it my own. I have ignored the issue of abortion for many reasons and have instead focused my concern on those who have already been born, namely my sons. I must admit, though, I am beginning to wonder if I am simply ignoring a fight I know is difficult and controversial. In this sense, I wonder have I justified my own inaction? Have I allowed the culture to normalize what I deep down consider unacceptable? Standing up for good in the face of dubious cultural norms is an ongoing challenge that takes honesty and courage.
Sample Intro, definition of evil and qualified thesis
Eighteenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant claimed every human begins has the ability to determine what is good. He must simply “act only according to that maxim whereby [he] can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” If good means doing unto others as we would have others do unto us, then evil is doing unto others that which we would not want done to us. But are we responsible the evil of others? While it is logistically and physically impossible to right every wrong we encounter, compassionate and humane people must strive to end evil whenever it is in their power to do so.
Or
Eighteenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant claimed every human begins has the ability to determine what is good. He must simply “act only according to that maxim whereby [he] can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” If good means doing unto others as we would have others do unto us, then evil is doing unto others that which we would not want done to us. But how difficult is it to do good and resist evil? Although people are born inherently good, often we are unaware of the effort it takes to remain good in the face of temptation, unless we do just that—face our tendency to do wrong and push against it.