What happens in Vegas must not stay in Vegas.....

Since I've been exploring the topic of good intentions, I thought it a good idea to put it in a real world pressing issue.

On Monday, October 9th, the CNN.com religion editor, Daniel Burke, wrote an outstanding article on what is missing in the debate about "evil." In the article, he references a book by Susan Nieman, Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy.

Burke indicates that author Nieman posits that there are usually two theses in the way theologians and philosophers have typically tried to understand evil and suffering. The first sees "natural disasters," such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes--the fare typically referred to as "acts of G!d," as "natural evil," which premodern people saw as a result of both "G!d's plan" and "doing something wrong" on the part of the individual. the Lisbon earthquake in 1755 did much to begin cracking that theory of co-relativity.

The second thesis of evil revolves around trying to make sense of moral evil, or "sins of choice" so to speak. Hitler, September 11th, even Paddock and Las Vegas all fit into this category, as do such actions as rape, murder, incest, child abuse, genocide, arson, and so on.

Burke notes that author Susan Nieman brings up a third kind of evil, one which is more difficult to see, yet ultimately more destructive. Nieman names this as the evil committed by people who do not have evil intentions. While Hitler clearly had evil intentions, what about the thousands of civilians who went along with Hitler's plan, not out of evil intentions, but out of what philosopher Hannah Arendt calls "the banality of evil"?

The great French philosopher and activist Simone Weil wrote in 1933, “Never react to an evil in such a way as to augment it,” as she contemplated how to make use of our suffering in an illogical world. Echoing this, in a 1982 conversation with Bill Moyers, Maya Angelou said, “Throughout our nervous history, we have constructed pyramidic towers of evil, ofttimes in the name of good.”

Covering the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, Hanna Arendt wrote, "The essence of totalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy, is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them." She went on to describe Eichmann in these words:

"What he said was always the same, expressed in the same words. The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else. No communication was possible with him, not because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all safeguards against the words and the presence of others, and hence against reality as such."

Keeping those words in mind, words written a few decades ago about a Nazi war criminal, think about "The Donald " who has said of the recent Las Vegas event that it was pure evil, and whose minions have all clamored aboard the boat which claims that evil cannot be legislated or even regulated and are therefore claiming that there is no need for gun control legislation, that this kind of evil cannot be prevented by limiting the number and kinds of weapons a citizen may own.

No one disagrees that Paddock's intentions were evil. The point here is to ask, what if the "good intentions" of those wielding the legislative powers are as morally evil and corrupt as the Hitlers and Paddocks of the world?

Author Susan Nieman's book goes on to build upon the work of Hannah Arendt, and Burke reports in his CNN.com article that Nieman writes,  "Any discussion of the evil in (the massacre) in Las Vegas should consider the evil committed with malice and forethought by someone whose motives, in the end, will probably be unclear to us," she said. "But we also have to take a look at the evil committed by all the ways in which we refuse to enact sane, reasonable legislation to protect our citizens."

Burke continues, "Neiman said she doesn't believe political leaders who refuse to consider gun restrictions, or oil executives who exploit the earth, are necessarily acting with evil intentions. But that's irrelevant, she argues. Judgment, not intention, is the 'heart and soul of moral action.' As Neiman writes in 'Evil in Modern Thought, 'The world must hold you responsible for what you do, since it's what you do, not what you intend, that resounds in the world.'"

As we explore this issue of good intentions and evil intentions, "natural evil" and "moral evil," it is clear to see that the lines between natural and moral evils have blurred. Another topic certain political parties are turning a deaf ear to is that of global warming. Certainly many would be hard-pressed to call this an evil intention. Yet, global warming is incriminating we humans, and most certainly our standard U.S. way of living, for the intensity of storms that are devastating our land as well as other countries. Every action has an equal reaction.

Whether the issue is regulating guns or environmental pollution, we must look beyond whatever good intentions might be held out, and look instead at the deeper moral actions, or inactions, at work.

How many more must die, either by guns or mega storms? Even in the name of good intentions, our leaders must be held accountable for their actions as well as their inactions, their hot air that proclaims "pure evil" while refusing "to enact sane, reasonable legislation." At some point, the world will stand up and hold us responsible for augmenting evil. At some point, we must stand up and hold our "elected" leaders responsible for augmenting evil.

Is Paddock responsible for Las Vegas? Absolutely. So are those who block sane legislation for reasonable gun control, while violence continues to escalate.