There are two agents of evil in the empirical world: man and nature. People generally accept that there is an obligation to stop man’s evil. So, we employ force to stop evil men (think law, self-defense, and war). But how often to we recognize our obligation to stop natural evil?
What do a young man addicted to video games, a middle-aged, dead-beat-dad, and an old man who sleeps in the rain have in common? Only that they are are each immoral. Each of them have failed in their duty to take dominion of their lives and mitigate natural evil by producing and providing. Any person left alone against time and nature will face the natural evils of homelessness and starvation. It is man’s moral duty to learn, build, produce, provide, cure, prevent, etc. The young man is failing to learn how to provide for himself. To continue to live, he must take what others have provided. This is thievery. The dead-beat-dad has failed to provide for his children, causing hunger. This is dereliction. The old man has failed to work the garden, cultivate the earth, and build a home for himself and others after him. This is sloth, needless suffering.
In this sense, a man who does not provide for himself (without reason) is immoral. The Bible calls this man a fool and a sluggard (depending on translation). This translates over to governance as well. A politician who inflates money is a corrupt theif. Wealth can only be produced, not created ex nihilo. A politician who blames the producers is twice a son of the devil, they have an inverted understanding of natural evil. How immoral is it that only those who work are taxed?
Building and developing the world for human flourishing is good- it is commanded. God gave dominion to man, He put him in His creation to work it. The man who does not work it is wicked, and so is the politician who rewards the wicked at the expense of the workers.
Comments