Infinite generosity ... Is this possible? Someone will say no. But there are those who will say yes, without doubting the truth of this quality. What is surprising? The Gospel (Matthew 5:39) says directly: "Do not resist evil." This is the moral law of love, which has been repeatedly considered by thinkers of different eras.
A look into the past
Even Socrates talked about the fact that injustice should not respond to injustice, even contrary to the majority. According to the thinker, injustice is unacceptable even in relation to enemies. He believed that in an effort to atone for his crimes or those of his neighbors, the crimes of enemies should be concealed. Thus they will receive full for their deeds after death. But with this approach, we are not talking about goodwill towards enemies, rather, an internal principle of outwardly passive behavior towards offenders is being formed.
Among the Jews, the concept of non-resistance to evil appears after the Babylonian captivity. Then by this principle they expressed the demand to be supportive of enemies, relying on sacred writings (Prov. 24:19, 21). At the same time, a good attitude towards the enemy is understood as a way of overcoming (cooperation), since the enemy is humiliated by good and nobleness, and retribution is in the hands of God. And the more consistently a person abstains from revenge, the sooner and inevitably will overtake his offenders of the punishment of the Lord. No villain has a future (Prov. 25:20). Thus, while favoring the enemies, the injured party exacerbates their guilt. Therefore, she will deserve a reward from God. These principles are supported by the words from the Holy Scripture that in doing so, you collect burning coals on the head of the enemy, and the Lord will reward for such patience (Prov. 25:22).
The emergence of the opposition
In philosophy, the concept of non-resistance to evil implies a moral requirement that was formed during the transition from talion (a category of history and law with the idea of equal retribution), to the moral rule, called the golden one. This requirement is similar to all similar proclaimed principles. Although there are differences in interpretation. For example, Theophan the Recluse interprets the words of Paul, referred to in the Gospel (Rom. 12:20), as an indication not of indirect retribution by God, but of remorse, which happens to the villains through a good attitude. This principle is similar to the Jewish one (Prov. 25:22). In this way, good is brought up by good. This is a principle opposed to the spirit of the talion, which is completely opposed to the metaphor: "Burning coals on his head."
It is interesting that in the Old Testament there is such a phrase: “You do mercifully with the merciful, and with the evil one you do according to his deceit; for you are saving the oppressed people, but you are humiliating your arrogant eyes ”(Psalm 17: 26-28). Therefore, there were always people who interpreted these words in favor of retaliation to enemies.
Different doctrines - one look
So, in the light of morality, the law proclaiming non-resistance to evil is meaningfully combined with the proclaimed commandments of bliss in the gospel. The rules are mediated by the commandments of love and forgiveness. This is the vector of moral development of mankind.
It is also interesting that already in the Sumerian texts one can find a statement about the importance of favoring the villain as a necessary means of introducing him to good. In the same way, the principle of good manners is proclaimed evil in Taoism (Tao de Ching, 49).
Confucius looked at this question differently. When asked: “Is it right to answer good to evil?”, He said that evil must be answered with justice, and good with good. (Lun Yu, 14.34). These words can be interpreted as non-resistance to evil, but not obligatory, but according to circumstances.
Seneca, a representative of Roman stoicism, expressed an idea in tune with the golden rule. It involves an initiative in relation to another, which sets the standard for human relations in general.
Weakness or strength?
In theological and philosophical thought, arguments have been repeatedly expressed in favor of the fact that it is multiplied by a retaliatory strike against evil. Hate also increases with reciprocity. Someone will say that the philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil is the destiny of weak personalities. This is an erroneous opinion. History knows enough examples of people endowed with selfless love, always responding with virtue and possessing amazing strength of mind even with a weak body.
Behavioral differences
Based on the concepts of social philosophy, violence and non-violence are just different ways of responding to people who encounter injustice. Possible behaviors of a person in contact with evil are reduced to three basic principles:
- cowardice, passivity, cowardice and, as a result, surrender;
- violence in response;
- nonviolent resistance.
In social philosophy, the idea of non-resistance to evil is not too supported. Violence in response, as a better means than passivity, can respond to evil. Indeed, cowardice and humility provide the basis for the affirmation of injustice. Avoiding confrontation, a person belittles his rights to responsible freedom.
It is also interesting that such a philosophy speaks of the further development of an active opposition to evil and its transition to a different form - non-violent resistance. In this state, the principle of non-resistance to evil is in a qualitatively new plane. In this position, a person, in contrast to a passive and humble person, recognizes the value of every life and acts in terms of love and the common good.
Liberation of india
The greatest practitioner who was inspired by the idea of non-resistance to evil is Mahatma Gandhi. He secured the liberation of India from British rule without firing a shot. Thanks to a series of civil resistance campaigns, independence was restored to India peacefully. This was the greatest achievement of political activists. The events that have taken place have shown that non-resistance to evil by force, which as a rule generates conflict, is fundamentally different from a peaceful resolution of the issue, which yields amazing results. On the basis of this, there is a conviction that it is necessary to cultivate an unselfish good-natured disposition even in relation to enemies.
Philosophy investigated the method that advocates non-resistance to evil, and religion proclaimed it. This is seen in many teachings, even the ancient ones. For example, nonviolent resistance is one of the religious principles called ahimsa. The main requirement is that you can not do any harm! This principle defines the behavior leading to a decrease in the world of evil. All actions, according to ahimsa, are directed not against people who create injustice, but against violence itself as an act. This attitude will lead to a lack of hatred.
Contradictions
In Russian philosophy of the 19th century, L. Tolstoy was a famous preacher of good. Non-resistance to evil is a central theme in the religious and philosophical teachings of the thinker. The writer was sure that to resist evil should not be by force, but with the help of good and love. For Lev Nikolaevich, this idea was obvious. All the work of the Russian philosopher denied non-resistance to evil by violence. Tolstoy preached love, mercy, and forgiveness. He always emphasized Christ and his commandments, that the law of love is sealed in the heart of every person.
Controversy
The position of L. N. Tolstoy was criticized by I. A. Ilyin in his book On Resistance to Evil by Force. In this work, the philosopher even tried to operate with gospel extracts about how Christ kicked traders out of the temple with a scourge. In a polemic with L. Tolstoy, Ilyin argued that non-resistance to evil by violence is an ineffective method of confronting injustice.
Tolstoy’s doctrine is considered to be religious-utopian. But it gained quite a lot of followers. A whole movement arose, which was called "Tolstoyism." In some places this teaching was controversial. For example, along with the desire to create a hostel of equal and free peasants on the site of a police, class state and landlord tenure, Tolstoy idealized the patriarchal way of life as a historical source of moral and religious human consciousness. He understood that culture remains alien to the common people and is perceived as an unnecessary element in their life. There were a lot of such contradictions in the works of the philosopher.
Understanding Injustice by Individuals
Be that as it may, every spiritually advanced person feels that the principle of non-resistance to evil is endowed with some spark of truth. It is especially attractive for people with a high moral threshold. Although often such individuals are prone to self-denial. They are able to admit their sin before they are accused.
There are often cases in life when a person who, having hurt another, repents and is ready to give up violent resistance, because he is suffering the pangs of conscience. But can this model be considered universal? Indeed, quite often the villain, having not encountered a confrontation, unbelts even more, believing that everything is permissible. The problem of morality in relation to evil worried everyone and always. For some, violence is the norm, for most it is unnatural. However, the whole history of mankind looks like a continuous struggle with evil.
An open question of a philosophical nature
The question of resistance to evil is so deep that the same Ilyin, in his book criticizing Tolstoy’s teachings, said that no respectable and honest people take the principle described above literally. He asks questions such as: “Can a person who believes in God take a sword in his hands?” or “Will such a situation arise that a person who has not shown any resistance to evil will sooner or later come to understand that evil is not evil?” Perhaps a person is so imbued with the principle of lack of resistance to violence that he will elevate him to the rank of spiritual law. It is then that he will call darkness darkness, and black - white. His soul will learn to adapt to evil and eventually become like him. So, one who does not resist evil will also become evil.
The German sociologist M. Weber believed that the principle discussed in this article was generally unacceptable to politics. Judging by current political events, this understanding was in the spirit of the authorities.
One way or another, the question remains open.