Boundless generosity… Is it possible? Some will say no. But there are those who will say yes, without doubting the truth of this quality. What's amazing? The Gospel (Matt. 5:39) says directly: "Do not resist evil." This is the moral law of love, which has been considered more than once by thinkers of different eras.
Look into the past
Even Socrates said that you should not respond with injustice to injustice, even in spite of the majority. According to the thinker, injustice is unacceptable even in relation to enemies. He believed that in an effort to atone for the crimes of one's own or those of one's neighbors, one should conceal the crimes of enemies. Thus they will receive in full for their deeds after death. But with this approach, we are not talking at all about goodwill towards enemies, rather, an internal principle of outwardly passive behavior towards offenders is formed.
Among the Jews, the concept of non-resistance to evil appears after the Babylonian captivity. Then, by this principle, they expressed the requirement to be supportive of enemies, relying on sacred writings.(Prov. 24:19, 21). At the same time, a kind attitude towards the enemy is understood as a way of conquest (cooperation), since the enemy is humiliated by kindness and nobility, and retribution is in the hands of God. And the more consistently a person refrains from revenge, the sooner and more inevitably the punishment of the Lord will overtake his offenders. No villain has a future (Prov. 25:20). Thus, by showing favor to the enemies, the injured party aggravates their guilt. Therefore, she deserves a reward from God. Such principles are based on the words from the Holy Scriptures that by doing this, you are heaping burning coals on the head of the enemy, and the Lord will reward such patience (Prov. 25:22).
Opposition rises
In philosophy, the concept of non-resistance to evil implies a moral requirement that was formed during the transition from talion (the category of history and law with the idea of equal retribution) to the rule of morality, called the golden one. This requirement is analogous to all such proclaimed principles. Although there are differences in interpretation. For example, Theophan the Recluse interprets the words of Paul, which is referred to in the Gospel (Rom. 12:20), as an indication not of indirect retribution by God, but of repentance that occurs among villains through a good attitude. This principle is similar to the Jewish one (Prov. 25:22). Thus, good is brought up by good. This is a principle opposed to the spirit of the talion, which is quite opposed to the metaphor: “Burning coals on his head.”
It is interesting that in the Old Testament there is such a phrase: “With the mercifulYou act mercifully, but with the evil one - according to his wickedness; for you save the oppressed people, but haughty eyes you humiliate” (Ps. 17:26-28). Therefore, there have always been people who interpreted these words in favor of retribution against enemies.
Different teachings - one look
So, in the light of morality, the law proclaiming non-resistance to evil is meaningfully combined with the commandments of beatitude proclaimed in the Gospel. The rules are mediated by the commandments of love and forgiveness. This is the vector of the moral development of mankind.
It is also interesting that already in the Sumerian texts one can find a statement about the importance of benevolence towards the villain as a necessary means of introducing him to good. In the same way, the principle of good deeds is proclaimed evil in Taoism (“Tao de jing”, 49).
Confucius looked at this question differently. When asked: “Is it right to return good for 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 consonant with the golden rule. It involves a proactive attitude towards the other, which sets the standard for human relations in general.
Weakness or strength?
In the theological and philosophical thought, arguments have been repeatedly expressed in favor of the fact that it multiplies in response to evil. Likewise, hatred grows when it meets reciprocity. Someone will say that the philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil is the lot of weak personalities. It's misguidedopinion. History knows enough examples of people endowed with selfless love, always responding with virtue and possessing amazing fortitude even with a weak body.
Differences in behavior
Based on the concepts of social philosophy, violence and non-violence are just different ways of reacting people who have met injustice. Possible options for the behavior of a person in contact with evil are reduced to three basic principles:
- cowardice, passivity, cowardice and as a result - surrender;
- violence in response;
- non-violent resistance.
In social philosophy, the idea of non-resistance to evil is not strongly supported. Violence in response, as a means better than passivity, can be used to respond to evil. After all, cowardice and humility give ground for the assertion of injustice. By avoiding confrontation, a person diminishes his rights to responsible freedom.
It is also interesting that such a philosophy speaks of the further development of active opposition to evil and its transition into 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, unlike a passive and submissive person, recognizes the value of every life and acts from the point of view of love and the common good.
Liberation of India
The greatest practitioner inspired by the idea of non-resistance to evil is Mahatma Gandhi. He achieved the liberation of India from British rule without firing a shot. Through a series of campaignsCivil resistance peacefully restored India's independence. It 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, gives rise to conflict, is fundamentally different from a peaceful solution of the issue, which gives amazing results. On the basis of this, a conviction arises of the need to cultivate a selfless good-natured disposition even towards enemies.
The method that promotes non-resistance to evil, philosophy explored, and religion - proclaimed. This is seen in many teachings, even ancient ones. For example, non-violent resistance is one of the religious principles called ahimsa. The main requirement is that no harm can be done! Such a principle defines behavior that leads to a decrease in the evil in the world. All actions, according to ahimsa, are not directed against people who create injustice, but against violence itself as an act. Such an attitude will lead to a lack of hatred.
Contradictions
In Russian philosophy of the 19th century, L. Tolstoy was a famous preacher of goodness. Non-resistance to evil is the central theme in the religious and philosophical teaching of the thinker. The writer was sure that one should resist evil not by force, but with the help of goodness 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 imprinted in the heart of every person.
Controversy
The position of Leo 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 excerpts about how Christ drove the merchants out of the temple with a whip of ropes. In a polemic with L. Tolstoy, Ilyin argued that non-resistance to evil by violence is an ineffective method of resisting injustice.
Tolstoy's teaching is considered to be religious-utopian. But it has gained quite a lot of followers. A whole movement arose which was called Tolstoyism. In some places this teaching was contradictory. For example, along with the desire to create a hostel of equal and free peasants on the site of a police, class state and landownership, 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 lives. There were a lot of such contradictions in the works of the philosopher.
Individual understanding of injustice
Be that as it may, every spiritually advanced person feels that the principle of non-resistance to evil by violence is endowed with some spark of truth. It is especially attractive to people with a high moral threshold. Although often such individuals are prone to self-blame. They are able to admit their sin before they are accused.
It is not uncommon in life when a person, having hurt another, repents and is readyrenounce violent resistance, because he is experiencing pangs of conscience. But can this model be considered universal? After all, quite often the villain, having not met with confrontation, loosens his belt even more, believing that everything is permitted. The problem of morality in relation to evil worried everyone and always. For some, violence is the norm, for the majority it is unnatural. However, the whole history of mankind looks like a continuous struggle with evil.
An open question of a philosophical nature
The issue of resistance to evil is so deep that the same Ilyin in his book criticizing the teachings of Tolstoy said that none of the respectable and honest people perceive the above principle literally. He asks questions such as: “Can a person who believes in God take up a sword?” or “Will such a situation arise that a person who has not shown any resistance to evil will sooner or later come to the understanding that evil is not evil?”. Perhaps a person will be so imbued with the principle of non-resistance to violence that he will elevate it to the rank of a spiritual law. It was then that he would call darkness light, and black white. His soul will learn to adapt to evil and in time become like it. Thus, one who did not resist evil will also become evil.
German sociologist M. Weber believed that the principle discussed in this article is generally unacceptable for politics. Judging by current political events, this understanding was in the spirit of the authorities.
One way or another, the question remains open.
