Dealing With the Dark Side

Earned nobility vs. lazy virtue

Imagine that you are presented with the life histories of three people.

The first person is a decent person, a good person. It seems to come naturally for him. He is a “hail fellow well met.” He doesn’t seem to have any dark demons or deep thorny issues. Sure, he’s got baggage, he’s had to deal with the basic vicissitudes of life. He has moods. But he’s basically just a good, decent fellow. Without having had to work really hard at it. Let’s call him “Easy Virtue.” A real life example of this might be...well…me.

The second person is the byproduct of a lousy childhood, and either because of that or because of inherited traits he is a bundle of issues, neuroses and anxieties. He wrestles with demons on a regular basis. And while he occasionally worries about his actions, he generally doesn’t try to fight his dark thoughts. In fact, he seems to indulge them. He seems to relish being the “bad boy.” He is unreliable. He probably smokes and drinks and snorts cocaine and carouses with the ladies, and wakes up with a smile on his face in the morning. He only worries when he gets caught. He may be ill-behaved, but he is true to his nature. Let us refer to him as “Happy Cad.” A real-life example of this might be your average rock star, or perhaps William Jefferson Clinton.

The third fellow also has lots of issues and demons to deal with. But he doesn’t indulge them often. Indeed, he fights against them. He is keenly aware of the dark forces lurking within his soul, and he tries to purge them through thought, deed and prayer. He has done many wonderful things for many people. Although he offers the mien of an upstanding citizen, there is always visible a shadow behind his eyes. There is no mistaking this guy has a dark side. Sometimes after a few drinks, or when his temper flares, the darkness comes spilling out. But he quickly jams it back in with shame. Let’s give him the moniker “Conflicted.” A real-life example of this man – you probably see it coming – might be Mel Gibson.

And here is the intellectual challenge for today: which of these three men is the most morally admirable?

Easy Virtue certainly has a claim. From the consequentialist point of view he does good things, he makes the world a better place. He doesn’t lie. He doesn’t cheat. He doesn’t hurt people. He’s kind to animals and small children, and is polite to the elderly. There can be no doubt that he produces good things, but does that make him morally admirable? After all, it’s not as if he is trying to be good. He’s just acting naturally and is fortunate that, for him, “natural” is basically good. He would have to force himself to be bad. No, Easy Virtue is a lucky, lucky guy. But he’s not especially admirable.

Happy Cad is definitely out of the running, although based on the Lewinsky scandal there seem to be a lot of people for whom “consistency” is more admirable than morality. Happy Cad is going to cause more pain and bad results. He’ll lie, he’ll cheat, he’ll steal. People will get hurt. He may be despised. Interestingly, Happy Cad is no more or less admirable in motive than is Easy Virtue. Both are acting in synchronous harmony with their natures. They are being themselves. Happy Cad finds some odd level of moral justification in the fact that he is being true to his nature, as if that were an accomplishment of some sort. (This obsession with authenticity is one of the oddest and least defensible views of human nature to emerge from the 60s counterculture and its antecedents).

Conflicted is different from Happy Cad only in that he understands that his nature is flawed and in need of repair. And takes action to improve it. It is my opinion that he is the most morally admirable of the bunch, despite his occasional lapses into darkness. Unless he gives up completely (at which point he becomes another Happy Cad) his moral striving against imperfection represent a model that we all should emulate.

It would be best if this could be accomplished without lapsing into anti-Semitic drunken tirades, but even with episodes of that sort I am extremely comfortable in declaring that Mel Gibson is morally superior to myself or Bill Clinton. Me and Slick Willie, we’re just doing our thing, being our bad own selves. But Mel Gibson is trying every single day to be a better person than his “default Mel” is. He is trying to live by a higher moral code, and is far more successful than not.

Without a doubt there is a bit of poison in Mel Gibson’s soul. For this fact many have gleefully joined in stomping on him. But we should all be a little careful in how easy we scold him. For there is also a nobility visible there. And the fact that he actively seeks to elevate the noble and keep the poisonous at bay is something that deserves applause, not jeers. When the effort falls short as spectacularly as it did for Mel, let that serve as a reminder of just how hard he has had to work.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: