Right Becomes Wrong and Wrong Becomes Right

It has been written One must never tolerate evil, for first evil is tolerated, then embraced, then hailed as being good, and then it becomes unlawful to do what is actually good. Right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right.

We all have desires to do some kind of evil. Good people make an honest effort to overcome these desires. People who are not good, however, will give in. When they do, they often still want the world to see them as good, and they want to see themselves as good. They do not necessarily want to be held responsible for their actions. They want to continue to indulge in their desires to do evil while their evil deeds go unnoticed.

Evildoers will use various tactics to combat the voices that speak out against their bad deeds. One such tactic is to frame the person who speaks out against their bad deeds as being an antagonist or perpetrator while they are the victim.

Vilification of the person who speaks out against evil

Let us say that you and your colleagues at work are trying to put together a report on time for your boss. One of your colleagues, unfortunately, is unreliable and often disappears when you are approaching a deadline. Because of this, the report is not finished on time. This colleague of yours, named Dave, does not seem to care that others are depending on him to do his part. He even brushes you aside whenever you try to talk to him. So you discuss the issue with your boss. When Dave finds out that you “said bad things about him” to your boss, Dave accuses you of throwing him under the bus. According to Dave, you are just a mean person who likes to point the finger of blame at people whenever something goes wrong.

In the example above, Dave obviously does not care what effect his incompetent behavior has on others who depend on him. At the same time, he also does not want to take responsibility for his actions. He may even have a false sense of entitlement to do whatever he wants. Therefore, when you try to hold him responsible for his actions, he sees you as the bad guy and himself as the victim.

Bad people often want others to tolerate their bad behavior. Bad people will commend as kind and merciful those who tolerate or overlook their bad deeds. Conversely, people who speak out against their bad deeds will be called “harsh”, “difficult”, “mean” or sometimes even “crazy”. To the doer of bad deeds, the person who speaks out against the bad deeds is the enemy. The evildoer will either try to silence that person, frame that person as being the bad one or frame that person as being worthy of ridicule — anything it takes to allow the evildoer the privilege to indulge in his/her desires to do evil while maintaining his/her outward image of being good.

Sometimes the evildoer will exclaim “that is a serious accusation!” as if making an accusation is always wrong. Here, the evildoer is trying to make the other person feel bad for “pointing fingers at people”. In reality, making a serious accusation is only wrong when the accusation is false. Furthermore, making the accusation is sometimes a moral obligation. Someone has to stand up to the evil that is taking place and call attention to it so that it does not continue to do more damage. The evildoer, however, would rather have everybody believe that all serious accusations are wrong so that the evildoer can go on his/her merry way doing whatever he/she wants.

Other times the evildoer will frame the person standing up to him/her as being an abuser. The evildoer may say things like “you are hitting me below the belt” or “you are just trying to make me feel bad” or “you are hurting my feelings”. These tactics are attempts to make the other person feel guilty for speaking out against the bad behavior and revealing it for what it is.

When evildoers try to evade responsibility for their actions, their views of reality are not always accurate. As shown in the image above, when you confront a wrongdoer for his/her bad deeds, he/she may perceive that he/she is under attack by some big scary monster — you — and his/her goal is to “survive the encounter”.

Bad behaviors seen as good

There are certain wrong behaviors that large numbers of people throughout society like to do. Because such large numbers of people indulge in these behaviors, mainstream culture will, as time passes, start to view these behaviors as being okay. Examples of such behaviors include binge drinking, sexual promiscuity and taking advantage of people who are “too nice.” Not only are these behaviors seen as okay by mainstream culture, but also people can be judged for not participating in these behaviors. Hence right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right.

Binge drinking

Binge drinking is a self destructive behavior that can cause deaths and permanent injuries both to the binge drinker and to others who are the victims of the binge drinker’s actions. It is harmful to the body, particularly the brain and liver. Yet in some circles of people, the ones who do not binge drink are seen as the odd ones out. One time in college, I told a Pakistani woman that I do not binge drink. She asked me if I was afraid of it. I was kind of disgusted by this question. Is fear the only reason she can think of for why someone would refrain from binge drinking?

Sometimes wrongdoers will judge another person as being “afraid” just because the other person is not participating in their destructive behaviors. It is as if fear is the only reason binge drinkers can think of for why someone would not binge drink.

First, there are oodles of ways to have fun — fishing, dancing, sports, games, etc. Of all of the oodles of ways to have fun, why do we all have to choose binge drinking? It does not make any sense. Has it not occurred to these people that not everybody has fun in the same way?

Second, has it not occurred to these binge drinkers that the reason some people do not binge drink is that it is wrong, and often leads to bad consequences? Indeed, there is a big difference between avoiding an activity because one is fearful versus avoiding an activity because one has moral integrity or because one is just being rational. Now I can imagine the binge drinker saying “well, I think it’s a little bit of both.” Once again, the binge drinker is still attempting to justify his/her destructive behaviors by making allegations that anybody who is not a binge drinker is just “scared”.

If the other person’s reasons for not binge drinking is that it is wrong, then that would imply that the binge drinker is being immoral. If the other person’s reasons for not binge drinking are just rational reasons, such as avoiding an activity that can have bad consequences and instead choosing an activity that is not prone to leading to bad consequences, then that would imply that the binge drinker is being irrational. However, if the other person’s reason for not binge drinking is fear, then that would imply that the binge drinker is taking on risky activities that other people are not brave enough to do. Certainly the binge drinker does not want to see him/herself as immoral or irrational, but brave sounds so much better. Hence the binge drinker would like to believe that those who avoid binge drinking are doing so out of fear.

Sexual promiscuity

I am going to say something that is going to be news to many of you readers — there is nothing wrong with dying while still a virgin. After all, what bad things would happen as a result of a lifetime of celibacy? Some may say that loneliness will result. However, if sexual activity with another person protected one from loneliness, then prostitutes and one-night-standers would be among the happiest and most emotionally fulfilled groups of people. Of course we can probably agree that prostitutes and one-night-standers are not the happiest of people. The reason is that it is not sexual activity with another person that protects one from loneliness, but rather long-term meaningful relationships. Note that these relationships do not have to be romantic in nature.

According to Hollywood culture, dying while still a virgin is so horrible that it is unthinkable. Characters all over television are over-sexualized. A large portion of movies and sitcoms are very sex- and romance-centric. It is as if our romance and sex lives are supposed to define us.

The beautiful truth is that we are more than just sexual beings. We are spiritual beings. We can be loving. We can be creative, inventive, adventurous, brave. We have a sense of humor. We can transform other people’s lives in ways that do not involve sex or romance. Each and every one of us has unique talents.

Though a happy romantic relationship does make life better, a bad one tends to be worse than no relationship at all. Furthermore, even though intercourse is a necessary step in procreation, not everyone is interested in procreating.

Some people may say that we should have sex because it is important to “experience physical love.” Equating sex with love is outright idiotic. Sexual relations are supposed to take place where there already is love. It is an experience you share with someone special. It is not an experience you share with just anyone.

Many television characters, and real-life people, have sex just so that they can say they did it. At this point, sex becomes an obligation pushed onto people that is necessary for acceptance into the social circle. It is no longer for fun or stress relief or even for sharing an intimate experience with a special someone. Throughout movies and sitcoms we see young people who are self conscious because they have “not done anything yet”, or have only gone to second base. It is as if people are being conditioned to oversexualize themselves.

Sometimes when people find out that someone is a virgin, they laugh. If you ask these very same people why they have sex to begin with, they will likely say that they have sex for fun or for stress relief. So, what if I am an avid surfer, and I like to ride the waves for fun and to relieve stress? Does that mean that I will laugh at and ridicule anybody who has never tried surfing before? Of course not. That would be really silly. The same goes for laughing at someone for being a virgin. As stated above, there are many ways of having fun. Why do we all have to choose the same thing and laugh at anyone who prefers to do something else? It makes no sense.

While nothing is wrong with the celibate lifestyle, the sexually promiscuous lifestyle does cause problems. One such problem is a high prevalence of unwanted pregnancies, leading to the killing of unborn babies in large numbers. According to statistics, about 629,000 unborn babies were killed in 2019 in the United States alone. Another problem caused by sexual promiscuity is the spread of disease. Statistics show that about one in eight people are infected with herpes. Now damage to the woman’s cervix from STDs is so prevalent that all women are required to get a pap smear. In addition, sexual contact is the largest factor in the spread of the deadly HIV. So much for having “fun”. Do we still want to laugh at the people who have fun some other way?

Survival of the loudest and most obnoxious

In some pockets of mainstream culture, being “too nice” is seen as wrong, and deserving of punishment. Being mean or aggressive, on the other hand, is seen as a virtue. If you are a nice person, in other words, and someone decides to take advantage of you, then culture says it must be your fault for being “too nice”.

There is even the expression “Nice Guys Finish Last”. According to the Urban Dictionary, this expression means the following:

The idea that if you are nice to a girl, compliment her, tell her how amazing she is everyday, and really just genuinely show her how incredible she is everyday, that you will never get her to love you. Sadly, this is more than true in most cases. You know when you love this girl, and you’re always there for her no matter what, and she always goes for the assholes that cheat on every girl they date and treat them like shit? Yea, thats cause your the nice guy.

This idea frames women as being incapable of loving good men and preferring bad men, which is not rooted in reality. Indeed, I have seen a lot of nice men in happy long-term relationships. However, if we measure a man’s success based on how much sex he gets, then maybe the bad men will get more sex. That is because good men want more from a woman than just sex. They want a real emotional and spiritual connection.

Niceness tends to be condemned in a survival-of-the-fittest type of environment. Humility is mistaken for incompetency. Being mean and loud and aggressive, on the other hand, is praised. In toxic work environments, people listen to the loudest talking and most opinionated person rather than the wisest and most competent individuals. If you know what you are talking about, and people fail to listen to you, you may get blamed for not being heard. You may be told that you were not being loud and obnoxious enough. Such an environment can hardly be called civilized.

Of course confidence in one’s assertions is often a poor indicator of competency, given the Dunning-Kruger effect. Generally, the more that one learns on a given topic, the more one realizes how much one does not know; and so level of confidence can decrease with increased knowledge. Therefore, the people who are the most confident in their assertions are sometimes the least knowledgeable and the least worth listening to.

Where protagonists are bad and antagonists are good

In stories, movies and sitcoms, we are all familiar with the concept of a protagonist and an antagonist. The protagonist is the main character of the story. This is the character that we identify with, the character we are rooting for to succeed. The antagonist, on the other hand, is the character that represents the opposing force to the protagonist. Usually the protagonist is supposed to be the “good guy” while the antagonist is supposed to be the “bad guy”. So what if I told you that in some movies and sitcoms, the antagonist is more righteous than the protagonist? How is that for morally degenerate entertainment?

The 1980s movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is an example of a story where the antagonist is the more righteous one. Ferris Bueller, the protagonist, has been pulling off deceptive schemes through his senior year of high school so that he could skip school without getting caught. Throughout the movie, we follow Ferris on another one of his marvelous days off, and we get to see how much fun he has. Here are the deceptive schemes he pulled off to make it happen:

• He coerces his best friend into impersonating his girlfriend’s father to the high school administrative staff
• He commits a felony by stealing his best friend’s father’s expensive Ferrari
• He gets his girlfriend to lie to the school, saying that her grandmother died, just so she could get excused from class for the day
• He impersonates the Sausage King of Chicago just so that he and his friends could eat at a fancy restaurant
• He deceives large numbers of students at the school into believing that he is so sick that he may be on the verge of death. There is even a water tower that says “Save Ferris” in big letters

That is a lot of lying for one day, and does not paint a picture of a righteous protagonist. In fact, in some cases impersonation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Ed Rooney is the antagonist in this story. He is the principal who is trying to get Ferris caught and penalized for skipping school. If Ferris gets caught, the penalty would be getting held back another year. Given this synopsis, Ed Rooney is not exactly at the top of our list of cruel villains. In a way, he is just a man trying to do his job enforcing school rules as the high school principal. He takes matters into his own hands and tries to conduct his own investigation into Ferris Bueller in order to catch him red-handed. Is this wrong? Not to the best of my knowledge. The only wrong thing I remember Edward Rooney doing was breaking into the Buellers’ house. Otherwise, this man is innocent as far as I am concerned.

Ferris’ sister, Jeannie, also is trying to get Ferris busted. She believes it is not fair that everybody else has to go to school while Ferris gets to take a bunch of days off and have fun. She tries to get Ferris caught, too, but she messes up and ends up at the police station. While there, she talks to some guy and then becomes “enlightened”. She suddenly is no longer bothered that she has to go to school while Ferris does not, and in the end, she actually rescues Ferris from finally getting caught red-handed by Ed Rooney. We, as the audience, are supposed to believe that this rescue is a “happy ending”, but is it? All that happened was that Ferris did something wrong and was never held responsible.

The 1980s Revenge of the Nerds movie is another story where the protagonists are not good guys. Their evil nature particularly manifests in the way that they treat women. Numerous viewers have complained about a scene where one of the nerds raped an attractive woman by disguising himself as her boyfriend.

Summary

The book of Isaiah states Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.