Born to be Wild

I read Wiki's article on evil, and there seems to be two main schools of thought on the subject. One school says that evil is absence of good, and the other says that evil is a force that stands in opposition to the force of good. If you think about it, a newborn baby cannot be good or evil because he lacks the knowledge of good and evil, and the ability to do anything about it. Newborn babies are ignorant and helpless, which is another way of saying that they are innocent. That's why I disagree with the traditional interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.

Until Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could not have known that to do so would be a sin. God, in the role of father, told them not to eat it, but fathers say a lot of things, and an innocent child cannot be faulted for disobeying his father. I was told this in no uncertain terms when I complained to my hypothetical wife that our six month old daughter's crying was keeping we awake when I needed to sleep before my next shift at the paper mill. This seemed to happen regardless of which shift I was on. No matter what time I was supposed to be sleeping, that's the time she was crying. My hypothetical wife's response was, "You can't put a six month old baby on the swing shift.", to which I replied, "She is already on the swing shift, I just want her to be on the same crew as I am." My daughter was not impressed by either of those two arguments.

Once Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, however, they became responsible for their future actions which, I believe, is the original lesson that the story was trying to convey. Once you know what you're doing, it is your responsibility to do it right. It seems, then, that we are born being neither good nor evil. Both good and bad behaviors are acquired traits, they have to be learned. While we might have a genetic predisposition towards one or the other, something has to switch that gene on or we will remain ignorant and helpless for the rest of our lives.