Paying for Evil

According to news reports, a $77 billion damage claim has been brought against the Army Corps of Engineers by the City of New Orleans. This is because of the flooding that occurred when the levees failed after Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. The Corps is responsible for the levees. Who was responsible for Katrina?  Did no one know that the levees would not be able to stand up to a storm of such magnitude?

That's the billion-dollar question. I've wondered how to best formulate the underlying belief that some of us have about the right to not be visited by the errors of others, even errors (or terrors) of nature. We have the lawsuits for everything, even "wrongful birth" when a doctor failed to give a mother the information about a fetal abnormality that, had it been known, would have led to an abortion. Or the infamous hot cup of coffee made by a company that someone spilled--and got burned.

This is not to trivialize the "problem of evil." I am not a philosopher, but I have thought about this problem, including use made of it by those claiming it as a slam-dunk proof against the existence of God, or at least any sort of benevolent God. If evil is incompatible with a benevolent God, isn't that something we've said all along in another way about the incompatibility of God and evil?

While this does not get me very far if I want to use it as a plank in a philosophical edifice, my most recent conclusion is the direction of resignation as far as "solving" this dilemma: evil is just here (and yes, incompatible with God). I think it is significant that almost universally (or so I imagine) people know intuitively that evil shouldn't be here. Tragedy shouldn't be here. Suffering shouldn't be here. Evil is not only incompatible with God, it is also incompatible with man's highest aspirations and desires, his true fulfillment. Yet it remains, sometimes aided and abetted by man. It is a dark energy, a dark anti-matter of the psyche that cannot be spoken of or understood using the ordinary language and mind of man.

I know that unless we are also somehow radically changed, we, the men we are, would take any paradise given us and somehow manage it into a mess. Natural evil? All of creation fell when we kissed the Divinity goodbye for our own lights. That's about all I know.

I expect that on the other side, when I am a man purified from every taint of sin, and able to be at peace with such perfection in submission to the Father, I will "understand" the wounds we bore of our own making. While one man may be innocent in his particular suffering, collectively, this is our world. This is man's world. We know something ain't right. Some want to blame it on God (who therefore mustn't exist). Lately, though, there's more money to be had in courts by going after men.

Comments

[Conso5]

i've never really thought of weather as good or evil, but maybe you're right. surely if satan can afflict job with sores he can deform a baby yet to be born. then he can take something good, like rain, and 'create' something evil, like katrina. or he can spill a good cup of java on someone. only God can create, but satan take modify, mold something good and make it evil.

i'm not a philosopher either, but the worse evil gets, the more i trust in the goodness of God. i don't know why God doesn't stop evil. possibly i'll find when i get to heaven that God stopped much more evil than we can imagine.

[K. Garner]

Or the infamous hot cup of coffee made by a company that someone spilled--and got burned.

Let's not parade our ignorance by summoning the McDonald's coffee verdict. [An examination of the facts of the case will indicate two things: first, that the amount of damages assessed by the jury was warranted by the nature of the injury and the experience of hundreds of others who had been burned by overheated coffee; and second, that the verdict was remitted in the appeals process to an amount much lower than most people realize.] Tort claims are not about victims, but about responsibility to society and the redress of grievances. Though there are examples of excess and abuse, our civil justice system is well grounded in the law given by Moses--an eye for an eye.

[David Gray]

>Let's not parade our ignorance by summoning the McDonald's coffee verdict.

You just did.

[Bill R]

"Let's not parade our ignorance by summoning the McDonald's coffee verdict. [An examination of the facts of the case will indicate two things: first, that the amount of damages assessed by the jury was warranted by the nature of the injury and the experience of hundreds of others who had been burned by overheated coffee; and second, that the verdict was remitted in the appeals process to an amount much lower than most people realize.]"

Let's not contradict ourselves in the same paragraph. The damages clearly were not "warranted by the nature of the injury," as you then note that the damages were remitted on appeal. Remember, the lady persisted in putting a cup of hot coffee between her thighs while driving. Stupid? Can there be any doubt?

"Tort claims are not about victims, but about responsibility to society and the redress of grievances."

Of course tort claims are about victims. For responsibility to society and redress of grievances (other than that of the victim) we have legislatures.

"Though there are examples of excess and abuse, our civil justice system is well grounded in the law given by Moses--an eye for an eye."

Really? Then why didn't the judge pour hot coffee on the laps of MacDonald's executives?

[Ethan Cordray]

All that being said, the McDonald's Coffee case still isn't really the best example of a successful frivolous lawsuit. As I understand it, if the coffee had been properly prepared, no significant injury would have resulted even from the plaintiff's risky behavior. The plaintiff's side wasn't claiming that McDonald's was at fault for the spillage, only for the injury that resulted from the spillage, which it actually was in their power to prevent.

Of course, I am not myself an expert on the case, so maybe I'm wrong.

The greater point about the prevalence of assigning human blame for uncontrollable events is still valid. It helps us feel like we are in control, even in catastrophes. If we can't sove the problem, we can at least catch the bad guys.

What's really strange about this is that it comes alongside an equally strong cultural tide of denying our own responsibility for things that obviously are our fault. "The System" causes urban violence, but George W. Bush caused the Katrina disaster.

[Bill R]

""The System" causes urban violence, but George W. Bush caused the Katrina disaster."

In the eyes of those who despise him, George Bush no doubt caused the MacDonald's coffee episode as well.

By the way, Ethan, even if coffee is prepared properly, it'll toast the family jewels quite well once placed between your thighs while driving. Just try it. On second thought...

[K Garner]

Bill,

For what it's worth, the plaintiff was a passenger, not the driver. Nevermind. The facts shouldn't get in the way of a good stereotype. Oh, and...the plaintiff was willing to settle the case for $20,000 before trial. Was McDonald's stupid for not accepting the offer? Can there be any doubt?

For responsibility to society and redress of grievances (other than that of the victim) we have legislatures.

Do we really want congressional hearings to determine the appropriate temperature coffee should be served? I'd rather have a government that let parties remain free to transact business as they see fit--a government that provides courts to address wrongs when one party injures another--than a government that regulates every aspect of society.

Getting back to the original point, the mindset that runs to the government for redress every time bad things happen is no better off than the mindset that runs to the courthouse.

Let us then acknowledge that sometimes bad things happen. If we injure someone, let us strive to make him whole. If we are injured, let us be slow to complain.

[David Gray]

>Oh, and...the plaintiff was willing to settle the case for $20,000 before trial. Was McDonald's stupid for not accepting the offer?

Considering the nature of our decadent society possibly. Perhaps it was an act of principle...

[Annie]

>>>As I understand it, if the coffee had been properly prepared, no significant injury would have resulted even from the plaintiff's risky behavior.<<<

Wait, wait. Coffee is SUPPOSED to be hot.

[Matthias]

What I found most interesting about the McDonald's coffee case was what I did NOT see in any of the many news stories about it: the results of the simple experiment of taking a thermometer to a McDonald's, a Burger King, a Starbucks, and a few other establishments, and recording the temperature of a fresh cup of coffee ordered at each one. Are there any journalists who have ever taken a science class? To judge by how that story was covered one might think not.

[Bill R]

"Let us then acknowledge that sometimes bad things happen. If we injure someone, let us strive to make him whole. If we are injured, let us be slow to complain."

Amen, K! By the way, as a litigation manager for a large company, I can't tell you how valuable hindsight is as to realizing how stupid I was in turning down certain settlements.... ;-)

[Ethan Cordray]

Bill, are you trying to imply something? Does your large company's name rhyme with "McConnells"? :-)

[Bill R]

" Does your large company's name rhyme with "McConnells"? :-)"

'Fraid not, Ethan. We dispense dollars, not burgers.

[John Hetman]

I fail to see how Katrina (the hurricane, that is) or any natural disaster can be described as evil--when evil is a conscious state of premeditated malice which presupposes a certain level of intelligence. If I die tomorrow from cancer or a heart attack is that more or less evil than if I am eaten by a leopard? Is the leopard evil? If so, why not a clogged artery or tumor?

Illness and death are part of the Lord's natural world. If we choose to ascribe them to man's fall from grace, fine and good. If we chose to see them simply as a cycle of events which is part of creation and existence, it will help reduce our still adolecent angst about suffering and death themselves. It might help just to quietly pick up our daily cross and walk on.

I am called to help you with your cross. Mine I am to bear with joy.

[Bob Gardner]

"I fail to see how Katrina (the hurricane, that is) or any natural disaster can be described as evil--when evil is a conscious state of premeditated malice which presupposes a certain level of intelligence."

I think natural disasters and the like can be described as an evil in as much as they are the result of a sickened creation, a result of the fall, and one that won't be corrected until the great eschaton. I don't think that evil presupposes an intelligent cause behind it, just a depravation of the good that should/would be present if man hadn't fallen, and taken creation with it (Romans 8:18-25). I doubt if hurricanes were part of the original schema prior to sin & death entering creation.

[John Hetman]

"I don't think that evil presupposes an intelligent cause behind it...."

Then who or what exactly does the serpent in the Garden represent? And is Milton's portrayal of Satan simply his wonderful poetic delusion or his wonderfully accurate insight?

While there is a utopian delusion that thinks we--at least those progressive liberals--are all entitled to a temperature controlled future without any inconvenience, suffering or death, there is also a delusion that thinks God created existence and matter without any violence...and that all was just wonderful in the Cosmos prior to the eviction from Eden.

That negates existence as we know it. And makes it statically immortal. Rather like fighting climate change--the great boordoggle of this early century.

It's another attempt at fashioning God in our own image. Humility allows God to be God. All else is sheer presumption.

[James A. Altena]

Perhpas someone here who is an attorney should go back and research the McDonald's coffee case for us on the web (or legal databases). My own vague recollection is (after sharing the initial outrage at what seemed to be another example of an out of control jury handing out huge awards to careless people in the knowledge that an insurance company or large corporation could be on the hook for it) I read that the trial evidence showed that McDonald's heated the coffee to 175 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than was necessary for brewing, and that subpoenas had produced internal documents from McDonad's showing that the company knew this, and had been previously warned of the likelihood of severe injury and legal liability. But perhaps that too is urban myth. What we need is a qualified person here to scan the record and report on what was *really* the case. While there are such out of control juries, it is also too easy for those of us who wwere not in the jury box hearing the actual evidence to make snap judgments on the basis of skimply newspaper headlines and superficial or sensationalist stories.

[Matthias]

James: the Wikipedia article on the case is pretty good. It doesn't resolve all my questions, but it's a good start. Here's an excerpt:

During the case, Liebeck's attorney's discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.

Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 degree coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds (as a reference, the boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit). Lowering the temperature to 160 degrees Fahrenheit would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[8]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[3]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[3] This represents about one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's.[4]

McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 degrees constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[9]

[Kamilla]

I wonder if I can get a settlement out of Dairy Queen for the severe cold and borderline frostbite I suffered when I spilled a Mister Misty in my lap last summer?

On another note, can anyone confirm what I read about the levees in the early days after they failed? Apparently the Army Corps of Engineers had been advocating rebuilding the levees but the elected representatives, particularly Mary Landrieu, had fought against spending the money on the levees. Instead she wanted a waterway, which was no longer in wide use, to be dredged and deepened. Apparently this was done for the same reason as Alaska's famous "Bridge to Nowhere"

Kamilla

[Judy Warner]

Some people put a lot of cream in their coffee, and want their coffee to start out very hot so the cream won't make it lukewarm. Don't these people have rights too? You can cool hot coffee down while riding in a car, but you can't warm lukewarm coffee up. But no, the worst case always has to be accomodated, even if it inconveniences others. One hundred percent safety first, no matter what. You will see this same mentality if you visit a playground and wonder where the seesaws are, and why the sliding boards are so low.

[K. Garner]

But no, the worst case always has to be accomodated, even if it inconveniences others.

School was much more fun back in the good ole' days when children could eat glue and run with scissors.

[Annie]

>>>School was much more fun back in the good ole' days when children could eat glue and run with scissors.<<<

Reality check: They still do.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Matthias,

Thanks for the post. However, while it tells us the arguments of the two sides, I think we need some of our attorneys or people of similar expertise to step in and tell us what it really means. E.g., the artcle tells us what Appleton testified. It does not tell us whether he was right or wrong and whether or not McDonald's should have re-evaluted its practices in serving coffee.

Getting back closer to the original point of the thread --

Dear John Hetman,

If you will consult a Biblical concordance, you will quickly see that "evil" is used in Scripture to describe both acts of intentional malice, and also more broadly for general acts of misfortune such as Katrina. E.g., we do not ascribe evil to God in the first sense, for He is completely good. Yet in Job and other OT books it says that we shall receive from the hand of the Lord both good and evil, refering to the second sense. It is evil in the sense that it is self-inflcited misfortune due to man's disordering of the Creation by the Fall.

[David Gray]

>whether or not McDonald's should have re-evaluted its practices in serving coffee

Why should an attorney make such a judgement?

[John Hetman]

Perhaps, I am dense, Mr. Altena, or it's a matter of semantics, but you seem to be interchanging the meaning of evil with a small "e" and connoting misfortune with the actuality of Evil as Spirit that rebelled against God and is the source of man's woes, not of nature changing forces. And you seem to limit God's capacity for creating as He sees fit. The Corcondance, by the way, is an interpretive tool.

Nature, even when violent, remains an innocent killer--not part of Evil intent. Hurricanes and volcanoes, meteors, tsunamis and all types of violent forces are not in themselves evil. It is only out of Satan--a rebellious intelligence-and what comes out of man tempted by Satan and his own conflict that is evil. You confuse violence and death wrongly with being evil when, if fact, they are simply part of creation itself. Right now, there is violence occuring in your very body as your white blood cells fight off the potential danger of infection.

Evil operates solely as a force in relation to man. Would Hurricane Katrina been described as evil if the Gulf area was uninhabited? I don't think so.

[James A. Altena]

John Hetman,

I am not limiting anything, or making any confusion, or doing any of the other things you claim. I am simply pointing out to you how the word "evil" (Hebrew "ra") is in fact used over 400 times in OT Scripture to denote both malice and misfortune. (Obviously, both of those are in relation to man.) Apparently you object to that dual usage. If so, your argument is with the authors of Scripture, not with me. I invite you to prove from those 400+ usages in the OT that "evil" is not so used in both senses by the authors of Scripture to denote misfortune. (Of course, that would require you to actually open and read a Bible.) You might also consult the MC thread "Hart-Esolen-Luse on the Meaning of Evil" that is permanently posted under the "Popular Threads "header in the right-hand column of this page.

And a concordance is a technical reference tool, not an interpretive one per se. It lists the places where a word is used in an indexed text; it does not interpret the meaning of those occurences. (Of course, the concordance in this case must be a Hebrew-English one.)

Dear David,

The reason an attorney should be asked is because the issue is one of legal liability for the practice in question, not just the practice itself.

[John Hetman]

"(Of course, that would require you to actually open and read a Bible.)"

Your kind remark is acknowledged with due humility. I do occasionally pick it up whenever I have to close the door.

[Jim Kushiner]

<>

I should have been clearer in the original post: the evil of Katrina surely is in connection with its destruction of human life, its inflicting of suffering on man. The *suffering* that men endure either from other men or from natural disasters is what I meant to comment on. Sorry for the confusion!

[Michael Martin]

>>>"(Of course, that would require you to actually open and read a Bible.)"

Your kind remark is acknowledged with due humility. I do occasionally pick it up whenever I have to close the door.<<<

Touche, John. Touche.