Divine (Im)Morality

Writing out some of the theological questions that have been on my mind lately and discussing them with Xuchilpaba has been pretty productive in terms of inspiring me to start pulling together some of my thoughts into a semi-coherent form. As per my promise to share some of my own theological musings, today’s post is a piece on the issue of divine (im)morality — are the gods Good or Evil, or do these terms not even apply?

As I’d mentioned before, the Teteo are depicted in myth and liturgy as both helpful and harmful. On the one hand, Tezcatlipoca wipes out the people of Tula with a series of devious tricks, tormenting His brother Quetzalcoatl in the process. On the other hand, Huitzilopochtli is shown fiercely protecting His people against all danger as the young, vulnerable Mexica tribe migrates south to the site of Tenochtitlan. In some of the surviving prayers recorded in Book 6 of the Florentine Codex, the priests beg Tezcatlipoca to calm Himself and cease punishing the people with famine and plague, and they plead with Tlaloc to have pity on the dying children and end a drought. Clearly, the gods could be either your best friends or your worst enemies, in traditional Aztec thought.

With these depictions in mind, along with the historical fact of the Conquest and the very real suffering endured by millions around the world today, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that no, the Teteo are not “Good” gods. I capitalize the word “good” here to highlight that I’m using the term in the sense of “morally perfect and benevolent,” rather than “useful.” I’m talking Good and Evil, not good and bad, to follow Nietzsche’s key distinction established in his classic “Geneology of Morals.” I don’t think it would be unreasonable to expect Good gods to want to reduce the suffering of Their followers, to the extent that Their power would allow them to do so. I would also think that They wouldn’t indulge in unjust behavior like collective punishment, punishing a whole group for the wrongs of some of its members as one post-Conquest legend suggests the gods sent the Spaniards to destroy the Empire because of the hubris of Montezuma. If the gods aren’t Good, are They Evil?

I’d say that They don’t fit the bill as Evil in the way it’s commonly used in modern theology. Evil in this context tends to mean that the deity in question is actively malevolent and wicked, inflicting suffering unfairly and delighting in victimizing others. The Aztecs attributed many kind and benevolent acts to the gods, such as creating and re-creating humankind, providing wisdom and the arts, and sustaining the Universe as a whole. There’s even a touching scene in the myths where, shortly after He revives them in the age of the Fifth Sun, Quetzalcoatl is shown tenderly feeding the new people like they are His babies, chewing the tough corn to make it soft and carefully placing it in their mouths by hand. In the context of modern practice, I know of some Aztec Reconstructionists who have had UPG experiences of some of the gods weeping out of pity for them or otherwise expressing affection. The Aztecs exhorted their children to be “friends of the gods” in the huehuetlatolli, and it seems that the gods can reciprocate such friendliness. In the light of such traditional depictions and modern experiences, I can’t say that the Teteo are Evil, either. But if They’re not Good and They’re not Evil, then what? Are They both, or neither?

My own thoughts on the matter as they currently stand is that maybe we’re going about this all wrong with this talk of Good and Evil outside of humanity. A recurring theme throughout Nietzsche’s work is that any creator must necessarily be “immoral” in a certain sense, beyond Good and Evil. What did he mean by “immoral”? Well, a necessary part of creation is destruction, annihilating the old to make way for the new and reshaping the material into new forms. Interacting with the creation in these ways will unavoidably cause it harm and suffering if it’s capable of feeling. A creator has to be able to steel Itself against the miserable cries of the creature and avoid falling into the paralyzing snare of pity, pity that would force the creator to abandon the work because It couldn’t stomach the pain It would have to cause the subject. This softness and pity would have the awful consequences of leaving things stuck in stagnant stasis, rotting slowly rather than being destroyed to be reborn afresh and seek greater heights.

I think that this might be one way out of the Good/Evil dilemma regarding divine morality, though perhaps not a very comfortable or satisfying one, and it may not be a complete escape from the problem. If we’re working from the position that there are personal, individual gods that interact with the world in some way, then They’re almost by definition going to be operating at the level of Nietzsche’s “creator,” the individual(s) who shapes, builds, and destroys the subject material. It seems to line up well with the way the Teteo are depicted periodically wiping away the decayed old things to make way for the new, and the way that old life passes through death and is the seed for new life via the sacrificial knife. The fit is even better when we stop and remember that the traditional Aztec cosmology is truly one of Order/Chaos rather than an Abrahamic-style “Battle of Good vs. Evil.” Order and chaos have to be nudged back and forth in a delicate balancing process in order for the universe to stay healthy and survive — the very epitome of creation and destruction. Suffering in this process is an unavoidable “byproduct” of the continuing act of creation and change, and the Powers That Be simply have to be cruel to a certain extent to get anything done. Thus, They can’t exactly be Good. But there’s no particular malice, which makes a label of Evil not quite right. So it seems that the least-problematic answer is to say that the Teteo are beyond Good and Evil.

Granted, this potential answer sucks in a lot of ways. It doesn’t do jack to comfort me when I suffer or when I see innocent people and animals in pain. It doesn’t make me any less pissed off when I feel like I’ve been left twisting in the wind or see the hundredth domestic violence victim in the courtroom pleading for a protective order against an abusive spouse. It also doesn’t promise us that the gods are going to help us in any given situation, though the traditional moral exhortations of the Aztecs, the huehuetlatolli, say that it sure doesn’t hurt to ask anyway.

This potential answer is also rather relative. While in one sense the gods might be beyond Good and Evil, in another sense, down at the personal, individual human level, They could be one or the other to us. If I were a starving child and I cried out to Tlaloc for help in a drought, and nothing happened, I’d sure call Him an evil bastard right then. From a human perspective, it would make sense. If one human showed such a callous indifference to the suffering of a fellow human that he or she had the power to help, most societies would condemn that individual as inhumane. On the other hand, switching perspective to a “god’s-eye view,” it’d be kind of like calling a lion “evil” when it eats an antelope. It’s just what the lion does and has to do, a brute fact of life. If keeping the world in balance is what a god does, then, continuing the Tlaloc example, governing the global weather patterns in their delicate balance, even if it means that child starves, is simply what must be done, regardless of individual suffering.

In other words, the gods aren’t the source of human morality in the realm of Aztec Reconstuctionism, nor is there a transcendent, absolute morality that can cover both gods and man. Humans have to work out morality for themselves, and the gods have Their own business to take care of. The two worlds can intersect, but they’re not always ethically-harmonious.

In closing, I don’t expect this article to answer everyone’s questions — it doesn’t even answer all of mine. And I certainly don’t claim to be some Aztec Recon pagan pope or prophet. This is just Cehualli’s (very tentative) View on this thorny, obnoxious, pain in the ass question. Take what you will from my thoughts, I hope this first step to untangling this theological knot is helpful.

~ by cehualli on June 18, 2008.