What Is Evil?

[Betsy]

But emotions are automatic and associational and only as good as the values we accept that they express. That's why a person should know how to introspect and evaluate his own emotions and why he should choose his values consciously and carefully.

I think we agree on this.

Would you not agree that habit frames our emotional responses; and that it is putting our reason into action and actually -living- in a rational way that can change what we experience as pleasure and pain.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same things, so I'll define my terms as I am using them.

"Habit" means an automatized action or tendency toward action. Emotions are also automatic but are not exactly the same thing. Emotions are automatic responses that tend to motivate actions.

Habits are caused by previous actions. Emotions are caused by value premises. There is a relationship between habits and emotions because the value premises that cause emotions are not the ones a person may only talk about. A person's REAL value premises are the ones he acts on.

I.e. Not only the choosing but the conscious enactment of your values that builds an emotional base for correct judgements. One might say; Conscientiously programming a correct conscience.

It is more effective to think through ones values and relate them to ones other personal values and goals in life. That will both motivate one's actions and program one's emotions.

[stephen_speicher]

In my direct observation, now that you mention it, cites are more often used for context-switching or appeal to authority.

A truly fascinating insight. First, when you make a claim as to the Objectivist view on an issue, and another gives a quote from Ayn Rand that contradicts what you claim, that is a perfectly proper appeal to authority. There is never anything wrong with appealing to the facts. Try it sometime. That was the point of my comment. "[C]heck the facts against what one holds in one's mind."

Second, as to your "direct observation" of using cites for "context-switching," on this I will take you at your word, as that is exactly what you attempt to do right below.

Right, but then, the issue was moral not psychological.

Using a portion of my quote (a cite) to make the context appear to be something other than it actually is, is outright dishonest. Here Bearster takes my opening words and makes believe that they do not apply to the issue, which, in his own words, was "moral not psychological." But, the full cite of what I said did address the moral; the whole sentence was:

"Actually, evasion is not a psychological fundamental; underlying evasion is the more fundamental acceptance of emotion as a primary, and it is this, not evasion, which is the ethical source of evil."

So, in fact, my words addressed the moral (ethical) source of evil, but Bearster attempted "context-switching" by chopping off the full wording of my sentence. I believe Bearster when he says that his "direct observation" is that "cites are more often used for context-switching," because that is exactly what he tried to get away with. I guess "direct observation" to Bearster is nothing more than introspection.

[i will spare you the quote about psychologizing.]

Oh, please, do not spare me. The more you say, the more you reveal.

[BobbyT]

If evasion isn't the root of all evil, is it the most commonly practiced evil?

For example: if it were not for evasion would a man like John Kerry be able to run for President? His supporters are certainly evaders.

[Betsy]

If evasion isn't the root of all evil, is it the most commonly practiced evil?

You seem to be using the terms "evasion" and "evil" in an imprecise way, so before I answer, it is important for me to define my terms and concretize exactly what I mean.

"Virtues" are actions which gain or keep a value.

"Vices" are actions which lose or destroy values.

"Evil" is the extreme degree of vice. It loses or destroys the most or the most important values.

"Evasion" is the vice that consists of deliberately and consciously refusing to acknowledge facts of reality.

Based on my own experience, I would say that the most common vice is dependency and second-handedness. There aren't many Elsworth Toohey's or Jim Taggart's in the world, but there sure are a lot of Peter Keatings. Dependency is pretty bad and has wrecked a lot of lives, but it is a sin of omission (failure to think for oneself) rather than a sin of COmission like evasion (deliberately shutting out reality).

For example: if it were not for evasion would a man like John Kerry be able to run for President?

I'm not sure what this question means.

His supporters are certainly evaders.

Not necessarily. People support Kerry for many different reasons so you have to judge the individuals and their reasons one by one. I'm very anti-Kerry myself for reasons I have spelled out elsewhere on this forum, but some Objectivists plan to vote FOR Kerry -- including Dr. Peikoff.

[Thoyd Loki]

From Dentist85

I agree. Why do some objectivists insist upon using the term "evil"? When someone does something like lying or stealing, an objectivist might say something along the lines of, "that is immoral or evil." This terminology is used to convey guilt the same way that "sin" does in christianity. A much more accurate and honest critique is to say that "it is impractical or will hurt you in the long run."

Evil is a necessary term as is immoral unethical etc. Impractical is also a necessary term. Both are necessary because they cover both aspects of man's nature-mind and body. That which is evil is impractical, but that which is impractical may not necessarily be evil, or be born from evil.

To replace evil with the concept impractical is to remove a whole sphere of human action from our thinking. And it would create a package-deal where we would not have enough concepts to correctly differentiate certain forms of behavior. For instance, I am sure Thomas Edison, along with all of his acheivements, made things that did not work (his failures), they were impractical, but were they evil? No. But, without the concept of evil, are we to pile his failed experiments with the actions of a murderer? Evil is a necessary concept concerning the actions (or inaction) of one's faculty, it is that from which evil acts come from. It is the consequeses that we call impractical.

I also disagree with the objection to guilt and sin. Evil as a concept should convey guilt in as much as he who commits it should thus feel it. And sin is just a synonym of evil, although it has wide connotations to religious use. To sin is to commit evil; it does not of itself indicate a particular code of ethics just as the concepts selfishness or selflessness do not of themselves give any guide to particular action, but only of its beneficiary.

Betsy,

Where did you hear Peikoff was voting for Kerry? Can you relate his reasons for it? I myself am riding a very painful fence at the moment. I think I may have to start making diagrams to keep all the long range pros and cons in my mind! I would assume offhand that he is doing it for the same reasons that he wanted his father out of office.

Edited March 6, 2007 by softwareNerd
Changed to reflect quoted member's new display-name

[Bearster]

BobbyT asked:

For example: if it were not for evasion would a man like John Kerry be able to run for President? His supporters are certainly evaders.

Betsy opined:

Not necessarily. People support Kerry for many different reasons so you have to judge the individuals and their reasons one by one. I'm very anti-Kerry myself for reasons I have spelled out elsewhere on this forum, but some Objectivists plan to vote FOR Kerry -- including Dr. Peikoff.

Surely, you aren't alleging that Dr. Peikoff is a supporter of Mr. Kerry.

Voter <> Supporter

Got Context?

One will have but two real choices in November. Bush or Kerry.

A vote is not a sanction.

Context-dropping is a problem that keeps recurring with you. You said that there are vices other than those caused by evasion. I called you on it. You cited (yes, Stephen, cited) Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, your cite did not prove your point. Rand's quote enumerated vices which happen to stem from evasion.

It's clear that you have a great deal of time to spend posting on message boards. So does Stephen. In the thread about the root of evil, the original point has been obfuscated by your condescending offer to clarify to people, "if not to me", what you mean, Stephen's old slur about the Church Lady, your mutual psychologizing, presumption, pretention, and context-dropping. Stephen reminded us that he knows who discovered Objectivism. Unfortunately, citing Ayn Rand is only good when you understand the reference and its relation to the current context.

At the end of the day, it remains that you declared that there exists a kind of evil which does not have its root in evasion. You have failed to back this position with fact. You've now posted, along with Stephen, more material than I have time to read, much less respond to. I won't even try.

You should first acknowledge that your responses to me have nothing to do with seeking the truth, but with simply trying to smear me. It didn't work on h.p.o. (even your accomplice in that old campaign acknowledged that your combined efforts make for an "acrimonious" environment). It won't work now either.

Second, you should acknowledge that you have badly underestimated me. While there may be room to have a strong dislike of me, or say that I can be abrasive to people whom I dislike, that I have little tolerance for bullshit, or that I have little use for fools, there is none to claim that I am not intelligent, that I have a low self-esteem, that I am not successful, or that I fail to grasp Objectivism's essentials. Much less to claim that I run a cult, have no contact with people, that I mistreat my customers, that I am a schitzophrenic, or that my wife is a "doormat".

Or, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, admit that you don't really think these things of me--that you are trying to make others think these things.

Third, you should seek some values to gain or keep. Even if I were Toohey or Kant incarnate, your behavior would be wrong. I bet you could even quote the line where Roark answers Toohey's question, "What do you think of me?" Hint: Roark did not seek to smear or chase after Toohey. Don't you have lives?!? Don't you have anything to do, other than promote Objectivism all day (even if smearing me was "promoting Objectivism", which it isn't)?

Finally, you should stop reaching for the dog-eared, hiliter-saturated books, and think. Does it even make sense to call something which is not evasion (i.e. an honest mistake) "evil"? By what standard? What sort of men, what sort of ideas, and what sort of actions would this rationalistic view cause you to condemn as "evil"? I bet you'd end up twisting into mental pretzels to avoid violating what even your common sense would tell you is not "evil".

Isn't it time for you to move forward? My life has progressed and I have achieved several significant milestones since h.p.o. Has yours, and have you?

[RationalBiker]

I'm not sure what beef there is supposedly between Bearster and the Speichers, but it wasn't apparent in this thread until Bearster brought it up. No "church lady" stuff, no psychologizing, and the only "appeal to authority" was a direct quote from Rand which clearly differentiates different types of vices (from evasion), a topic which was being debated. That quote certainly seems to validate Betsy's statement as far as I'm concerned.

Now you (Bearster) are throwing in innuendo and stuff that clearly has nothing to do with the debate:

It's clear that you have a great deal of time to spend posting on message boards. So does Stephen.

And???? What possible bearing does this have on ANY part of this thread?

You should first acknowledge that your responses to me have nothing to do with seeking the truth, but with simply trying to smear me.

As a third party, I saw a debate (until now), not a smear campaign.

Third, you should seek some values to gain or keep.

That's not a smear? Or at least strong innuendo? Aren't you attempting to admonish them for the same thing?

Isn't it time for you to move forward? My life has progressed and I have achieved several significant milestones since h.p.o. Has yours, and have you?

More history being brought up instead of debate. I, and I imagine many others, have no idea what this history is, so it's relevance has no bearing on the topic. Also, do you have evidence that the Speichers haven't achieved anything, or is this more innuendo? Or as you mentioned, wink, wink, nudge nudge....

But the clearly the most confusing one...

that I have little tolerance for bullshit,

Then why bring up ANY of the above things I quoted?

VES

[Thoyd Loki]

What a bunch of hairsplitting! Peikoff (if memory serves correct) was against the first Bush as well. The vote for Kerry that Betsy mentioned is actually a vote against Bush, and one can surely vote this way. Was Peikoff then a supporter of Clinton? Of course not. But, I do remember him saying that the important thing back then was to get Bush Sr. out of office.

An uninitiated person could conclude from her sentence that she means that Peikoff is a supporter of Kerry. But, surely nobody in this discussion would think that Peikoff would be a supporter of Kerry, or any of his positions.

I personally had no problem interpretting what Betsy said. Add a little of my own context and knowledge, and I knew exactly what she meant.

Don't forget the sweet days of gridlock!

[Charles]

Since I came onto this forum in April, I have observed a lot of interesting discussions. In many of these the Speichers have drawn my attention to lots of interesting resources, and introduced to me to objectivist thinking on a lot of issues. In a few more direct instances, Bearster has set me straight on a number of issues in a number of threads. Its a shame to see these people descend into petty discussions about technicalities masking a personal slogging match.

Be reasonable; address the issue at hand not each other if you no longer have respect for that persons opinions.

[Betsy]

Where did you hear Peikoff was voting for Kerry? Can you relate his reasons for it?

Peikoff discussed this at length in one session of his "DIM" course and it is currently being debated on Harry Binswanger's List (HBL).

Dr. Peikoff sees Bush's religiosity as the greatest threat to the country to the degree that he will not just refuse to vote, but will vote for Kerry. Dr. Binswanger agrees with Dr. Peikoff but about 80% of the HBL posters I have read disagree and plan to vote for Bush.

[Betsy]

BobbyT asked:

Surely, you aren't alleging that Dr. Peikoff is a supporter of Mr. Kerry. 

Voter <> Supporter

Dr. Peikoff is supporting Kerry's candidacy in the upcoming election.

Got Context?

Clutched tight in my hot little hands.

One will have but two real choices in November.  Bush or Kerry.

... or not voting at all. In some past elections, Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff have selected that alternative.

[Betsy]

You said that there are vices other than those caused by evasion.  I called you on it.  You cited (yes, Stephen, cited) Ayn Rand.  Unfortunately, your cite did not prove your point.  Rand's quote enumerated vices which happen to stem from evasion.

My cite DID prove my point because I am using the term "evasion" precisely -- as Ayn Rand did -- to mean the deliberate, conscious, willful act of refusing to recognize reality. The other vices she mentioned were not examples of this.

If Bearster thinks they are, maybe he is using a different definition of "evasion" and it would help if he would make his definition explicit. If Bearster has reasons to believe that the other vices Ayn Rand mentioned are caused by evasion, he should give some evidence to support this.

At the end of the day, it remains that you declared that there exists a kind of evil which does not have its root in evasion.  You have failed to back this position with fact. 

I have given my reasons. If Bearster thinks my evidence does not support my claim, he should show why.

You've now posted, along with Stephen, more material than I have time to read, much less respond to.  I won't even try.

Too bad. I would like to see what reasons Bearster has for disagreeing with me.

Does it even make sense to call something which is not evasion (i.e. an honest mistake) "evil"?  By what standard?  What sort of men, what sort of ideas, and what sort of actions would this rationalistic view cause you to condemn as "evil"?

Where did I EVER call something which is an honest mistake evil?? This is not my position AT ALL!

As for all the other things Bearster wrote, I'll let them be and concentrate on the important philosophical issues.

[Capitalism Forever]

My point is that by using a guilt-weighted term such as "EVIL", we are making morality an end in itself. It is not. Morality is a means to an end.

Aha, I get your point.

But I don't think that the suggestion of guilt makes morality an end in itself. If you choose an action that is bad for your life, you ARE guilty--guilty of betraying yourself.

Guilt is the feeling you get when you think you just did something wrong, a feeling that urges you to re-examine your choices--and you SHOULD get that feeling when you are not acting in your rational self-interest.

Edited March 6, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed quote block

[AndrewSternberg]

The following is my take on the issue.

Good Phenomena are caused by one having a consciousness in line with the facts of reality. Evil Phenomena are caused when ones consciousness is out of line with the facts of reality.

The state of consciousness that causes evil actions, the one not in accordance with the facts of reality, is caused by either a policy of active evasion or simply by honest error.

There are evil actions and there are evil men.

An action is declared evil because of the effect it will have on my values from my perspective, your values from your perspective, or man’s values from the perspective universal to all men.

A man is declared evil if there is evidence that he adopts a policy of evasion. This is so because it guarantees a consciousness out of line with the facts of reality, which will guarantee resulting actions that are out of line with the facts of reality, which will guarantee that those actions will be a vice to any values that are in accordance with the facts of reality.

On the other hand, a man who is guilty of honest error should be corrected, but not morally condemned as evil.

As for the issue of evasion as the root of all evil, evasion is the root of all evil men, but not all evil actions. Evasion guarantees evil, but evil does not guarantee the presence of evasion (honest error is the alternative cause).

[Betsy]

A man is declared evil if there is evidence that he adopts a policy of evasion.  This is so because it guarantees a consciousness out of line with the facts of reality, which will guarantee resulting actions that are out of line with the facts of reality, which will guarantee that those actions will be a vice to any values that are in accordance with the facts of reality. 

On the other hand, a man who is guilty of honest error should be corrected, but not morally condemned as evil.

As for the issue of evasion as the root of all evil, evasion is the root of all evil men, but not all evil actions.  Evasion guarantees evil, but evil does not guarantee the presence of evasion (honest error is the alternative cause).

That is a false alternative.

"Evasion," as Ayn Rand uses the term, is an active vice which consists of deliberately turning one's consciousness away from reality. An honest error consists of making an effort to understand but failing due to inadequate information. An honest error is a totally innocent occcurence and someone who makes an honest error has nothing to be guilty of.

Most people mess up while neither evading NOR making an honest error. Most people are dependents who fail to think for themselves. They err because they follow others blindly. Some people are humble, accept that they are worthless, and fail use their human potential. Humility, unlike evasion, is a passive vice. Unlike evasion, it is a treason to their values rather than to their minds.

Dependency and humility are vices and those who exhibit those vices are not blameless, but they are not the same -- nor nearly so evil -- as evasion.

[AndrewSternberg]

Betsy, I agree that I had presented a false alternative.

Building off of what you have said, let me amend my position.

With regard to the evaluation of men as evil, there are three alternatives which exhaust the possibilities: active evasion (a vice), passive non-thinking (a vice), and an active but flawed process of reasoning (an honest error and not a vice).

I view all of those “passive vices” that you mention, such as dependency, humility, emotionalism, etc. as variants of non-thinking, but since they are passive, the policy does not warrant quite so harsh a moral condemnation as the man who engages in an active policy of non-thinking such as evasion. This is why I break up the category of “non-thinking” into active and passive. It seems that you agree to this distinction (correct me if I am wrong here).

However, it remains true that all three of these categories (active non-thinking, passive non-thinking, and flawed thinking) can lead to evil man-made facts. A man-made fact is a fact that has its existence depending on the participation of man (Anyone may refer to “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”, in Philosophy: Who Needs It, for a further elaboration on the concept a man-made fact).

With regard to the evaluation of man-made facts as evil, the relevant issue is: what is the consequence of this man-made fact on my values? (Assuming that my values are in accordance with reality)

All man-made facts, including the three policies of thought that set the guidelines for evaluating man, are subject to moral evaluation by the standard of what the fact will do to your values.

Note: I am using evil as a synonym for vice. Either an action promotes the achievement of your values, in which case it is good and a virtue, or an action thwarts the achievement of your values, in which case it is evil and a vice. Whether or not the word evil should be confined to the extreme of vice is a separate issue and perhaps deserves another discussion in another thread.

[AndrewSternberg]

Since no one has opposed my interpretation of evil, ill assume it as consistent with Objectivism and more importantly true.

[Betsy]

With regard to the evaluation of man-made facts as evil, the relevant issue is: what is the consequence of this man-made fact on my values? (Assuming that my values are in accordance with reality)

All man-made facts, including the three policies of thought that set the guidelines for evaluating man, are subject to moral evaluation by the standard of what the fact will do to your values. 

In fact, this is the ONLY reason to evaluate other men, their actions, and the product of their actions.

Note: I am using evil as a synonym for vice.  Either an action promotes the achievement of your values, in which case it is good and a virtue, or an action thwarts the achievement of your values, in which case it is evil and a vice.  Whether or not the word evil should be confined to the extreme of vice is a separate issue and perhaps deserves another discussion in another thread.

Feel free to start one. It is an interesting and important subject.

[Charles]

I think the question of whether permissing current, but lesser evil for advancing of your own current agenda is right or not has been raised? Should I start a new thread?

An example is the US election; voting for either Bush or Kerry, is voting 'evil'; both represent strong government; One may be more so than the other - and I know that has been the point of contention in several threads. But is there no minority party whom you (americans) can vote for?

[Charles]

Interestingly; in the UK there are no minority objectivist, libertarian or any such parties. All minority groups are either single issue, extreme left + two fascist.

That leaves the party that most advocates small government as Conservatives, or would have been Thatcherism. I dont think I can vote for them.

[stephen_speicher]

Since no one has opposed my interpretation of evil, ill assume it as consistent with Objectivism and more importantly true.

On a public forum such as this I do not think you can properly presume that any lack of response implies agreement with your position. There are a multitude of reasons why people may not respond, even for something as simple as lack of interest or time. For instance, I started reading your post and decided that I did not want to commit to what might be a long discussion on this particular subject. But my inaction does not necessarily imply agreement.

[AndrewSternberg]

Since no one has opposed my interpretation of evil, ill assume it as consistent with Objectivism and more importantly true.

I had really only one purpose in saying this. I wanted to continue the discussion. However, I still see nothing wrong with the way I framed the issue, so I personally still accept it as true.