Can a Person Be Evil?

[iago]

I thought about this when I was watching the Ayn Rand interview with Phill Donahue...

There is a part when a woman accused Rand of trying to create an "elitist society" and gave the argument that "today this is just not practical" as her only reason for why an "elitist society" was a bad idea.

Then Donahue (maybe unable to notice the emptiness of the woman's argument and that answering it would be a complete waste of time, or maybe just trying to keep his image in front of the tv audience by saying what he was "supposed to say" and defending the questioner) asks her:

"So you are saying that all of those who disagree with you are not honorable?"

Rand: "Not honorable in their ideas, I don't judge them personally or psychologically."

Donahue: "But honorable is the worst kind of judgement..."

Rand: "I have to know something about a person's knowledge an attitude in regard to his or her ideas in order to say 'this is honorable, this is not honorable'."

(...)

The essence of a person's character is formed by the rational faculty of his mind, which forms his most profound values.

If all of a person's values are formed by this rational process, then wouldn't the source of an evil action ultimately be either lack of knowledge or the weakness of avoiding the truth?

Could the notion of "evil" be applied to the essence of a person's character, which is the act of making judgments of right and wrong?

Would it be possible for a person to know the truth and to choose to be evil with the full knowledge of its meaning?

A person who does not know the truth is certainly not evil in his psychology. So, would real evil only be the same as weakness?

Now how does that apply to our relation with people of evil philosophies, such as communism or racism?

What amazes me most is the psychological strength with which people defend evil ideas... What keeps evil going on earth is the active intent of defending it. But at the same time, the defenders of evil are people with more independence of mind and a LOT more integrity than the great majority of the people, so I can admire them for that...

Have you seen the movie American History X? There was a point in the movie when I realized I had a great admiration for the character Derek (played by Edward Norton), even after he split the black kid's head on the curb, because he lived exactly by what he believed and didn't make the slightest compromise to gain other people's approval... And when he came back from prison, not believing in racism anymore, he gave up his girlfriend, his safety and the social status of a GOD in order to be true to his new belief. This is a man of strong character.

So I believe the world is divided mostly between two kinds of people: those who vigorously defend evil and keep the world moving on the wrong direction, and the followers whose lives are all worthless cheap copies of bad books written by people they do not know...

So in terms of psychology what would be the greatest evil: the laziness and lack of love for one's existence of not exerting mental effort or doing other people the harm of convincing them of evil ideas?

I think the evil leaders do achieve some sense of psychological greatness, so they do a lesser harm to themselves because they do live with a sense of greatness, even though it's fantasy-greatness... From an egotistical point of view a harm done to one's self is worst than a harm done to others... So the followers are certainly more evil than the leaders, and it's with the people who say that ideas don't matter that we should be the most harsh with, because they keep the intellectual vacuum in which the nonsense prevails.

Edited September 30, 2008 by iago

[Clawg]

The essence of a person's character is formed by the rational faculty of his mind, which forms his most profound values.

If all of a person's values are formed by this rational process, then wouldn't the source of an evil action ultimately be either lack of knowledge or the weakness of avoiding the truth?

Yes.

In order to be rational one does need *some* knowledge about reality, i.e. that one exists, that one has an identity and that one has a consciousness.

But this knowledge is available for everyone with sense organs and a functioning brain.

Could the notion of "evil" be applied to the essence of a person's character, which is the act of making judgments of right and wrong?

Would it be possible for a person to know the truth and to choose to be evil with the full knowledge of its meaning?

If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as "gray"; morally, he is "white." Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience.

But if, in order to escape the responsibility of moral judgment, a man closes his eyes and mind, if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, he cannot be regarded as "gray"; morally, he is as "black" as they come.

The Cult of Moral Grayness, The virtue of selfishness

Now how does that apply to our relation with people of evil philosophies, such as communism or racism?

"The problem with liberals is not that they are ignorant, the problem is that they know so much that is not so." Reagan

What amazes me most is the psychological strength with which people defend evil ideas... What keeps evil going on earth is the active intent of defending it. But at the same time, the defenders of evil are people with more independence of mind and a LOT more integrity than the great majority of the people, so I can admire them for that...

Integrity, independence, intelligence etc. are no virtues by themelves, they can be used for good and evil purposes.

And no, that's not what keeps evil going on earth, it's the passive (active?) intent of not defending good. Evil is by default, you don't have to invest any effort to promote evil, except in order to play mind games to distort reality for those who you want as your followers.

Have you seen the movie American History X? There was a point in the movie when I realized I had a great admiration for the character Derek (played by Edward Norton), even after he split the black kid's head on the curb, because he lived exactly by what he believed and didn't make the slightest compromise to gain other people's approval...

Again, an uncompromising stand on an issue is no virtue by itself.

Or, to look at it differently: There is no such thing as an uncompromising stand on an issue in any 'evil' philosophy, at some point all evil philosophies are contradictory, that's why they are evil. An evil philosophy does not need to consist of "Kill everyone", a philosophy is evil if it does not follow consistent principles, if it is ok to steal, plunder and kill *sometimes*, just enough not to disturb the productive people of society too much.

And when he came back from prison, not believing in racism anymore, he gave up his girlfriend, his safety and the social status of a GOD in order to be true to his new belief. This is a man of strong character.

He was forced to face reality in his life, to endure the consequences of his action.

A strong character would not need to be forced to face reality, a strong character would choose to face reality and see that his actions will lead to his own destruction.

After all, in this case, he could have faced the death sentence.

So in terms of psychology what would be the greatest evil: the laziness and lack of love for one's existence of not exerting mental effort or doing other people the harm of convincing them of evil ideas?

Why should it be necessary to be able to determine the 'degree of evil'?

Edited September 30, 2008 by Clawg

[Mindy]

Integrity, independence, intelligence etc. are no virtues by themelves, they can be used for good and evil purposes.

Intelligence as in IQ is a given, but its employment is a virtue. Integrity and independence are great virtures. Note that evil cannot show integrity, nor be independent.

= Mindy

[Clawg]

Intelligence as in IQ is a given, but its employment is a virtue. Integrity and independence are great virtures. Note that evil cannot show integrity, nor be independent.

= Mindy

Yes, ok, I did mention that in the following paragraph. I guess I had the 'superficial' integrity in my mind, but in the end there is always some contradiction in any evil philosophy.

[Zip]

Mindy, certainly you don't equate the BTK killer's ability to employ his intelligence to not get caught by the police with virtuous action do you?

Similarly I do not agree that evil can not be independent. A lot of evil men operate independently, the unibomber for example.

I do agree that Integrity, by definition (adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.) can not be evil though.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Zip

[tito]

Yes.

A man can be evil.

This is not the same as "A man can be intrinsically evil."

To be, is to be something, to choose. The act of being is a constant effort. A man can be evil, but only by his own effort.

[iago]

Again, an uncompromising stand on an issue is no virtue by itself.

Or, to look at it differently: There is no such thing as an uncompromising stand on an issue in any 'evil' philosophy, at some point all evil philosophies are contradictory, that's why they are evil. An evil philosophy does not need to consist of "Kill everyone", a philosophy is evil if it does not follow consistent principles, if it is ok to steal, plunder and kill *sometimes*, just enough not to disturb the productive people of society too much.

Come on, now am I the only one who likes the Westboro Baptist Church?

Look at this:

"God Loves Everyone, The Greatest Lie Ever Told"

http://www.westborobaptistchurch.com/writt...veryone-lie.pdf

This church worships a hateful god and tells gays that they are going to hell... They are consistent with the Bible.

Nietzsche said that the moderate religions are the ones we should be the most severe with, because they hide their ugliness by compromising with more liberal views. If all Christians were as consistent with their beliefs as the westboro baptist church members, Christianity would be lost in history by now.

People who have the strength of their convictions at least take ideas seriously, and take their lives seriously.

Conviction doesn't make an evil idea a virtue, but I do have a lot more respect for the psychology of a westboro baptist church member than for a moderate Christian.

more on the theme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q4qvZWFqjQ (interview with a tv channel, gay leader supports the church and talks about the hypocrisy of other churches)

(interview with the amazing atheist)

[Clawg]

Come on, now am I the only one who likes the Westboro Baptist Church?

Look at this:

"God Loves Everyone, The Greatest Lie Ever Told"

http://www.westborobaptistchurch.com/writt...veryone-lie.pdf

This church worships a hateful god and tells gays that they are going to hell... They are consistent with the Bible.

One can't be consistent with the bible.

Nietzsche said that the moderate religions are the ones we should be the most severe with, because they hide their ugliness by compromising with more liberal views. If all Christians were as consistent with their beliefs as the westboro baptist church members, Christianity would be lost in history by now.

What they are basically are doing is to apply Logic to logically wrong ideas (or consistency to inconsistent ideas), so they agree that logic (or the rational faculty) is an instrument to discover truths about reality. At the same time they deny that the rational faculty is an instrument to discover truths. Thus their philosophy can be much more easily defeated in an argument than the usual notion of mysticism that man is incapable of using his mind for such matters, that is the very reason why such religions are not very succesful.

If this (that they can easily be converted to a rational philosophy) is the source of the respect you have for them, then fine. They have more potential to become Objectivists than people who deny the rational faculty, principles or ideas, yes, but their religion itself still cannot be respected more than any other religion.

[iago]

One can't be consistent with the bible.

What they are basically are doing is to apply Logic to logically wrong ideas (or consistency to inconsistent ideas), so they agree that logic (or the rational faculty) is an instrument to discover truths about reality.

I think it's more like:

1. they start from an irrational presupposition which they assume to be beyond reason: "Bible = God = Truth". This is the only faith they have.

2. after presupposition 1 is accepted by faith, it's pure reason. They use reason the best way they can to make some sense out of the Bible, and to apply it with as much consistency as they can, and of course what prevails is the belief in a cruel and hateful god.

[Mindy]

Mindy, certainly you don't equate the BTK killer's ability to employ his intelligence to not get caught by the police with virtuous action do you?

Similarly I do not agree that evil can not be independent. A lot of evil men operate independently, the unibomber for example.

I do agree that Integrity, by definition (adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.) can not be evil though.

Yes, in a limited way, it is. It serves an evil end, and that makes it evil. But the formulation of his ends is not done intelligently. The efficacy with which he gets away from a scene, for example, if taken in isolation, is virtuous. Note that I am not saying he is virtuous in getting away with his crimes!

= Mindy

[Hazmatac]

iago, what is it you mean by evil?

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

iago, what is it you mean by evil?

Indeed, if he already concluded that evil is something unachievable and proceeds to ask us how it can be achieved we cant really help him.

[iago]

iago, what is it you mean by evil?

By evil I mean the intent of doing that which is destructive to other's lives or to one's own life or character.

From a psychological perspective, if a person does evil believing it is good, then he is not to be pointed as the active source of that same evil.

If we are all borne with no a priori knowledge, then what are the primary motives for evil, and to which point is a person capable of doing evil while knowing it as such... My question is about the psychology of evil.

[Clawg]

By evil I mean the intent of doing that which is destructive to other's lives ...

By that definition soldiers, policemen, etc. are evil. You probably mean something along the 'initiation of force'-line.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

From a psychological perspective, if a person does evil believing it is good, then he is not to be pointed as the active source of that same evil.

From which Logic's of the psyche does your prospective follow?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

By evil I mean the intent of doing that which is destructive to other's lives or to one's own life or character.

Evil, in Objectivism, means the refusal to think or the refusal to face reality in a rational manner. Rationalism, the mind operating without the facts, and misintegration, the attempt to be rationally integrated but not checking one's false premises, are not evil, but are more mistaken; except insofar as the rationalists or the misintegrated person refuses to take certain facts into account in their pseudo-reasoning. Objectivism does not consider honest mistakes to be irrational or evil. So, to get to the psychology of of evil, one must realize that the evil mind avoids or evades facts and rationality, and this will lead to the destruction of values, including other people and themselves. However, the cause is the refusal to think.

The die-hard rationalist or the die-hard misintegrated person will eventually come across a fact that does not fit into their mental gymnastics, and it is how they handle this that tells if they are being rational and mistaken or irrational and evil. At this point, for example, I would say that given the facts of evolution, the die-hard religionists (who could be a rationalist or a misintegrated person) are clearly being evasive, and therefore evil. It's one thing to say, "I don't know" about evolution qua science, but it is quite another to deny the clear facts that man didn't come from clay enlivened by God.

[Jomeda]

Evil, in Objectivism, means the refusal to think or the refusal to face reality in a rational manner. Rationalism, the mind operating without the facts, and misintegration, the attempt to be rationally integrated but not checking one's false premises, are not evil, but are more mistaken; except insofar as the rationalists or the misintegrated person refuses to take certain facts into account in their pseudo-reasoning. Objectivism does not consider honest mistakes to be irrational or evil. So, to get to the psychology of of evil, one must realize that the evil mind avoids or evades facts and rationality, and this will lead to the destruction of values, including other people and themselves. However, the cause is the refusal to think.

The die-hard rationalist or the die-hard misintegrated person will eventually come across a fact that does not fit into their mental gymnastics, and it is how they handle this that tells if they are being rational and mistaken or irrational and evil. At this point, for example, I would say that given the facts of evolution, the die-hard religionists (who could be a rationalist or a misintegrated person) are clearly being evasive, and therefore evil. It's one thing to say, "I don't know" about evolution qua science, but it is quite another to deny the clear facts that man didn't come from clay enlivened by God.

So, would you argue that rational evil does not exist?

[MichaelH]

So, would you argue that rational evil does not exist?

From an Objectivist perspective, thoroughly rational evil does not exist. Anyone following an evil (reality-evading or reality-denying) philosophy will eventually reach a contradiction. When they do, to stay logical, they must check their premises and eventually realign to be rational good.

It's possible to be semi-rational evil by compartmentalizing your mind. We see this a lot with modern Christians, who say things like "Science needs to prove its answers with logic, but when it comes to religion this is just what I feel/believe is true, and that's that." This creates a mind divided: some information must be proved logically and integrated, other information is simply accepted and used as a base for other "reasoning". This also explains how people can continue to hold irrational biases (against gays, blacks, women as priests/presidents...). By claiming their religion justifies the bias, the put it in the "this is just what I feel" category that needs no logical support. That does not necessarily lead to evil actions, but it is a precursor.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

So, would you argue that rational evil does not exist?

Right. Rationality is a virtue and cannot lead to evil. It is possible in some cases that a rational person can be gravely mistaken which can lead to the destruction of values, such as when Dagny wanted to shoot John Galt on sight in Atlas Shrugged, and had she actually done that, it would have been devastating, not only to her personally, but to the strikers. However, her actions of killing Galt would not have been evil in the sense of wanting to destroy the good, because in her case, at that time, she didn't know he was good. I think she could have still been convicted of murder or at least man slaughter, but she wasn't motivated to destroy the good, hence she wouldn't have been evil. But also, once she met Galt, she changed her mind rather quickly, given further facts about him and the strike. So, Dagny was being rational all the way and in every context of her knowledge.

It is an aspect of rationality, of being rational regarding the facts that you do know, that one can change one's mind quickly given new evidence.

Perhaps you can come up with an example of what you mean when you imply that rationality can lead to evil?