Evil As A Concept

[RationalBiker]

On another forum, I refuted a statement that "drugs are evil". My refutation was that drugs cannot be evil, as they are not conscious, much less violational.

That got me to thinking about how term evil is commonly used. Some people refer to evil laws, evil this, evil that. My thinking is, although I know what idea is being communicated when people say these things, they are at the root incorrect. How can a law be evil? I can understand how the enforcement of a law which violates individual rights would be evil, but that's an action, taken by a volitional being. The law, the written code and/or the concept, cannot itself take action to affect reality.

Am I pickin nits here or what?

VES

[BreathofLife]

Also the act of creating said law in the first place can be called an evil action. The law is not evil itself but rather the product of an evil action, since laws are obviously created to be enforced on people.

[RationalBiker]

Also the act of creating said law in the first place can be called an evil action.

Agreed.

[stephen_speicher]

On another forum, I refuted a statement that "drugs are evil".  My refutation was that drugs cannot be evil, as they are not conscious, much less violational.

That got me to thinking about how term evil is commonly used.  Some people refer to evil laws, evil this, evil that.  My thinking is, although I know what idea is being communicated when people say these things, they are at the root incorrect.  How can a law be evil?  I can understand how the enforcement of a law which violates individual rights would be evil, but that's an action, taken by a volitional being.  The law, the written code and/or the concept, cannot itself take action to affect reality.

Am I pickin nits here or what?

VES

You might want to read Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value," online at the ARI web site:

http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/f-v.html

He discusses this very issue.

[Betsy]

You might want to read Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value," online at the ARI web site.

Another good essay is "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

[DavidOdden]

That got me to thinking about how term evil is commonly used.  Some people refer to evil laws, evil this, evil that.  My thinking is, although I know what idea is being communicated when people say these things, they are at the root incorrect.

You are completely correct. When I first started to hang out in Objectivist forums, I would get a bit ticked off when people would ignore what I "really" meant and would harass me about something that we didn't even disagree on, because I'd use some dumbass metaphor. In non-fiction writing, metaphors are blatant cowardice. These people (who speak of non-vollitional entities as being "evil") are at the root, trunk, branch, bark and leaf wrong. Some of them are, in fact, evill. Okay, I'm off the high-horse. Feeling calmer

[stephen_speicher]

You are completely correct. When I first started to hang out in Objectivist forums, I would get a bit ticked off when people would ignore what I "really" meant and would harass me about something that we didn't even disagree on, because I'd use some dumbass metaphor. In non-fiction writing, metaphors are blatant cowardice. These people (who speak of non-vollitional entities as being "evil") are at the root, trunk, branch, bark and leaf wrong. Some of them are, in fact, evill.  Okay, I'm off the high-horse.    Feeling calmer

I am not sure I follow the thrust of what you are saying, Dave. If you mean that you were disturbed by moralizers condemning every disagreement as being evil, then I certainly sympathize with whatever happened to you. But, what I understood RationalCop to be questioning, and what you seem to state agreement with, is that it is wrong to call ideas, such as laws, evil. Instead he suggested that it is only actions which are evil. With this I disagree.

Certainly ideas can be, and are, evil. Is not Communism evil? Is not self-sacrifice evil? I do not here refer to Communism as it exists in a particular country, or self-sacrifice as the act of a particular man. I mean the ideas themselves are evil. Do you disagree with that?

[RationalBiker]

Certainly ideas can be, and are, evil. Is not Communism evil? Is not self-sacrifice evil?

Well, after some reading of from the source you suggested Stephen, I realize that ideas and objects were not comparable, and as such, that was a bad analogy. Yes, I can see know how a law (as a concept or idea can be evil by nature of how it's formed). However, this in not entirely inconsistent with what I said before, but more an extension. For an evil law (or any law) to be enacted, it must be the result of an action from a volitional being.

However, objects are another matter. Is a fork evil? Well, no not inherently, but it can be used as an instrument to carry out evil. And more to the point, are drugs evil? Well, no not inherently, but they can be used or abused in an evil manner.

The question I'm still pondering is, and perhaps it's blantantly obvious to some, do drugs constitute a metaphysical fact or a man-made fact? I think that depends on the drug. Some drugs, say marijuana, can be pulled right off the stalk and smoked, suggesting a metaphysical fact. Or does rolling it up in paper now make it a man-made fact? However, cocaine, heroin, or meth has to be manufactured by man.

I still have more reading to do, but I wanted to acknowledge to Stephen that I at least understand the concept of evil ideas.

VES

[RationalBiker]

I have P:WNI Betsy, and I will look into that as well. Thanks.

VES

[Prometheus]

Isn't this the same as the link between theory and practice? An action is performed on the basis of a particular thought/idea and hence if you think the action is evil, then doesn't it mean that the idea in the first place was evil?

Atleast thats what I think, so yes I think ideas can be evil. Isn't the idea of anti-intellectual property evil? Does it have to be passed as a law for us to recognise that the concept itself is perversed?

Dinesh.

[DavidOdden]

Certainly ideas can be, and are, evil. Is not Communism evil? Is not self-sacrifice evil? I do not here refer to Communism as it exists in a particular country, or self-sacrifice as the act of a particular man. I mean the ideas themselves are evil. Do you disagree with that?

No, not at all.

I interpreted Mr. Cop's complaint to be about two things: first, that evil pertains to the mind and not mind-external objects, and second that people who make claims such as "drugs are evil" are metaphorically extending the concept evil, and I thought he was noting that reliance on implicit communication leads to murky thinking (for example that drugs are themselves evil). Needless to say, I don't know whether that's what he intended. The concrete were drugs and laws -- not a big sample.

The distinction I would draw, in terms of law, is that the combination of words are not themselves evil, but that a person's actions -- in creating such a law, enforcing a law, or accepting the law as proper -- is what is evil. Suppose, for example, that the Linear A inscriptions stated a law requiring the execution of all first-born male children. The swirls on clay that record that requirement would not be not evil, but the concepts that they represent are evil. Hence the mind is essential in determining whether something is evil. Acceptance of an idea is an action; so when you say that the idea of Communism is evil, you don't mean that knowing what Communism (or self-sacrifice) holds is what's evil; rather that accepting the idea is evil. In other words, the action of sacrificing yourself is evil, and the action of accepting self-sacrifice as a value is evil.

About what I was referring to in terms of earlier experiences with Objectivists, sympathy is always appreciated but unwarranted in this case. I didn't get it then, I do get it now, and I'm a better person for it. I'm serious in my position that metaphor in non-fiction (especially science) is not a good thing. Verging on evil.

[stephen_speicher]

Well, after some reading of from the source you suggested Stephen, I realize that ideas and objects were not comparable, and as such, that was a bad analogy. Yes, I can see know how a law (as a concept or idea can be evil by nature of how it's formed). However, this in not entirely inconsistent with what I said before, but more an extension. For an evil law (or any law) to be enacted, it must be the result of an action from a volitional being.

An evil law does not have to be enacted in order to be judged evil. The mere suggestion of an evil idea is sufficient for such a judgment to be made. But, nevertheless, your point about the "action from a volitional being" is valid and, in fact, I think it the essence of the issue of evil. In the most fundamental sense, it is only the man-made which is subject to the judgment of evil, and "man-made" here is used in its most general sense.

However, objects are another matter.

But, the man-made includes objects as well as ideas, so why could not an object be considered evil? Wouldn't you consider an object designed to destroy the good to be an evil object?

Also, I really have no problem with extending the notion of evil to non-man-made objects as well, as long as it is understood that doing so is the use of hyperbole, or, perhaps at times, metaphoric. A man-eating plant is evil. The swamp with quicksand that swallows little boys, and with alligators that eat them, is an evil place. But that is an extension from the real nature of evil, which stems from the ability to choose that which, by its effect, is harmful to the soul or body of man.

The question I'm still pondering is, and perhaps it's blantantly obvious to some, do drugs constitute a metaphysical fact or a man-made fact?  I think that depends on the drug.  Some drugs, say marijuana, can be pulled right off the stalk and smoked, suggesting a metaphysical fact.  Or does rolling it up in paper now make it a man-made fact?  However, cocaine, heroin, or meth has to be manufactured by man.

I do not think that whether the drug is man-made or not is relevant to the issue of evil in this context. The potentially evil part is the purpose to which the drug is put by a volitional being. Marijuana can be used as an escape from reality, to reduce awareness and to dull the thinking process. It can also be used therapeutically to reduce intraocular pressure in the eye, thereby reducing the possibility of optic nerve damage due to glaucoma. Here it is not the object itself which is evil -- in this case the man-made processing of marijuana from a plant -- but rather the use to which the object is put by a volitional being.

[stephen_speicher]

The distinction I would draw, in terms of law, is that the combination of words are not themselves evil, but that a person's actions -- in creating such a law, enforcing a law, or accepting the law as proper -- is what is evil.

Well, yes, ideas are mental existents, not physical existents, and they result from the action of a consciousness. But, I would imagine that that is usually pretty much assumed, when we talk about ideas.

Perhaps we just focused on something different in what RationalCop said.

I'm serious in my position that metaphor in non-fiction (especially science) is not a good thing. Verging on evil.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Perhaps you can explain a bit.

[DavidOdden]

I'm not sure I understand this point. Perhaps you can explain a bit.

(I should clarify my statement by saying that I'm not picking exclusively on metaphor, but rather on non-literal statements). I take the proper purpose of non-fiction writing to be stating facts and integrating them at a particular point. Correct identifications are essential, and require valid definitions of concepts. So speaking of a "right to a college education" requires one to drop vast amounts of knowledge about what rights are and how man identified them. The key step in subverting the literal meaning of a word, and dropping the knowledge context behind the word as a symbol for a valid concept, is the assertion that something which actually is not an X "...can be considered to be a kind of..." X. There are some great examples here:

Stupid Essays

Though admittedly these are mockery, but still they look like the real thing.

A certain well-known Cartesian rationalist professor from Massachussetts in my business has metaphorically corrupted the term "knowledge" to mean "mental ability", so that the faculty of reasoning is "innate knowledge", and indeed he even uses expressions like "innate idea" to refer to the rational faculty.

I don't want to deny that non-literal statements can be rhetorically effective, but for the purpose of stating what is, as identified through reason, non-literal statements are at the core an attempt to override reason. In scientific writing this is particularly bad. But of course a tiny bit of clearly identified emotionalism makes the writing more amusing, and all work makes Jack a dull boy.

[Capitalism Forever]

But, what I understood RationalCop to be questioning, and what you seem to state agreement with, is that it is wrong to call ideas, such as laws, evil. Instead he suggested that it is only actions which are evil. With this I disagree.

[Tries very hard to suppress urge to jokingly refer to Immigration thread]

Phew! Wasn't easy!

[Capitalism Forever]

Why not just look it up in the dictionary?

1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse>

b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>

2 a archaic : INFERIOR

b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor>

c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>

3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery>

b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY

[RationalBiker]

But, the man-made includes objects as well as ideas, so why could not an object be considered evil? Wouldn't you consider an object designed to destroy the good to be an evil object?

The problem I have with an object being evil is that unless it is utilized, it can't do anything. Can you think of any object which regardless of context only accomplishes evil when utilized?

Also, I really have no problem with extending the notion of evil to non-man-made objects as well, as long as it is understood that doing so is the use of hyperbole, or, perhaps at times, metaphoric. A man-eating plant is evil.

The article you pointed me seems to suggests otherwise. It suggests that metaphysical facts can be bad for us but comes up short of saying they are evil in nature. Once we understand how they are bad for us, it's up to us to avoid the ill effects when possible. An example used is sunlight. Sunlight is both good and bad depending on how much exposure we have to it. As such, we have to integrate into our knowledge the conditions we need to avoid so that sunlight doesn't have a harmful effect. The same would go for a man-eating plant, a volcano, a storm, etc.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

(I should clarify my statement by saying that I'm not picking exclusively on metaphor, but rather on non-literal statements).

But I consider metaphors, analogies, similes, etc. to be perfectly valid and acceptable forms of communication, not only in fiction but in nonfiction as well. I certainly agree with your statement that "Correct identifications are essential" in nonfiction, but there are a multitude of ways to add subtle meaning and understanding to ideas, especially ideas that are difficult to grasp. A really good metaphor can go a long way in getting a difficult idea across.

If you were just saying that metpahors, etc. are commonly abused by bad nonfiction writers, then I would agree. But your claim that they are "not a good thing," and even "Verging on evil," is much more damning than that. I should note that Ayn Rand made excellent use of metaphors herself in her nonfiction writing, and even discussed their use and application in The Art of Nonfiction. I also find good metaphors sprinkled about technical journal articles, though certainly less frequently than one will find in good, but less scientific, nonfiction writing.

[stephen_speicher]

The problem I have with an object being evil is that unless it is utilized, it can't do anything. Can you think of any object which regardless of context only accomplishes evil when utilized?

What is wrong with the example which you quoted above?

The article you pointed me seems to suggests otherwise. It suggests that metaphysical facts can be bad for us but comes up short of saying they are evil in nature.

And I agree with that. Which is why I said using the word in that manner was a form of "hyperbole" or was "metaphoric." I followed that with "But that is an extension from the real nature of evil ..." Isn't that clear?

[RationalBiker]

What is wrong with the example which you quoted above?

I'm not following you here. Are you referring to my example of drugs?

"But that is an extension from the real nature of evil ..." Isn't that clear?

I understand what you are saying, but I guess I wouldn't choose those semantics. To say that metaphorically, would usually require you to say that you are saying that metaphorically so as to avoid confusion. "A man-eating plant can be harmful." I think that avoids alot of confusion.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

I'm not following you here.  Are you referring to my example of drugs?

No. I am referring to what you quoted: "Wouldn't you consider an object designed to destroy the good to be an evil object?"

But, let me make it even more simple. Suppose a man creates an object whose sole purpose is to seek out all life and destroy it. Do you not consider such an object to be evil?

I understand what you are saying, but I guess I wouldn't choose those semantics.  To say that metaphorically, would usually require you to say that you are saying that metaphorically so as to avoid confusion.  "A man-eating plant can be harmful."  I think that avoids alot of confusion.

That would put Stephen King out of business!

Besides, his many millions of fans seem to understand him well-enough to avoid "confusion."

[RationalBiker]

But, let me make it even more simple. Suppose a man creates an object whose sole purpose is to seek out all life and destroy it. Do you not consider such an object to be evil?

Okay, but then I asked to give me an example of such a thing (which I should have clarified as being outside of the theoretical, but in reality.) Chances are, such a device could still be used for good in some context. Can you think of an actual object which by design and implementation can only accomplish evil?

That would put Stephen King out of business!

Well, if this thread were about fiction, I would tend to agree.

But related to what Mr. Odden pointed out, I think it's usage in non-fiction can be confusing.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

Can you think of an actual object which by design and implementation can only accomplish evil?

How about the gas chambers built in concentration camps?

But, regardless, why do you insist that a man-made object can only be called evil if it can never also be used for good? Don't you call a murderer evil, even though a murderer is still capable of doing something good? All I am simply saying is that a man-made object, like a man-made idea, can be evil based upon the purpose and consequences for which it was devised.

But related to what Mr. Odden pointed out, I think it's usage in non-fiction can be confusing.

I did not think that non-fiction writing was the context of the discussion you and I were having about man-made objects. Didn't you just ask me for an example of an object which actually exists in reality? Anyway, as much as I like and respect Dave, we do seem to disagree about the use of metaphors, analogies, etc. in non-fiction. If that is the worst disagreement I can have between friends, we really have it made!

[Ed from OC]

The problem I have with an object being evil is that unless it is utilized, it can't do anything.  Can you think of any object which regardless of context only accomplishes evil when utilized?

There's something funny about this question that I haven't exactly pinned down.

Try asking the question about a person: Can you think of any person who only accomplishes evil regardless of context?

If that were the proper standard for judging a person, even Hitler (who was probably nice to his mother once in his life) wouldn't qualify.

Obviously when judging a person we need to keep the context. We also need to look at essentials and know the proper standard of the good.

[RationalBiker]

How about the gas chambers built in concentration camps?

They could in turn be used to execute the criminals who killed the innocents to begin with. That would be a just usage.

Don't you call a murderer evil, even though a murderer is still capable of doing something good?

Yes, because the murderer (a volitional being) is capable of committing murder. An object is not capable of doing ANYTHING by itself. It has no ability to take action it's on. It's actual usage determines it purpose in any given context, and as such it's "evilness", not it's potential usage. I think that's a huge difference.

I did not think that non-fiction writing was the context of the discussion you and I were having about man-made objects.

Neither did I. It was you that brought up Stephen King and his usage of the word "evil" in fiction writing.

If that is the worst disagreement I can have between friends, we really have it made

Yet I agree that this is hardly a rift-causing disagreement.

VES