Something has been bothering me lately. I am unable to define evil, accept as ‘harmful to others.’ Would someone with a better understanding of objectivism please define evil for me?
Something has been bothering me lately. I am unable to define evil, accept as ‘harmful to others.’ Would someone with a better understanding of objectivism please define evil for me?
From Ayn Rand Lexicon, under the heading “Evil”, page 153:
— [begin quote] —
The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics–the standard by which one judges what is good or evil–is man’s life, or; that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
— [end quote] —
I can quote from the Lexicon, but I don’t know what that means. 
I am unable to define evil, accept as ‘harmful to others.’
Quite the contrary. Rather, “evil” is that which is harmful to oneself.
The starting point would be to ask yourself why you need to have a concept such as “evil” at all?
Read the title essay of “The Virtue of Selfishness” to understand the Objectivist view.
Read the title essay of “The Virtue of Selfishness” to understand the Objectivist view.
If I remember correctly, VoS doesn’t have a title essay. I think what you’re referring to is “The Objectivist Ethics” which is the first essay (a lecture actually) in the book.
The starting point would be to ask yourself why you need to have a concept such as “evil” at all?
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.”
So I think that instread of asking what is “evil”, you should ask what is impractical or unreasonable. Then the answer becomes more clear, outside the context of weighted terminology.
When someone does something like lying or stealing, an objectivist might say something along the lines of, “that is immoral or evil.” … more accurate and honest critique is to say that “it is impractical or will hurt you in the long run.”
Objectivism says that the moral is the practical. Morality vs. practicality is a false dichotomy. Particular actions (based on decisions to act) are right or wrong, good or bad. The good is moral and practical, the bad is immoral and impractical.
Regarding the use of the word “evil”:
Evil definitely is a strong word, and it isn’t something that should be used lightly or without a lot of knowledge of the specifics. I certainly have not used this term often, and I can’t remember a time in relation to any person I was talking to (or his actions). If, while talking to someone, you run into something you disagree with, it is a lot more conducive to conveying your ideas to say that you don’t agree with it and explain why, rather than branding people as evil. The disagreement implies moral disagreement (since it is based on an action that someone decided to do).
Still, though, evil is a perfectly valid concept. It is reserved for people who are doing things wrong consciously–who know better, have the ability to decide differently, and yet decide to do what’s wrong instead of what’s right. If it is applied in that sense, any guilt that comes of it is deserved.
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.”
So I think that instread of asking what is “evil”, you should ask what is impractical or unreasonable. Then the answer becomes more clear, outside the context of weighted terminology.
I can’t be sure what Felicity meant, but I think the point was not to reject that evil exists nor avoid pronouncement of it when you can identify it. Rather one should understand that there is such a thing as evil and that it is objective. Holding the “practical” as the standard of ethics is pragmatism. Objectivist ethical decisions and actions come from using reason on the facts of reality. As for evading declaring things evil: I recommend “The Cult of Moral Grayness”, also in VOS.
d_s
Why do some objectivists insist upon using the term “evil”?
Normative adjectives are used to identify the status of things, actions, and people with regard to their real impact on our lives.
“Evil” denotes that which has the greatest negative impact on our lives and some things – in fact and in reality – do have extremely negative impacts on our lives.
With regard to our own chosen actions, the worst thing we can do to ourselves is to deliberately ignore our own awareness of reality. Therefore, the greatest personal evil is evasion.
With regard to the chosen actions of other, the worst thing they can do is to initiate force against us. Therefore, the greatest social evil is the initiation of force.
Those are facts and Objectivists use the term “evil” to identify those facts.
Jeri Story - quoting from the Ayn Rand Lexicon: “Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.”
Rand states here that reason is the basic means of survival. Looking at this in the correct evolutionary light this is saying that survival is at the base of reason. i.e. it is the basic axiom of reason.
That may seem obvious but is, I believe, worth spelling out.
Jedymastyr: “Objectivism says that the moral is the practical. Morality vs. practicality is a false dichotomy. Particular actions (based on decisions to act) are right or wrong, good or bad. The good is moral and practical, the bad is immoral and impractical.”
The good is moral. What is moral should be practical. What is Practical should be rational. What is rational promotes your survival. What makes you is your ability to consciously choose.
In circumstances where the ability to choose has been all but supressed; it is possible, as a result of due reason, to die/suffer for that abilities resurrection because it equates to you.
Why do some objectivists insist upon using the term “evil”?
Why do some people insist upon avoiding the term?
Therefore, the greatest personal evil is evasion.
Are there evils not based on evasion? I thought Ayn Rand’s view was that evasion is the root of all evil.
I dont know. Whats your view Bearster?
Are there evils not based on evasion? I thought Ayn Rand’s view was that evasion is the root of all evil.
That is not Ayn Rand’s view.
There are some self-destructive actions that Ayn Rand considered vices which are not evasion per se nor based on evasion.
[From Ayn Rand’s notes for Galt’s Speech, Journals of Ayn Rand, P. 649]
“The vices of the Life Morality: non-thinking—which means the evasion of knowledge, the placing of anything whatever above your own mind, any form of mysticism, of faith, or denial of reality; dependence—the placing of others above yourself in any manner whatever, either as authority or as love; aimlessness—the non-integrated life; pain—the submission to it or acceptance of it; humility—the acceptance of one’s moral imperfection, the willingness to be imperfect, which means: the indifference to moral values and to yourself, i.e., self-abnegation; the initiation of force—as the destruction of the mind, as the method contrary to man’s form of survival, as the anti-man and anti-life.”
Betsy: the issue is not self-destruction per se. If a building falls down onto a road, then the drivers in the cars under it will be destroyed–but this will not be to their moral blame.
Evil is when someone chooses to destroy himself. Your contention seems to be that some cases of deliberate self-destruction are not chosen, or that some cases of choosing self-destruction are not irrational, or … ? It is not clear to me what, exactly, this could mean.
Everything you cited (non-thinking, dependence, aimlessness, pain-seeking, and force) stems from the choice to not know, to evade. Rationality is the cardinal virtue, from which the other virtues derive. In fact, the items on that list look alot like the opposites of the cardinal virtues, i.e. the cardinal vices.
I think you sell Objectivism short, if you claim that thinking, independence, purpose, value-seeking, and the trader principle *don’t* stem from the exercise of reason, or else that if one is commited to reason, that it does not necessarily mean that one doesn’t have such vices.
Incidentally, this is a huge error in the Kelley/Libertarian group. Consistent adherence to reason leads one to virtue and success; inconsistency leads to failure. The root of their issue, from what I can tell, is their attempt to uphold 89% or 92.1% or 99% of Objectivism as good, and reject the premises they don’t feel like. Many of them have adopted a posture of condemning Ayn Rand the person, looking for her feet of clay, etc. The ultimate expression of this comes, I think, from N. Branden who claims that Rand was a neurotic destroyer who somehow had all these good ideas. Of course, the flip side is that patently destructive ideas are not evil, and actions are divorced from ideas.
Their view ultimately divorces one’s method of cognition not only from morality, but from the expected results. Your idea that there are “vices” which are practiced by people who are perfectly rational seems to be an extension of this same idea.
What the heck does “vice” mean, if not the opposite of a “virtue”? If the virtues come from the practice of rationality, then what the heck causes vices, if not the opposite of rationality, i.e. evasion?
I am not the sort who cites chapter and verse, but I am pretty damned sure that Ayn Rand said evasion was the root of all evil. In any case, the debate does not hinge on finding this particular quote.
Charles: what’s my view? To be a man means to be capable of reason, and that all of one’s actions are consciously directed. If one chooses otherwise, if one wishes to *not know* something–either because one’s emotions oppose a particular fact, or because one has generally turned off “active reasoning” mode and entered “drifting” mode by default–that is evasion, and that is the root of all evil.
Evil is no mere mistake, and the word “vice” does not need to exist to denote simply “big mistake”.
Capitalism Forever: Why do some people insist upon avoiding the term?
I suggest that you read the rest of my quote. The point is that Objectivist morality is standard-based (ie: It is a set of, not rules or commandments, but guidelines to attain a value). This is unlike religious morality which is a set of arbitrary and mostly counter-productive rules to be OBEYED, PERIOD.
Objectivist morality is standards to follow IF you want a certain outcome. An example is say I have a high-performance car that requires Premium fuel. If at the gas station I decide that I will use Regular fuel because it is cheaper, I dont think that being told my choice is “EVIL” would convey the same message as if I were told “Hey, it may be cheaper in the short term, but that choice will hurt you in the long-run. It is not a practical standard.” Using “EVIL” seems to say dont do this or you will be evil. The reason I dont want to use Regular fuel is not because I dont want to be an evil person, it is because I dont want to ruin my car. means to an end.
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.
Evil is when someone chooses to destroy himself. Your contention seems to be that some cases of deliberate self-destruction are not chosen, or that some cases of choosing self-destruction are not irrational, or … ? It is not clear to me what, exactly, this could mean.
It’s not clear to me what this has to do with anything I said.
Let’s see if I can clarify what I actually said, if not for you, at least for others trying to follow this discussion.
My point, and the point of the Ayn Rand quotation I cited, is that evasion is only one type of bad thing a person can do to himself. Those bad things are different in kind. Some are deliberate and some are not. Some are more serious than others. Some have more undesirable consequences. Some are more easily correctable than others.
Everything you cited (non-thinking, dependence, aimlessness, pain-seeking, and force) stems from the choice to not know, to evade.
In fact, they don’t which is why Ayn Rand distinguished evasion from the other vices. Evasion is a specific vice: the deliberate act of refusing to look at reality and the decision to ignore the knowledge one has. There is no such thing as accidentally evading or evading by default.
Dependence, on the other hand, is a sin of omission rather than commission. We all start out life dependent on others for everything. Someone who stays that way has failed to do something.
Rationality is the cardinal virtue, from which the other virtues derive.
It is not as if someone decides “I’m going to be rational” and the virtues “derive” from that. It is more accurately the case that if a man is pursuing values (purposeful), working to achieve a good moral character (proud), interacting properly with other men (independent, just), acting in accordance with his ideals (having integrity), etc. this all adds up to having a life in accordance with his nature and reality – rationality. Thus virtues –> rationality, not rationality –> virtues.
I think you sell Objectivism short, if you claim that thinking, independence, purpose, value-seeking, and the trader principle *don’t* stem from the exercise of reason
They don’t “stem from the exercise of reason.” They ARE the exercise of reason.
or else that if one is commited to reason, that it does not necessarily mean that one doesn’t have such vices.
It is not commitment to reason which is important. The essential is BEING rational.
Incidentally, this is a huge error in the Kelley/Libertarian group. Consistent adherence to reason leads one to virtue and success; inconsistency leads to failure. The root of their issue, from what I can tell, is their attempt to uphold 89% or 92.1% or 99% of Objectivism as good, and reject the premises they don’t feel like. Many of them have adopted a posture of condemning Ayn Rand the person, looking for her feet of clay, etc. The ultimate expression of this comes, I think, from N. Branden who claims that Rand was a neurotic destroyer who somehow had all these good ideas. Of course, the flip side is that patently destructive ideas are not evil, and actions are divorced from ideas.
Their view ultimately divorces one’s method of cognition not only from morality, but from the expected results. Your idea that there are “vices” which are practiced by people who are perfectly rational seems to be an extension of this same idea.
“MY” idea “that there are “vices” which are practiced by people who are perfectly rational”? WHERE did I ever say anything like THAT???
I don’t like the Kelleyite approach either and the Kelleyite’s consider me their worst nightmare, but let’s drop the off-topic rants and get back to the subject.
We were discussing your view that all vices are forms of evasion and mine that there are some self-destructive actions that Ayn Rand considered vices which are not evasion per se nor based on evasion.
What the heck does “vice” mean, if not the opposite of a “virtue”? If the virtues come from the practice of rationality, then what the heck causes vices, if not the opposite of rationality, i.e. evasion?
For one thing, as Ayn Rand uses the term, evasion is NOT “the opposite of rationality.” It is a specific way of failing to be rational. Evasion is a deliberate and conscious effort not to know reality. It is not at all the same as their other items on Ayn Rand’s vice list like aimlessness and dependence.
I am not the sort who cites chapter and verse, but I am pretty damned sure that Ayn Rand said evasion was the root of all evil. In any case, the debate does not hinge on finding this particular quote.
Good, because you won’t find it.
Ayn Rand didn’t say evasion was the root of all evil. Evasion is a specific TYPE of evil – and the MOST evil. It is not a one-size-fits all floating abstraction for “something bad” or “something irrational” or “something done by somebody I don’t like.”
I am not the sort who cites chapter and verse,
Citing chapter and verse does have some advantage in that it gives one the opportunity to check the facts against what one holds in one’s mind. Objectivism is not an approximate philosophy for which one can form hazy concepts of its principles.
but I am pretty damned sure that Ayn Rand said evasion was the root of all evil.
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.
Also, “evil” is not some concept floating in the ether; it is contextual and has differing connotations depending upon one’s focus. Ayn Rand used the notion of the root of all evil several different ways, depending on context. For instance, when speaking about the thesis of The Fountainhead she referred to altruism as the “source of all evil.”
In any case, the debate does not hinge on finding this particular quote.
If not the “debate,” then at least one’s understanding might hinge upon just that.
I am interested by the dialogue between Bearster and the Speichers;
“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.” Steven Speicher
If a correct moral choice is refuted having been seen by your mind through reason, i.e. if it is consciously chosen against, is a form of evasion. The other form being described in this dialogue is that of not even reaching the stage of rational judgement and pursuit of choice through lack of effort, i.e. apathy.
That which clouds the mind to choice; to the pursuit of choice, is emotion. I would hence say emotion is the fuel behind evil as Steven does; HOWEVER - as government is a necessary evil (a thing that must exist, albeit it the smallest possible and theoretical level for the upholding of universal law and protection of freedoms) so emotions are our necessary evil - they form our drive - and are mouldable and can been controlled and directed to enforce the positive aspects of ourselves such as the ability to reason.
I would hence say emotion is the fuel behind evil as Steven does; HOWEVER - as government is a necessary evil (a thing that must exist, albeit it the smallest possible and theoretical level for the upholding of universal law and protection of freedoms) so emotions are our necessary evil - they form our drive - and are mouldable and can been controlled and directed to enforce the positive aspects of ourselves such as the ability to reason.
I would say that government can be a positive good… and emotions are amoral as such. As a side note it’s not evil if what it does it protect my individual rights, but this is more appropriate for another topic. Emotions are instantaneous value-judgements in response to sense perceptions. Which is why Steven said “underlying evasion is the more fundamental acceptance of emotion as a primary” (emphasis added). What he said was that what underlies evasion is taking emotions as your means of knowledge, as opposed to reason. I feel bad when someone gets hurt, therefore I must use government to prevent them from getting hurt. The emotion itself is not bad or evil, its a product of your values. What is wrong is to act solely based on emotion, which gives you no information other than what you feel about something.
… as government is a necessary evil (a thing that must exist, albeit it the smallest possible and theoretical level for the upholding of universal law and protection of freedoms) so emotions are our necessary evil - they form our drive - and are mouldable and can been controlled and directed to enforce the positive aspects of ourselves such as the ability to reason.
Charles, I agree that that the value of government is in the protection of our individual rights, and I agree with the role of emotions as forming the very basis for our capacity of happiness, but I would not label either one (government or emotions) as a “necessary evil.” There is nothing inherently evil there, only in the misuse.
As to this issue of evasion: There is really nothing controversial in Objectivism about this. The ideas I expressed are sprinkled throughout Ayn Rand’s earlier articles, and brought together in Peikoff’s OPAR. See his chapter on “Reason” for a very nice discussion.
The only problem lies with some who have a “Church Lady” sort of mentality towards Objectivism. They read some parts of the Objectivist corpus, once, and walk away with a few key words which then forms a shell of Objectivism covering their own subjectivity. In their minds they become important because they appear to value, say, rationality, just like Ayn Rand did. It is not actually practicing rationality that is important, but rather acquiring ‘rationality’ as a defense value. That is why this “Church Lady” mentality is so often seen using Objectivist ‘values’ as a weapon to club others who do not ‘belong’ to Objectivism.
Objectivism is a philosophy for living life, not a tool for pseudo-self-esteem derived from accepting its value without real understanding.