A definition of evil...
Posted by Wonky 10 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
It has no specific purpose. It seeks no particular ends.
It is simply man using his abilities to gain control of other men, and failing that, redirecting his abilities to destroying them.
That it is both in one is what makes it an abnormal concept.
evil = control or destroy
It is simply man using his abilities to gain control of other men, and failing that, redirecting his abilities to destroying them.
That it is both in one is what makes it an abnormal concept.
evil = control or destroy
:D
Can I get a point for alliteration? Pretty please?
How do you feel about birds of a feather?
Here is a quote from the Ayn Rand Lexicon on point:
To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”
To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.
The Virtue of Selfishness “The Objectivist Ethics,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 15
What is evil when performed by a human. Well those things and thoughts that tend to interfere with man's ability to live as a man. Perhaps intent just increases the amount of evil. In the law we differentiate between those evil actions with intent (criminal) and those without intent (civil).
Purposely trying to tear down someone's self esteem in a groundless way is evil whether it is successful or not. Allowing people to tear down one's self esteem when it is not founded is evil.
I think most here (in the Gulch) would agree completely, even if the words "when it is not founded" were removed. Interestingly, the word “allowing” implies that the victim plays an active/conscious role. I’d have to extend it out to include any unconscious permissions granted to the people who wish to tear down their victim’s self esteem.
This is the very topic that prompted me to formulate the definition in the way that I did. It seems to me that the only way to deal with the “evil” (as I’ve defined it as well as in your assertion) is to be entirely indifferent to it – even when the source is/was a friend or family member.
Honestly, what I’m seeking is a shortcut to quickly identify who is trying to gain control over us at any given time, and whether they will attempt to leverage that control in attempts to manipulate us. By the time an attempt at manipulation occurs and we must reject that attempt, there is no telling how much time has been wasted.
I think the default learned behavior (outside of the Gulch) is to assume that compliments, expressions of gratitude, flattery, and various other forms of appreciation are suspicious by nature. There is no need to be told that you have value if you know that you have value… no need to be told that you are moral if you know that you are moral… no need to be told that you do a good job if you know that you do a good job.
That said, there is nothing quite like a good compliment from someone that you respect. To be overly vigilant and maintain indifference in a “guilty until proven innocent” manner makes us (me) fail to appreciate the value of a good compliment.
While I enjoy my own achievements and do not need any special recognition, I certainly don’t mind it. Allowing a compliment (or an insult) to bind my self esteem to the pleasure or displeasure of anyone else, however, is evil insofar as I have allowed another’s judgment to compete with my own, and thus have lost control and begun the destruction of my own mind.
I’d wager that the majority of us did not refuse at birth to “reject original sin”, and for many of us, it is a fairly regular process to purge our minds of bits of guilt, anger, or frustration that wriggle through our defenses and nibble on our self esteem. I don’t have a particularly efficient method for this sort of garbage collection. This is actually how I’m planning to utilize the concept “control or (failing to do so) destroy” whether it is a good definition for evil or not.
Thanks again for your insights.
Do you think evil requires intent? By your first statement I would say not. As an example, someone makes a mistake. They did not intend to be anti-human , but their actions were. Were their actions still evil?
American cheese with a side of a Pickle and I scream for dessert...
Sounds like lunch!
I won't say I'm unworthy, tho... as it would likely make me a dem party presidential candidate (at least judging by the current recumbent)...
Assume for the sake of argument that I've allowed your approval or disapproval of me have some degree of impact on my self-esteem (Cheryl Taggart to Jim/Eddie Willers to Dagny). I've granted you a degree of power over me such that I may act in ways which gain your favor or avoid your displeasure.
I can't imagine that Dagny's lack of knowledge that Hank's bathrobe was visible to Eddie in her apartment could be considered evil no matter how destructive it might have been to Eddie's psychological wellbeing.
There is no doubt, on the other hand, that Jim desired to destroy Cheryl’s self-esteem the more indifferent she became to his approval or lack thereof.
By “specific purpose”, I mean that Jim (the evil), might have had any number of reasons for controlling Cheryl (symbol of his altruism, seeking what he perceived as her lack of self-esteem as validation of his own, worthless wretches giving one another unconditional love as validation of his moral code, etc.). Only after he lost control of her did he begin his frequent attacks on her self-esteem (attempt to destroy her).
To clarify, the failure to control resulting in the desire to destroy is the evil. The purpose of the control, how it was obtained, and whether it was intended to be put to any particular use is irrelevant to the response to the loss of it.
Granted, if I attempt to buy you a meal in exchange for your vote for a specific political candidate, I’m probably evil insofar as I will probably seek some form of vengeance if I learn that you did not follow through. Isn’t that really just a premeditated version of the same formulation?
Judging by your explanation that ensues, I assume this means you are divorcing 'intent' from 'control' in such a way that intent has zero bearing on your judgement of an action of control being evil or not. If so, I would agree. Results always count for more than intentions.
However, this moral ground becomes a muddled gray area... a controversial place where one can question whether a parent's attempt to control their 5 year old in preventing them from burning their hand on a stove, is good or evil. Further, if you so wish to follow me down the rabbit hole, are we certain that this parent's cautioning would yield the best results? Who and how is one to determine what actions dictate optimum results? And, do the ends justify the means (perhaps that is a discussion for another thread)?
By implication, do you believe intent's relationship with destruction to be opposite to that of control? That intent is requisite for an action/object to be evil?
I contend that intent's relation to all action must be consistent within one's views. If so, Dagny's unintentional injury to Eddie's ego is evil, because the result is the same, regardless of her intent (or lack of intent in this case). And more, her injury is just as evil as Jim's malicious, directed attacks on his wife's self-esteem.
The only insulation we have to protect us from the onslaught of control and/or destruction from another (whether intentional or not) is how we choose to let it affect us. As you demonstrated (also as Rand's idyllic characters have), a person decides whether to allow another's approval or disapproval to impact our self-esteem.
We are confronted with countless forms of control and destruction at every corner we turn. But the mind is only destroyed by those events when we value another's judgement over our own... when we stand by and let the actions and ideas of another overtake our pursuit of living fulfilling lives.
So, "evil" be damned. I do what I want.
I find it fascinating that both are also necessary for self amelioration. Exercising self discipline (control) while aiming to complete any task is never reached without plucking the waste, inefficiency and failed methods from that process (a form of destruction). Control and destruction in and of themselves are not evil. If this were so, reality would be dictated by the theory of good as being governed by intrinsic values. But as Rand has taught us about objective theory, "the objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of 'things in themselves' [the intrinsic theory of good], nor of a man's emotional states [the subjective theory of good], but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value... Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what?"
Context is essential in discerning what actions of our own hold a moral standing.
All of that aside... I found your post thought provoking. Thanks Wonky.
The strange coincidence was that I read this post before heading to work today, and-chillingly so- saw Wonky's example of someone's failure to control a situation driving him to destroy that which he could not succeed to wrangle. The guy got caught for doing something illegal at my work, and when confronted by the supervisor he flipped out in panic and rage, attempting to regain his hold on the situation through intimidation. When my boss held his ground, he saw saw he was lost in a vast forest without a way out, and attempted to burn it all down by shoveling blame onto co-workers, deflecting his faults onto the innocent (or maybe not-so innocent, for all I know). There was a strange fiery flicker in the guy's eye that reminded me of Jim Taggart's flagrant attempts to lash out when the situation wouldn't go his way. What is evil? I may not be able to define it as well as Wonky, but I knew it when I saw it today.
Ayn Rand makes it fairly simple: “Those who initiate force are in the wrong [evil?]”
I cringe when I witness a parent hit a misbehaving child, say, in the supermarket. Should a child be beaten into submission? In an attempt to scrutinize the theory more closely, we agreed to limit the scope of the discussion to adult-adult only interactions (and thus avoid the rabbit hole).
It is difficult to argue that the desire to destroy (or initiate force) is not an intention, or at least a precursor to an intention, because it must always result in an intention – the intention to act upon the desire, or not. This is a good way to refine the definition, I think. The desire to destroy, and even the intention to destroy are not any sort of outward evil (they are certainly destructive to the mind either way). The evil is the willful act of attempting to destroy (initiating force) in response to the desire/intention.
Here, here to: “evil be damned. I do what I want”.
Just an interjection here… the Gulch is one of the best places I know to help vet an idea, a concept, a conundrum. Naturally, I’ll decide for myself whether this definition ultimately contradicts anything else in my personal philosophy, but it certainly helps to have reasonable people to consult with to expedite the identification of those contradictions (or lack thereof).
Your comments about control and destruction are interesting, and perhaps a merging of these two concepts in this particular formulation and sequence into a new concept can only be reached by a method similar to mathematical induction…
Thanks for sharing your experience. It is problematic that because the person in question did not resort to the initiation of force in response to his inability to control the situation, he can’t rightly be called evil (using my definition). At the same time, his actions and that fiery flicker in his eye that demonstrated how close he was to initiating force, suggests that he was following the formulation quite well.
"We are confronted with countless forms of control and destruction at every corner we turn. But the mind is only destroyed by those events when we value another's judgement over our own... when we stand by and let the actions and ideas of another overtake our pursuit of living fulfilling lives. " This is truth. Sometimes evil actions spur individuals to action. I have often thought out scenarios where hastening the evil-doing to a level that won't be tolerated is a good thing. It is a destructive way to think I've decided. But I wonder, does the forensic cop think sometimes, if he kills again I will have a chance at evidence to find him? Or in politics, just vote for Obama instead of Romney because things will escalate downhill faster rather than slower. Or, the mass school shootings have brought the entire community closer together. Since the violent attack, she has a new lease on life.
I'm not too concerned about "workplace violence", not because it doesn't happen, but because I wont live my life under the weight of some potential threat that may or may not happen. This is my issue with all the fear mongering slung around by major news networks. All the constant talk of shootings makes something of the sort only seem to be more likely than it used to be. I'm more concerned with picking up a disease from my job or staying safe while driving at night than I am some disgruntled worker turning violent at work.
@ Wonky, +1 for taking my analysis in stride, without feeling like I stepped on your toes. It's refreshing to vet ideas and debate conundrums with a person who doesn't get up in arms when their ideas are put under a microscope. Offering criticism can be tricky that way.
@khalling, The eventual outcome of evil is often corrected by a form of good. But be careful, this doesn't mean that a violent shooting itself is good. As wonky has explained, any initiation of force by result of intention to harm is evil. You could observe the community coming together after a shooting and then justify violence as a positive force in the world. But in between events A and B, there are 2 separate parties making choices. The shooter chooses evil and uses violence to destroy, but the decision to come together in support and sympathy is not some natural consequence to such an event. The community had to choose to do so, and in doing so, they salvage a horrible situation. Their reaction to the situation could have been the opposite. They could board up their windows, stock up on M16's, rarely leave their houses and distrust everyone they meet from that day on, turning the town into a heartless and frightened place to live. I'm simply showing that evil is evil, and no amount of upsides should justify physical coercion in any form. But through the right decisions, we can turn lemons into lemonade.
http://www.whale.to/c/sinister_sites1.ht...
http://crooksandliars.com/richard-rj-esk...