Can ideas be, in and of themselves, evil?


Mike82ARP

Recommended Posts

You mean based on the "reality" of Ayn Rand's feelings? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Again, people who are committed and demonstrated Objectivists differ from Ayn Rand's assessment of fact and value on this issue in this context.

Jesus is a whole other problem. I grant that you have given it more thought based on more study than I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mike82ARP:

Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage. This type of “selfishness” I don’t think Rand would have supported. So in this case, lusting (i.e., not a quick admiring glance) is an evil on the basis of its content and not simply an philosophical error. This would apply whether Jesus preached it or not.

Mike,

The O'ist principle violated would be one's denial of reality, so breaching one's mind-body

unity - I personally think. But you're raising the emotional "evil" to a spouse and the marriage, above the philosophical "error".

That's cart before horse. As I've been pointing out, the first, initial and primary betrayal is of

one's reason and consciousness. In the absence of God, and the insignificance of society

judging him, the prime 'witness' that matters to a moral egoist - is himself.

Next would be the dishonesty and ensuing injustice to one's presumably beloved partner.

Whichever way that "lusting" man/woman resolves it, it better be damn quick - and fully consciously of all the likely consequences and likely loss of somebody highly valued.

Polyandry just may work - occasionally, and for a while - but one would have to be aware that what begins as a three-way relationship can as easily become a four-way (or why not, six-way?) one - once you've opened the door. You can't eat your cake and still have it - as Rand should have known best. The one time she was seriously irrational, indulging her romanticism (rationalistically) it lead to disaster all round. (My own conjectural psychologizing based on bits and pieces I've read of the affair - I've never been sufficiently interested to ferret out all the known facts.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean based on the "reality" of Ayn Rand's feelings? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Again, people who are committed and demonstrated Objectivists differ from Ayn Rand's assessment of fact and value on this issue in this context.

Jesus is a whole other problem. I grant that you have given it more thought based on more study than I have.

What I meant is that (in the context of my post on why lusting is not a good thing regardless of whether any action occurs) while Rand was able to rationalize her affair with Branden, she wasn’t so accommodating when Patrecia arrived on the scene. The latter is the reality of human emotion, the former is living in a fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage. This type of “selfishness” I don’t think Rand would have supported. So in this case, lusting (i.e., not a quick admiring glance) is an evil on the basis of its content and not simply an philosophical error. This would apply whether Jesus preached it or not.

The O'ist principle violated would be the contradiction of reality, breaching the mind-body

unity - I personally think. But you're raising the emotional "evil" above the philosophical "error".

That's cart before horse. As I've been pointing out, the first, initial and primary betrayal is of

oneself. In the absence of God, and the insignificance of society, judging him, the first witness that matters to a moral egoist is himself.

Next would be the dishonesty and ensuing injustice to one's presumably beloved partner.

Whichever way that man/woman resolves it, it better be damn quick - and fully consciously of all the likely consequences and likely loss of somebody highly valued.

Polyandry just may work - occasionally, and for a while - but one would have to be aware that what begins as a three-way relationship can as easily become a four-way (or why not, six-way) one - once you've opened the door. You can't eat your cake and still have it - as Rand should have known best. The one time she was seriously irrational, indulging her romanticism (rationalistically) it lead to disaster all round. (My own conjectural psychologizing based on bits and pieces I've read of the affair - and I've never been sufficiently interested to ferret out all the known facts.)

Some good points. You then wrote, "the first, initial and primary betrayal is of oneself. In the absence of God, and the insignificance of society, judging him, the first witness that matters to a moral egoist is himself.”

Maybe I’m not understanding this. If the moral egoist has no internal conflict with philandering and would not be betraying himself practicing such, then why should he be concerned with "the dishonesty and ensuing injustice to one's presumably beloved partner.”? Would then the philanderer be betraying himself, i.e., sacrificing his happiness, by remaining monogamous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't believe the rationally selfish person should be a monk, but he'd, she'd, better be totally aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it.

That's why I didn't bring into this on-the-sly philandering which is potentially harmful to all parties, yourself

the most.

Don't you agree we always create our own internal conflicts? Morally, in Objectivism, to do this is self -less.

As long as we're talking lust without love - which per se, I'm not against - to carry it into action at any cost

to a deep love, IS a sacrifice; a far higher value for a small one, and not conducive to long term happiness. But before that point even, one would be aware of one's own conflicting self-deception, manifesting itself as dishonesty and injustice - and guilt - to a spouse. (Which a loving woman worth her salt will pick up on inductively/emotionally, in my experience.)

What it boils down to is doing-whatever-proudly and honestly, or not at all, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideas are not evil. Guns are not evil. Horses are not evil. Storms are not evil. Only a volitional entity can be evil.

Strictly speaking, the idea of human sacrifice is not evil, but the people who practiced it were.

That said, though, how could you instantiate the idea, except to purpetrate an evil act? The idea is inherently evil because it cannot be put to moral purpose.

Or... it might be possible ... In The Fountainhead, Gail Wynand and Howard Roark take a vacation about the I Do. Reminiscing, Wyand marvels that no power on Earth could have made him start the engines and leave Roark swimming the ocean -- but he says parenthetically, "Oh, you could sacrifice one man to save a continent." So, maybe the idea of human sacrifice is not inherently evil, but only its actual practice must be evaluated.

Ayn Rand used an artistic trick which allows the reader to "read" person's mind. In reality any idea has to be expressed in some way . So long as person shut up about his ideas we cannot know them and judge, However when he expresses his ideas in public or in private he acts on them. In your approach anybody who openly supports terrorism is evil, but the idea of terrorism is not. What then makes such a supporter an evil person?

I don’t think terrorism is an appropriate example in reference to my question. I was thinking more of an error in thinking, a misinterpretation of an observation of flaw in reasoning.

Then you are talking about an error, lack of knowledge, not moral breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leonid, on 13 Mar 2013 - 14:12, said:
Mike82ARP, on 10 Mar 2013 - 17:37, said:
I was thinking more of an error in thinking, a misinterpretation of an observation of flaw in reasoning.
Then you are talking about an error, lack of knowledge, not moral breach.

Good catch! We all let that go by unaddressed. It is crucial to the discussion and changes many of the implications offered.

I see that Xray nailed it also, slipping in here...

“There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Rearden," Francisco said softly, "except one: the refusal to think.” Atlas Shrugged, Part II, Chapter 2, "The Aristocracy of Pull."

If someone wants to make another case, then have at it. Just because Ayn Rand said something does not make it "Objectivism." Her views on a woman President should alert us all to that. Moreover, Rand, through Francisco d'Anconia was given to paradox and whimsy. "I never deny anything."

The refusal to think is not a thought, of course. This was a paradoxical statement. I believe (short of proof) that Nathaniel Branden had already explained psychological suppression and repression to Ayn Rand. The choice not to think begins as suppression - Scarlett O'Hara's "I'll think about it tomorrow." Repetition become habitual leading to blank-outs and evasions.

From Galt's speech:

"Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality-not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute."

I am starting a different thread on polyamory. whYNOT and Mike82ARP are both wide of the mark on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike 82ARP asked:

"Can ideas be in and of themselves be evil?"

Ideas only exist within a context. Labeling an idea as 'evil in and of itself' I would connote with 'intricisism'.

Bingo!!!

Thanks whYNOT, Leonid, Michael and for the comments. They have been helpful.

XRay. I think this resolved my initial question and I should have picked up on it myself. Especially since I am currently reading Kelley’s, Truth and Toleration in which he critiques intrinsicism at some length. D’oh!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that the "choice to think" means purposely engaging the rational faculty.

Rand was a bit ambivalent on the fact that the rational faculty kicks in--up to a point--whether you want it to or not. It does not work very competently at that level, but it does work somewhat.

I'm inclined to agree that when an issue demands engagement and you purposefully avoid it, opting instead to turn your mind off, that is evil--especially if you have some kind of authority over others.

You end up giving control of the issue over to chance or the minds of others that are turned on--on purpose.

It's possible, though, for people to honestly think something through and disagree, and I do not find that evil. Honest minds can, and do, change their minds over time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

The act is evil. Before the act exists the person, but no evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

That conveniently avoids the greatest evils known: What was the "intent" of the Inquisition, Hitler, or Stalin?

To "Do Good".

As with many do-gooders, somebody else will have to pay.

Evil begins at home, in the irrationality of people's minds. As long as it stays there - without

powerful or popular support - the rest of us may escape it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

That conveniently avoids the greatest evils known: What was the "intent" of the Inquisition, Hitler, or Stalin?

To "Do Good".

As with all do-gooders, somebody pays.

Evil begins at home, in the irrationality of people's minds. As long as it stays there - without

powerful or popular support - the rest of us may escape it.

I can safely say that I know what the intentions of Hitler, Stalin, and the Inquisitors were. The intent to pull someone's organs in front of their eyes or pack people into box cars to be sent away to a camp (either gulag or concentration camp) are not good ones. They weren't stupid people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Samson,

Open any dictionary and you will find that almost every word has more than one meaning. This applies to your question.

Leaving the dictionary aside, but keeping the idea that a word can have two related meanings (at the minimum), let's look at a couple of differences between an act and a person.

An act is singular and occurs at a single point of time or a single duration.

A person commits many acts over life and has a much longer time frame than a single act.

This means that we can judge an act as a whole as good or evil, depending on the standard we use. (Moreover, not all acts are all good or all evil, but some are.)

When we call a person good or evil, the meaning of evil (or good) is not so all-encompassing. We generally mean that an evil person chooses to perform some, or many, acts whose vileness outweighs the good of his or her other acts. Also, by this meaning of evil, we implicitly refer to the time period when he or she is making such choices. We rarely mean the evil person was evil as an infant, for example.

Notice, also, that this evil can be reversed. In other words, if an evil person has a change of heart, feels remorse, repents, tries to make amends for the results of his or her evil acts, and starts doing good things, we no longer call that person evil.

However, an evil act is evil by its nature and there is no way for it to redeem itself. It has happened and its results have been set in motion. There's no way to make it un-happen or re-happen in a different manner.

In O-Land, you sometimes find finger-pointers who call people evil and they mean the term in the same way they use it for an act. They do not have a second meaning for evil. In other words, an evil person to them deserves condemnation only and there is no place for moral redemption. Once you are evil to them, there's no way to undo it. You always will be evil.

Sometimes these folks give lip service to the possibility of redemption since they believe it is rational to leave it on the table. But in practice, I have yet to see them absolve a person they once called evil. In fact, read O-Land discussions of forgiveness. You will find some people arguing that forgiveness is a sin in practically all contexts and cases because it is a form of negating justice.

These people have no heart, or at best, have a feeble heartbeat due to their hardening of the categories. :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Samson,

Open any dictionary and you will find that almost every word has more than one meaning. This applies to your question.

Leaving the dictionary aside, but keeping the idea that a word can have two related meanings (at the minimum), let's look at a couple of differences between an act and a person.

An act is singular and occurs at a single point of time or a single duration.

A person commits many acts over life and has a much longer time frame than a single act.

This means that we can judge an act as a whole as good or evil, depending on the standard we use. (Moreover, not all acts are all good or all evil, but some are.)

When we call a person good or evil, the meaning of evil (or good) is not so all-encompassing. We generally mean that an evil person chooses to perform some, or many, acts whose vileness outweighs the good of his or her other acts. Also, by this meaning of evil, we implicitly refer to the time period when he or she is making such choices. We rarely mean the evil person was evil as an infant, for example.

Notice, also, that this evil can be reversed. In other words, if an evil person has a change of heart, feels remorse, repents, tries to make amends for the results of his or her evil acts, and starts doing good things, we no longer call that person evil.

However, an evil act is evil by its nature and there is no way for it to redeem itself. It has happened and its results have been set in motion. There's no way to make it un-happen or re-happen in a different manner.

In O-Land, you sometimes find finger-pointers who call people evil and they mean the term in the same way they use it for an act. They do not have a second meaning for evil. In other words, an evil person to them deserves condemnation only and there is no place for moral redemption. Once you are evil to them, there's no way to undo it. You always will be evil.

Sometimes these folks give lip service to the possibility of redemption since they believe it is rational to leave it on the table. But in practice, I have yet to see them absolve a person they once called evil. In fact, read O-Land discussions of forgiveness. You will find some people arguing that forgiveness is a sin in practically all contexts and cases because it is a form of negating justice.

These people have no heart, or at best, have a feeble heartbeat due to their hardening of the categories. :smile:

Michael

Admittedly, I made that post because it was an interesting question that I thought would induce more discussion. It's like one of those short, profound statements that are meant to make people think about something they've not considered. So, in the context of this thread, there is discussion about whether ideas can be evil and the connection to the entity doing the thinking of that idea. That question was a physical analog wherein the act is to the actor as the idea is to the thinker.

The attribute denoted by the word "evil", when it is being applied to a person, is assigned after taking in information about the person and what they've done and called for. Hitler was an evil person. Maybe a little syphilitic, but a despicable bastard, nonetheless. He's beyond redemption. The slaughter of millions of people by the Nazis is an evil set of actions. The act is an object that I am statically referencing. When everything is fixed, all its properties become fixed as well. A person is a dynamic object and can change, just like you said, be it through remorse, a psychological change, and so on.

Unless, of course, we want to bring Plato into the picture, then a person can be evil itself (see Darkseid). But this part is just fictional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

That conveniently avoids the greatest evils known: What was the "intent" of the Inquisition, Hitler, or Stalin?

To "Do Good".

As with all do-gooders, somebody pays.

Evil begins at home, in the irrationality of people's minds. As long as it stays there - without

powerful or popular support - the rest of us may escape it.

I can safely say that I know what the intentions of Hitler, Stalin, and the Inquisitors were. The intent to pull someone's organs in front of their eyes or pack people into box cars to be sent away to a camp (either gulag or concentration camp) are not good ones. They weren't stupid people.

You might be putting effect ahead of cause. An irrational, antilife idea becomes evil as soon as it's put

into motion. Every small or big human atrocity thereafter, is a logical consequence, referring back to that idea and drawing its identity from it - I think.

The initial "intent" of those perpetrators of evil was the 'good' of the Fatherland, the Motherland - the

People - or the glory of God. Floating abstractions (to them) in which individuals are mere abstractions, too.

All obviously based upon insane metaphysical premises of the nature of men, and the identity of the good, but it does not detract from the evil of those men, passionate about 'doing good'.

Intelligence is not at all significant to this, reality and rationality was. If only one person has to lose his life to achieve the 'common good', the least intelligent, least educated - but rational - person will know to call it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

That conveniently avoids the greatest evils known: What was the "intent" of the Inquisition, Hitler, or Stalin?

To "Do Good".

As with all do-gooders, somebody pays.

Evil begins at home, in the irrationality of people's minds. As long as it stays there - without

powerful or popular support - the rest of us may escape it.

I can safely say that I know what the intentions of Hitler, Stalin, and the Inquisitors were. The intent to pull someone's organs in front of their eyes or pack people into box cars to be sent away to a camp (either gulag or concentration camp) are not good ones. They weren't stupid people.
You might be putting effect ahead of cause. An irrational, antilife idea becomes evil as soon as it's put

into motion. Every small or big human atrocity thereafter, is a logical consequence, referring back to that idea and drawing its identity from it - I think.

The initial "intent" of those perpetrators of evil was the 'good' of the Fatherland, the Motherland - the

People - or the glory of God. Floating abstractions (to them) in which individuals are mere abstractions, too.

All obviously based upon insane metaphysical premises of the nature of men, and the identity of the good, but it does not detract from the evil of those men, passionate about 'doing good'.

Intelligence is not at all significant to this, reality and rationality was. If only one person has to lose his life to achieve the 'common good', the least intelligent, least educated - but rational - person will know to call it wrong.

You're overthinking it. It is harder to apply your description in other situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless, of course, we want to bring Plato into the picture, then a person can be evil itself (see Darkseid). But this part is just fictional.

Samson,

I'm totally out of the loop on comic books. I had to look up Darkseid to find out he was a comic book villain. I looked him up because I thought, from the way you phrased it, you were referencing a Plato scholar I had never heard of or something. :smile:

Back to substance. Basically, a belief that someone can be--or become--irredeemably evil is the same thing as believing in Satan, .i.e. there is a force or form in nature that can transform living beings into its image, or that living beings can become transformed into its image through outside means, and that once a living being is transformed into such image, it cannot return.

An afterlife of Hell is merely gravy and not essential to this concept.

I don't believe in this form, so I believe even Hitler--theoretically--could have changed from an evil person into a good one. Albeit, if he did, guilt feelings would have been his existence. There's no way for one man to atone for the amount of evil he did and got others to do. That's a lot of guilt to carry.

Also, I realize that age is an organic factor and, depending on the activity or mental habit, a person can become too old to change certain things after a while. So I acknowledge that a person committed to doing evil will have a harder time snapping out of it as he or she gets older. There's probably a point of no return, but this is not because of the efficacy of the "evil force," but more because of age and habit.

But a Hitler redemption would be the ultimate test of how far forgiveness and self-forgiveness can go.

interestingly enough, there is an account of something like this in Christian literature, with the major difference being scale. The result was pure true-believer material. Saul, a brutal killer in the name of the state, turned into Paul, the greatest of all preachers for Jesus--so much so that the vast majority of the New Testement is made up of his letters.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

That conveniently avoids the greatest evils known: What was the "intent" of the Inquisition, Hitler, or Stalin?

To "Do Good".

As with all do-gooders, somebody pays.

Evil begins at home, in the irrationality of people's minds. As long as it stays there - without

powerful or popular support - the rest of us may escape it.

I can safely say that I know what the intentions of Hitler, Stalin, and the Inquisitors were. The intent to pull someone's organs in front of their eyes or pack people into box cars to be sent away to a camp (either gulag or concentration camp) are not good ones. They weren't stupid people.
You might be putting effect ahead of cause. An irrational, antilife idea becomes evil as soon as it's put

into motion. Every small or big human atrocity thereafter, is a logical consequence, referring back to that idea and drawing its identity from it - I think.

The initial "intent" of those perpetrators of evil was the 'good' of the Fatherland, the Motherland - the

People - or the glory of God. Floating abstractions (to them) in which individuals are mere abstractions, too.

All obviously based upon insane metaphysical premises of the nature of men, and the identity of the good, but it does not detract from the evil of those men, passionate about 'doing good'.

Intelligence is not at all significant to this, reality and rationality was. If only one person has to lose his life to achieve the 'common good', the least intelligent, least educated - but rational - person will know to call it wrong.

You're overthinking it. It is harder to apply your description in other situations.

Right, let's hear them, then. Apart from instances of evil for financial gain, you might find the worst

has been from the self-righteous who have a plan for men...

"Overthinking"? hah! Is that based on your experience? To underestimate by 'under-thinking' the roots of evil will be to pardon or appease it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the act or the person committing the act evil? Or is it both?

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it.

If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act.

But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

That conveniently avoids the greatest evils known: What was the "intent" of the Inquisition, Hitler, or Stalin?

To "Do Good".

As with all do-gooders, somebody pays.

Evil begins at home, in the irrationality of people's minds. As long as it stays there - without

powerful or popular support - the rest of us may escape it.

I can safely say that I know what the intentions of Hitler, Stalin, and the Inquisitors were. The intent to pull someone's organs in front of their eyes or pack people into box cars to be sent away to a camp (either gulag or concentration camp) are not good ones. They weren't stupid people.
You might be putting effect ahead of cause. An irrational, antilife idea becomes evil as soon as it's put

into motion. Every small or big human atrocity thereafter, is a logical consequence, referring back to that idea and drawing its identity from it - I think.

The initial "intent" of those perpetrators of evil was the 'good' of the Fatherland, the Motherland - the

People - or the glory of God. Floating abstractions (to them) in which individuals are mere abstractions, too.

All obviously based upon insane metaphysical premises of the nature of men, and the identity of the good, but it does not detract from the evil of those men, passionate about 'doing good'.

Intelligence is not at all significant to this, reality and rationality was. If only one person has to lose his life to achieve the 'common good', the least intelligent, least educated - but rational - person will know to call it wrong.

You're overthinking it. It is harder to apply your description in other situations.

Right, let's hear them, then. Apart from instances of evil for financial gain, you might find the worst

has been from the self-righteous who have a plan for men...

"Overthinking"? hah! Is that based on your experience? To underestimate by 'under-thinking' the roots of evil will be to pardon or appease it.

No, whYNOT. I am saying the goal is already clear in their minds. The goal is what they wanted. I'm breaking it up into two categories: good people who may be trying to help, but go about their activities in wrong way without realizing and evil people who want to do evil things.

Sometimes my friends have told that I am overthinking something. Then I realized that they didn't mean I was thinking too much in the strictest sense of the word. Rather, I was looking at it in a way that complicated the subject to the point that I was actually thinking about a different thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "good" person who realises his innocent errors, will back off quickly before too much harm is done, and try to make amends. If he continues with the harmful acts, he is simply not a good person. Being temporarily innocent of knowledge, of the consequences - at the time -is never a permanent excuse to repeat the error and never learn better. Ignorance repeated, becomes a breach of morality.

As I've argued, by their actions we know them: evil is, as evil does.( Dividing into categories is complicated, I believe this is the most concise and simplest approach to a complex subject.)

But first there has to be objective identification of what IS evil.

"Man has to be man - by choice; he has to hold his life as a value - by choice; he has to learn to sustain it - by choice..."

"The standard by which one judges what is good or evil - is man's life."

[AR]

So whatever interferes with his choice, is against the man's life. Anti-life (anti-freedom etc.) is evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "good" person who realises his innocent errors, will back off quickly before too much harm is done, and try to make amends. If he continues with the harmful acts, he is simply not a good person. Being temporarily innocent of knowledge, of the consequences - at the time -is never a permanent excuse to repeat the error and never learn better. Ignorance repeated, becomes a breach of morality.

As I've argued, by their actions we know them: evil is, as evil does.( Dividing into categories is complicated, I believe this is the most concise and simplest approach to a complex subject.)

But first there has to be objective identification of what IS evil.

"Man has to be man - by choice; he has to learn to sustain it - by choice..."

"The standard by which one judges what is good or evil - is man's life."

[AR]

So whatever interferes with his choice, is against the man's life. Anti-life is evil.

The meaning of what I was trying to say has been derailed in the transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you make what I think is a metaphysical error - that a man can be inherently evil.

(Or, inherently good.)

Before he acts upon it. ["...evil people who want to do evil things."#47]

Which is the fallacy of 'mystical intrinsicism'.

I repeatedly have made the point that one may be irrational, and immoral, within oneself -

BUT evil requires action. You don't agree, it seems.

There's always choice. Doing evil or doing good is not a single choice, made in one day - it's many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now