Evil Needs Permission...?

[anthony]

(Some were talking of this, I think it deserves its own thread once more).

"Sanction of the victim" - or, the full consent, acceptance and aid given to his 'martyrs' by the one being 'martyred' - I think ought to be seen as a sub-category, although critical, of the concept of the "sanction of evil". "Evil", in general, is not to be just abstractified, or concretized in historical persons (Hitler, et al...), it can be anticipated in its false doctrines and then directly known in reality we see. It requires human beings: to think of, obey, initiate and enact. Evil then depends on its active participants and on those who passively do not speak out, first against the ideology, failing which, against the acts which follow.

"...for good men to do nothing" - perhaps best articulates this.

But one can't speak of evil outside of the concept, 'objective value', and value not outside of 'sacrifice'. Something and someone (of value) is evidently always sacrificed when evil is done. Then, good people and ideas are tamely surrendered to bad or worse ones; freedom, to controls; expression of minds, to popular opinions/restrictions; a minority group/individual to a majority; independent judgment over-ruled by a mass judgment; humanity to brutality.

For most all 'sacrificers' it seems there exists by necessity an abetting 'self-sacrificer' with a superior morality. Excepting where and when he has completely no choice in the matter, and is under total coercion, such a man gives tacit or willing permission to his sacrificers, so aids their cause with his mind and its products, his complicity, even his statements, and his virtuous reputation. He may be for a little while partially and innocently ignorant, under the impression it is his - and all men's duty - to serve others and the 'greater good'. But not for long. If he doesn't recognise soon that he is debasing his highest value, his mind and virtue, to evil ends (and so lending his previous moral stature to the repression of many other people too) his is the biggest abnegation and fault, because he "knew better". 

[KorbenDallas]

I think a lot of this depends on the person doing evil would accept guilt or blame--and most of the time they don't, and won't, and likely don't give a damn about right or wrong.  So "...for good men to do nothing" now becomes impotent, evil becomes potent.  Rand likes to say doing evil causes psycho-epistemological issues in the person, that this isn't a recognition of reality, A is A, seeking effects without causes, or whatever jargon she wants to use to try to say men are inherently good and doing evil will get to them eventually.  I haven't seen this in real life, many men carry out long lives doing evil, and many men are inherently evil.

[SteveWolfer]

39 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Rand likes to say doing evil causes psycho-epistemological issues in the person, that this isn't a recognition of reality, A is A, seeking effects without causes, or whatever jargon she wants to use to try to say men are inherently good and doing evil will get to them eventually.

There are two points here. 

One is that doing evil will get to the person who is doing it... eventually.  It doesn't have to weigh the person down with guilt or shame till they collapse, because people can keep generating defensive actions - emotional repression and projection for example.  What cannot be escaped is the inevitable loss of self-esteem and a loss of personal power from the practice of defensiveness.  But if someone thinks that this so well balanced out that evil will be automatically curtailed, or left powerless, because of the psychological negative effects they would be wrong.

The second point is about Rand's evaluation of evil - not its psychological after-effects, but rather its place in mans life.  This is more of a metaphysical approach.  Good is reason and productivity - they have a real power to benefit man, to help man flourish.  Evil is deception, destruction and theft.  Those are impotent in terms of the benefit of man.  As moral systems, as sets of practical behaviors, we can see that only those acts that are rational and productive are going to be efficacious for man, qua man.
-------------

I don't think man is good or evil by nature but he has a nature that if followed leads to good.  By this I mean, man's nature has the capacity to exercise reason in an individual,l productive drive.  It requires going against reason to blank out, but that is a choice that's available.   Having choice, any individual can choose to act in evil ways. 

[KorbenDallas]

7 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

One is that doing evil will get to the person who is doing it... eventually.  It doesn't have to weigh the person down with guilt or shame till they collapse, because people can keep generating defensive actions - emotional repression and projection for example.  What cannot be escaped is the inevitable loss of self-esteem and a loss of personal power from the practice of defensiveness.

Steve I want to disagree with you and not disagree with you.  It seems to me there will always be victims and also too much societal reinforcement for these evil people to have compunction when so many of their defense values are being seen right around them, supported.
 

7 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

The second point is about Rand's evaluation of evil - not its psychological after-effects, but rather its place in mans life.  This is more of a metaphysical approach.  Good is reason and productivity - they have a real power to benefit man, to help man flourish.  Evil is deception, destruction and theft.  Those are impotent in terms of the benefit of man.  As moral systems, as sets of practical behaviors, we can see that only those acts that are rational and productive are going to be efficacious for man, qua man.

Evil being impotent/potent for how long?  Up until the person can get away?  There are a lot of people suffering right now because they can't get away from their work or spouse.

I'm not a malevolent universer, but I have a hard time reconciling the sanctioning of the victim, NIOF, and the impotency of evil.

[SteveWolfer]

13 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

But impotent for how long?  Up until the person can get away from evil?  There are a lot of people suffering right now because they can't get away from their work or spouse.

I'm not a malevolent universer, but I have a hard time reconciling the sanctioning of the victim, NIOF, and the impotency of evil.

I'm trying to explain my understanding of how Rand was referring to evil as impotent.  If I understand her correctly, it isn't a case of "impotent for how long" because she is saying that evil cannot create or produce - ever.  She seems to be talking about evil as a generalization of all evil - a kind of summation of its nature.... quite apart from a given concrete evil act, or specific evil person.  I'm not doing well with my explanation.  Try this... What is common to all evil (acts or people) - what are the properties to be found in all such acts or people?  I think that is where Rand is dwelling intellectually when she is talking about evil being impotent.  It may be a kind of obscure metaphysical approach that doesn't seem to have much import, but taken in and internalized it seems to have a powerful effect on ones psychology and sense of life.

Getting away from evil would always be more specific and more concrete.  One would try to leave a bad neighborhood, or find a better job, or leave a destructive relationship.  That's because we are talking about an evil that is located in the neighborhood, or job, or spouse.  But when you are talking about what is the nature of evil, that's different.  The nature of evil is that it can't produce and that a person can't become evil without so choosing (i.e., choosing to blank out the fact that they are making a lot of bad choices)

I can't fully reconcile the impotency of evil with the sanction of the victim in this sense.  If a mugger comes up behind me, hits me over the head, and takes my money and it happens in a good neighborhood and there is no way I could have predicted this, then I gave no sanction ahead of time.  And I assure you I would not sanction afterwards either.  And the evil act was impotent to produce or to support the flourishing of man... but it was not impotent to crack me on the head and take my money.  So, I think that's an area that needs more examination.  I'm not clear on where NIOF fits (or doesn't fit) in this attempt to reconcile things.

[Wolf DeVoon]

55 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I can't fully reconcile the impotency of evil with the sanction of the victim in this sense.  If a mugger comes up behind me, hits me over the head, and takes my money and it happens in a good neighborhood and there is no way I could have predicted this, then I gave no sanction ahead of time.

I like these conversations. I'm sorry to demure. If you get mugged from behind, there's something wrong with your situational awareness. All muggings at gunpoint in the Fairfax district of Los Angeles (a nice neighborhood) happen because the visiting bad guys get paid better by sticking up soft white chumps who aren't paying attention to who else is walking on the street. Okay, that's anecdotal, but valid. All concealed carry training emphasizes situational awareness, do everything possible to avoid a gun fight, because gun fights are never easy or painless or without substantial legal liability and risk of being outgunned by the bad guys. A cop in Kansas City was assassinated earlier today, never made it out of his car. Homies be shooting. It is irrational to lose situational awareness in "nice neighborhoods."

[anthony]

The metaphysical approach is right I think. Before filling in the specifics. The central principle of evil always existent is - sacrifice, helped along by self-sacrifice by some. It requires humans as perpetrators - and victims - but withdrawing one's sanction, naming it and opposing it, takes away the oxygen evil needs to survive. There's an "evil" seen even today as something mystical, maybe a 'substance' which descends on people? and isn't as uncommon as I'd think; the other perception is a form of evasion, as in 'Hitler was evil but wasn't he a psychopath?' In this is apparent the political Left's assertion: evil is caused by 'circumstances'. Both versions deny that to be evil is 'a choice' made to be less than 'man'. (I assume Steve is jesting about not granting his sanction to a mugging).

[SteveWolfer]

23 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

If you get mugged from behind, there's something wrong with your situational awareness.

That was just an example.  I could change the example till it was ludicrous to lay blame on the victim.  Were the cops in Dallas at fault?  Those who were shot from ambush, from up high?  Were the people in the World Trade Center on 9/11 failing in situational awareness, or giving sanction?  I don't think so.

I was trying to say two things: That in specific cases, it might no make any sense to say that the evil act was impotent - not in the sense of being able to cause harm.  The second thing I was trying to say was that there are evil acts that can occur without a sanction by the victim of the act.

[SteveWolfer]

28 minutes ago, anthony said:

The central principle of evil always existent is - sacrifice, helped along by self-sacrifice by some.

I'm not sure I follow you on that.  My understanding is that sacrifice is a moral claim.  It has the form of an individual exchanging a greater value for a lesser value, or for nothing.  But the form has to be held as a moral duty - that the sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice, is a moral act.  That we are morally required to engage in sacrifice.  A person can choose to engage in sacrifice all on his own.  Or a person can end up as the sacrificial victim, perhaps with government initiating the act.  

If one person refuses to sanction a sacrifice, they are, as much as possible, refusing to play the part of the victim.  And if this becomes the moral and political stance of enough people, THAT would take the oxygen away that this evil needs.  And there are times where one individual can refuse to go along with a requested sacrifice - like being brow-beaten into some kind of voluntary community service, and by refusing to sanction that call for sacrifice he will have taken away much of its power (all of its power over him).  But notice that in both cases, the refusal of a lot of citizens to go along with a government scheme, and the refusal of the individual and the call for him to serve others, both achieve success by an intermediary.  The mechanism of a majority vote, or by electing agreeable representatives, or intimidating the politicians.  The withdrawing of the victims sanction did not automatically stop the sacrifice - there had to be an intervening political act.  And the individual would succeed due to an intervening psychology or social convention or intimidation.

When victims do not grant a sanction they do grow stronger and those would like to take advantage of them will find it harder, but it isn't a magic bullet that stops evil.  That was the point I wanted to make.

46 minutes ago, anthony said:

There's an "evil" seen even today as something mystical, maybe a 'substance' which descends on people? and isn't as uncommon as I'd think; the other perception is a form of evasion, as in 'Hitler was evil but wasn't he a psychopath?' In this is apparent the political Left's assertion: evil is caused by 'circumstances'. Both versions deny that to be evil is 'a choice' made to be less than 'man'. (I assume Steve is jesting about not granting his sanction to a mugging).

I see the word 'evil' as a descriptor of kinds of acts and of people who persist in evil acts.  Never mystical.  There might be evasion, or there may be deception, and to be evil there is always choice and never is it the product of 'circumstances'

I don't know what you mean by me not granting my sanction to a mugging... I was saying I would never condone or explain  away an evil act like a mugging.

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

46 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Were the cops in Dallas at fault?  Those who were shot from ambush, from up high?

Were the people in the World Trade Center on 9/11 failing in situational awareness, or giving sanction?  I don't think so.

Always intriguing questions. Put some context around Dallas. Open carry, armed protestors shouting angry accusations at cops. Black police chief driving the force to be cool, be groovy, make nice to people. Zero situational awareness. No undercover intelligence or police snipers prepositioned in case of emergency. Took three hours to kill the shooter. Obviously ill-prepared to deal with an attack on white cops at a Black Lives Matter march. Far less justification for any white cop anywhere to assume we're all in this together. Does no one in law enforcement monitor social media? The shooter posted plenty of threats.

WRT to the World Trade Center, the NY boss of Cantor Fitzgerald (hijackers' prime target) was out of the office when the planes struck, a little personal errand. There is more to this than we are disposed to assume. The FBI were aware of 9/11 pilot training and suspicious Saudi activities in Los Angeles.

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'm trying to explain my understanding of how Rand was referring to evil as impotent.  If I understand her correctly, it isn't a case of "impotent for how long" because she is saying that evil cannot create or produce - ever.  She seems to be talking about evil as a generalization of all evil - a kind of summation of its nature.... quite apart from a given concrete evil act, or specific evil person.  I'm not doing well with my explanation.  Try this... What is common to all evil (acts or people) - what are the properties to be found in all such acts or people?  I think that is where Rand is dwelling intellectually when she is talking about evil being impotent.  It may be a kind of obscure metaphysical approach that doesn't seem to have much import, but taken in and internalized it seems to have a powerful effect on ones psychology and sense of life.

Saying evil is impotent is almost a contradiction in terms, evil isn't impotent when it's in the act of doing evil.  So it's almost like saying, "evil is impotent.. until the next one."  Which means, evil really isn't impotent at all.  But I do like the psychological and sense of life aspects it provides, but...

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Getting away from evil would always be more specific and more concrete.  One would try to leave a bad neighborhood, or find a better job, or leave a destructive relationship.  That's because we are talking about an evil that is located in the neighborhood, or job, or spouse.  But when you are talking about what is the nature of evil, that's different.  The nature of evil is that it can't produce and that a person can't become evil without so choosing (i.e., choosing to blank out the fact that they are making a lot of bad choices)

...even if you get away evil seeks out people of virtue or value, so it can happen again, and likely will.  I think of evil and deception going hand-in-hand, so even if evil can't produce value it might be a while before it begins to reveal itself or unmask, while there isn't any victim sanctioning going on.  Detecting deception isn't always possible when it's presenting itself as value.

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I can't fully reconcile the impotency of evil with the sanction of the victim in this sense.  If a mugger comes up behind me, hits me over the head, and takes my money and it happens in a good neighborhood and there is no way I could have predicted this, then I gave no sanction ahead of time.  And I assure you I would not sanction afterwards either.  And the evil act was impotent to produce or to support the flourishing of man... but it was not impotent to crack me on the head and take my money.  So, I think that's an area that needs more examination.  I'm not clear on where NIOF fits (or doesn't fit) in this attempt to reconcile things.

With NIOF I need to add that I consider psychological aggression toward another as a kind of force--seeking to stop my mind thinking about what I need to think about, to think about somebody else, when it's not my will or purpose to do so and their intent to unfocus my mind to theirs.  So I mentioned NIOF because evil doesn't recognize it, and it seems to be used in some Oist contexts that evil might, or ever would.  NIOF to me is conceptually near the impotence of evil and the not sanctioning of evil.  For the impotence of evil, NIOF is somehow supposed to protect people after getting away from it.  For not sanctioning evil, it's really just pointing a finger at the bad guy saying "you're bad" and expecting him to NIOF--having a sense of justice normally just pisses these people off, and evil still not impotent.

[SteveWolfer]

29 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

There is more to this than we are disposed to assume.

Wolf, are you disposed to conspiracy theories where all the people working in the World Trade Center should have been in on the theories?  Honestly, don't you think that is stretching things?

[SteveWolfer]

33 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

For not sanctioning evil, it's really just pointing a finger at the bad guy saying "you're bad" and expecting him to NIOF--having a sense of justice normally just pisses these people off, and evil still not impotent.

NIOF has to be seen as a derivative of individual rights... and they are moral principles.  To be effective in the prevention of initiated force, moral principles, need to be fully accepted by all - and that isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future - so we need to cast those principles as law and enforce them.

In that context, a pacifist or dishonest politician could point a finger and talk about a murderer being bad, but if it isn't cast as a law, then enforced, it isn't much of a sanction.  Way better than no sanction, but sanction can't exist alone as the means of stopping evil.

38 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

With NIOF I need to add that I consider psychological aggression toward another as a kind of force

I think we have to have a boundary where what is in our mind, is ours, and someone yelling at us, or being extremely aggressive in their argument is still, however unpleasant, them staying on their side of the boundary.  There are other cultures where they are far more forceful and aggressive in their arguments than we are here in the US - what happens is the children learn to be far stronger in resisting psychological aggressiveness.  I've also seen cultures where they are tripped up by considering psychological aggressiveness that we'd see as normal as wrong - and it hamstrings them.

Political correctness is an attempt to institute thought and speech control by making selected forms of "psychological aggression" unacceptable.

Only if someone threatens the initiation of physical force has my will become impossible to follow.  No matter how bad it gets, as long they don't use physical force, I can just walk away.

Besides, if you don't keep the concept of 'force' separate from anything that is psychological you no longer have a definition of force - psychological aggressiveness is too subjective and anything goes.

[KorbenDallas]

I think there needs to be more done in the area of victims of psychological abuse, aggressors intentionally seeking to cause psychosomatic--physical effects----harm----through psychological means.  This is ad baculum without the club.  Cases are now being won in court, some bogus some legit.  Most of the time in these cases walking away isn't an option, and during those times evil is not impotent.  My attempt at saying psychological aggression toward another is a kind of force is my attempt at backing this up to its outer perimeter, if an aggressor can be shown to intentionally seek and cause psychological duress in their target, then that person is evil.  I bring psychological aggression into force (a kind of force) because otherwise, Objectivism blames the victim for it.  The right being violated is Liberty--Liberty of mind, volition, freedom of consciousness.

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Wolf, are you disposed to conspiracy theories...?

That's not what I said, nor implied.

[SteveWolfer]

3 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

WRT to the World Trade Center, the NY boss of Cantor Fitzgerald (hijackers' prime target) was out of the office when the planes struck, a little personal errand. There is more to this than we are disposed to assume. The FBI were aware of 9/11 pilot training and suspicious Saudi activities in Los Angeles.

Then I somehow misunderstood your comment about the world trade center.  Doesn't it read the way a conspiracy would be implied?

[Brant Gaede]

The impotence of evil theme in Objectivism is quite abstract and removed from the philosophy as such. This is ironic for it's what Rand hung so much on, at least in her art. Of course her art is ad admixture of her ideas and esthetics. Hand in hand with the impotence of evil--the same coin just the obverse side--is the sanction of the victim, which is much less abstract but quite unwieldy. I'd think of the first as almost a blank and the second as engraved but the engraving keeps changing depending on what is being particularly being discussed.

--Brant

[anthony]

12 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

I'm not sure I follow you on that.  My understanding is that sacrifice is a moral claim.  It has the form of an individual exchanging a greater value for a lesser value, or for nothing.  But the form has to be held as a moral duty - that the sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice, is a moral act.  That we are morally required to engage in sacrifice.  A person can choose to engage in sacrifice all on his own.  Or a person can end up as the sacrificial victim, perhaps with government initiating the act.  

If one person refuses to sanction a sacrifice, they are, as much as possible, refusing to play the part of the victim.  And if this becomes the moral and political stance of enough people, THAT would take the oxygen away that this evil needs.  And there are times where one individual can refuse to go along with a requested sacrifice - like being brow-beaten into some kind of voluntary community service, and by refusing to sanction that call for sacrifice he will have taken away much of its power (all of its power over him).  But notice that in both cases, the refusal of a lot of citizens to go along with a government scheme, and the refusal of the individual and the call for him to serve others, both achieve success by an intermediary.  The mechanism of a majority vote, or by electing agreeable representatives, or intimidating the politicians.  The withdrawing of the victims sanction did not automatically stop the sacrifice - there had to be an intervening political act.  And the individual would succeed due to an intervening psychology or social convention or intimidation.

When victims do not grant a sanction they do grow stronger and those would like to take advantage of them will find it harder, but it isn't a magic bullet that stops evil.  That was the point I wanted to make.

I see the word 'evil' as a descriptor of kinds of acts and of people who persist in evil acts.  Never mystical.  There might be evasion, or there may be deception, and to be evil there is always choice and never is it the product of 'circumstances'

I don't know what you mean by me not granting my sanction to a mugging... I was saying I would never condone or explain  away an evil act like a mugging.

 

Yes I see that my little distinction between "sacrifice" and "self-sacrifice" may be confusing. Its only to be clear about the roles of the two parties, I use it. In the way Rand discerned the relationship - and interdependence - between taker and giver. It is a symbiotic relationship, a vicious circle, and is at the heart of any evil, I think. Specially in one handing over one's 'power', to those who want authoritarian power.

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings...The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master". (The Soul of a Collectivist, FNI)

That causality here is just one way, from willing "self"-sacrifice to those collecting on such sacrifice. Self-sacrificer->sacrificer. It is as often the other way, when existing force of some kind (social and psychological, as well as political) imposes or demands the (unwilling) sacrifice from one. Both courses however, exactly lead to one point, sacrifice of one's values (spiritual, material) ultimately one's independent mind, freedom and life.

Yes. An innocent victim isn't the sanctioner of his forced fate - unless he supports the evil some way. To "sanction" your mugging, would be to apologize to the mugger for his trouble, offer to take him to an ATM to hand him more money - and if he's arrested, rise to his defence by stating that you forgive him, he didn't mean it, and he came from an under-privileged upbringing so should be excused.

[KorbenDallas]

anthony, I use the trader principle quite a bit--in fact it's automatized into my thinking.  It helps judge value/disvalue, what's equitable or inequitable, right and wrong.  It also helps with deceit, because rarely does it present itself so clearly.  I see what you're saying about value/sacrifice, but I wanted to mention the trader principle as well..

[william.scherk]

13 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I think there needs to be more done in the area of victims of psychological abuse, aggressors intentionally seeking to cause psychosomatic--physical effects----harm----through psychological means.

This makes me think of the American cable channel's listings:  My Evul [X/Neighbour] and such.  Implied threat of many kinds can cause mental distress, and with escalation, threats move to the cusp of criminal assault. It seems that elements of coercion can lurk in many situations of power or tutelage or mere propinquity. In my mind this is where intent to 'force behaviour' can harm. When motives to hobble, repress, direct, control and even abuse are evident, and where sadism or crypto-slavery or 'mental captivity' come into the picture, this where a mentalized 'assault' can edge over into criminal abuse, harassment and worse. 

Sadism,  verbal cruelty, 'mental torture' or systematic psychological degradation and debasement, predatory sexual behaviour, remorselessness, these are some of my hallmarks for the worst potentials in humanity. Overt violence and physical coercion, brutal punishment seem to flow from such psyches as combine the hallmarks.  I'd like to think that we have a good 'common sense' if not a seventh sense for the marks.  But I can be fooled. They lurk among us, I suppose, the harmful and harm-minded, those with murderous hearts.

Quote

This is ad baculum without the club.  Cases are now being won in court, some bogus some legit.  Most of the time in these cases walking away isn't an option, and during those times evil is not impotent.  My attempt at saying psychological aggression toward another is a kind of force is my attempt at backing this up to its outer perimeter, if an aggressor can be shown to intentionally seek and cause psychological duress in their target, then that person is evil.  I bring psychological aggression into force (a kind of force) because otherwise, Objectivism blames the victim for it.  The right being violated is Liberty--Liberty of mind, volition, freedom of consciousness.

It's interesting to consider the ad baculum fallacy (in argument).  Cases won in court (civil or criminal)  may be as simple as a protection order or whatever it is in the USA that can compel a person to 'keep a distance' ... and cases in the mid-upper range like coerced behaviour,  child neglect and abandonment, neglect of vulnerable dependent, and higher to physical abuse, sexual interference with/corruption of  a minor ... and so on. Your examples of plainly psychological abuses and crimes would make for an expansive argument about Evul/Evil.

I've long used the term 'evul' to cover the O'vish waterfront of moral denunciations which I consider overstated, operatic, if not whack.  I consider someone closer to my concept of 'evil' the closer to sociopathy he or she can be reliably marked. It is in the motive and in the behaviour that I find seeds and stalks of the starkest evil,  the combined-absence of remorse and the basic humanities.

[anthony]

4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

anthony, I use the trader principle quite a bit--in fact it's automatized into my thinking.  It helps judge value/disvalue, what's equitable or inequitable, right and wrong.  It also helps with deceit, because rarely does it present itself so clearly.  I see what you're saying about value/sacrifice, but I wanted to mention the trader principle as well..

The "Trader principle" is what it is all about, practically and morally. By which one chooses as ably and rationally as one can to always 'trade up'. Iow, to always receive a higher value for a lower one, in dealings with people and commerce, but not just, not at all. Good you brought it up, I think the principle is basically a subset of the principle of objective value and I believe you will see, very much part of "value/sacrifice"..

You'll know that popular misconception - e.g. of two, not very wealthy, parents enrolling son or daughter to a quality college, which costs x per year. Others will often say of them (approvingly) that it was a 'sacrificial' act. If they're honest the parents will respond that x dollars is the lower value, their children's best education is the higher - to them. Not a sacrifice then, but 'trading up'. Conversely, 'trading down', giving up a value - which may be a person, a virtue, money - for a non-or-lesser value, is true sacrifice as you know. The value hierarchy one has is invaluable, since issues big and small are always with us, and all our choices depend on it.

Idea evaluations and choices such as the difficult ones we all face now between the degree of security and safety in one's country, against the degree of loss of liberty it entails. How much loss of freedom - for how much public safety? is it worth it? Will it be recoverable in future? Not easy. 

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It's interesting to consider the ad baculum fallacy (in argument).  Cases won in court (civil or criminal)  may be as simple as a protection order or whatever it is in the USA that can compel a person to 'keep a distance' ... and cases in the mid-upper range like coerced behaviour,  child neglect and abandonment, neglect of vulnerable dependent, and higher to physical abuse, sexual interference with/corruption of  a minor ... and so on. Your examples of plainly psychological abuses and crimes would make for an expansive argument about Evul/Evil.

I've long used the term 'evul' to cover the O'vish waterfront of moral denunciations which I consider overstated, operatic, if not whack.  I consider someone closer to my concept of 'evil' the closer to sociopathy he or she can be reliably marked. It is in the motive and in the behaviour that I find seeds and stalks of the starkest evil,  the combined-absence of remorse and the basic humanities.

I use The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout to help define sociopathy, here's a selected blurb from Amazon, "...reveals that a shocking 4 percent of ordinary people—one in twenty-five—has an often undetected mental disorder, the chief symptom of which is that that person possesses no conscience. He or she has no ability whatsoever to feel shame, guilt, or remorse. One in twenty-five everyday Americans, therefore, is secretly a sociopath. They could be your colleague, your neighbor, even family. And they can do literally anything at all and feel absolutely no guilt."  Stout defining a sociopath as a person who possesses no conscience is a bit abstract, what exactly is no conscience?, so I sought to concretize it.  She mentions a theory that it's biological, they were born without it, and cites studies (brain scans) to back this up.  I accepted this, and after some thought, I believe these people were born without the biological function of compunction--the pleasure/pain mechanism Rand talks about.  And if you factor in developmental psychology, this becomes a break from Rand--Rand claims everyone has that pleasure/pain response, but it's being shown it's simply not the case.  Stout estimates 4 in 100 people are sociopaths, she goes over her methods in the book, and I think it's a good estimate.  So I think a sociopath is a person born without the function of compunction.

But it's not to say that all people without compunction are sociopaths, though I doubt there are many people out there without compunction that are good or neutral.  Also I think that someone with compunction cannot be a sociopath, they can be a narcissist at best, even if they exhibit sociopathic behavior.  So I think this is where Rand got confused, she wanted to attribute sociopathic or psychopathic behavior to philosophical reasons, under the premise everyone possesses the function of compunction, so they must be overwrought with guilt, shame, blame, etc., or some reason based on a false premise (repression/aggression, whatever)--when in fact these people are without the function of compunction, they don't have guilt at all, can't in any way, and never have experienced it.  Now you're talking about a different person, and what people think is human.

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

Hmph. One in 25 is a sociopath? You might as well say three in 25 are stupid, gullible, a True Believer, and that thirteen in 25 are female.

[KorbenDallas]

3 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Hmph. One in 25 is a sociopath? You might as well say three in 25 are stupid, gullible, a True Believer, and that thirteen in 25 are female.

That's not how Stout arrived at her estimate

[Wolf DeVoon]

I believe that True Believers and dodos are a bigger problem than sociopaths, who are frequently successful CEOs.

http://time.com/32647/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths-the-fewest/