trc@houti.UUCP (06/20/83)
For a definition of evil, how about: Without human life, there can be no good or evil - because there would be no one to judge actions or events, and no humans to be effected by them. Since human life is necessary for there to be anything good, and does not require evil to continue, human life is the most fundamental good. (Good is required to continue - see below) Since human life is the most fundamental good, evil is that which is anti-life. Murder, torture, threat of such, are obvious examples. Theft is also evil, since it removes the means of survival and of enjoyment of life (IE of good). Most lying is evil, since it is usually done with some evil intent in mind. (It seems possible to do good by lying - EG lie to someone who has evil in mind.) Since life is the basis for good, anything that supports one's own life without attacking the life of another human is also good. Thus, working for a living is good, where stealing is not. Self defense is good, where attacking another for their money is not. Tom Craver houti!trc
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (06/23/83)
#R:houti:-30700:ucbesvax:11400003:000:5032 ucbesvax!turner Jun 22 04:05:00 1983 "Without human life, there can be no good or evil - ..." Fine. I would substitute "sentient" for "human", but that begs another question. Better stated: "good and evil are meaningless concepts in the absence of any capacity to judge the difference." "Since human life is necessary for there to be anything good, and does not require evil to continue, human life is the most fundamental good." But does human life *necessitate* good? Does good simply spring into existence by the capacity to judge? This says that if one can tell good from evil, then good and evil things must exist--tautological. It does not mean that the being that is discerning the distinction is itself good, by it's own perception. "Since human life is the most fundamental good, evil is that which is anti-life." [A list of crimes follows.] And yet, evil is perpetrated by human beings. In light of the supposed human capacity for judgement, it would seem that human beings that choose evil over good are inherently anti-life and anti-human, and anti-good. Inherently evil. Even if they steal in the interests of their own survival, while not compromising the survival of the one stolen from. Of course, this seems to require some prior evil on the part of the some other human being who cannot be easily punished, else we would have the death penalty for even the most minor offenses. The principle of "stealing is evil" can be accepted. Must the thief must also be evil? At times, violation of the principle is not "anti-life". We cannot assume a purely good society, since none exist, so far. In short, we must allow for poor judgement, as an evil which has not been eradicated. The question arises: is there any *other* evil than this inability to judge? If there is not, then there is good vs. inability to perceive good, rather than good vs. evil. If good is--pardon the expression--all it's cracked up to be, then there is no other reason for a human being to do evil than that human's inability to understand good. To return to the beginning, a human being's very existence is good, in itself. Inability to be good would seem to imply inability to perceive oneself adequately. Total evil implies a completely inaccurate self-view (at least in reference to physical reality). But whence this evil? Is it inherent in human beings? If this fallibility has propagated itself even to the present day, it must have some standing in human origins. In short, where did evil come from, regardless of whether it is simply poor judgement, or has some metaphysical existence of its own? Perhaps human beings do not require evil to survive, but does this mean that they do not themselves necessitate evil (if only to have something to distinguish from good?) Can human life be basically good if it results in evil? The fact that we are not instinctively good is an outgrowth of not only of a reasoning mind, but also of an unreasoning mind. Ayn Rand presents, in her novel/manifesto "Atlas Shrugged", a morality which has some interesting facets: 1. Reasoning minds can destroy unreasoning minds in the defense of other reasoning minds. This act is at the discretion of the reasoning mind, as it assumes itself to be. Thus, summary execution is not always murder. (As when Dagny Taggart shoots a guard outside the building where John Galt is being tortured.) 2. Reasoning minds may destroy or confiscate the property of unreasoning minds, if they deem this property to be stolen in any sense, regardless of the possible life-threatening effects of their action on other--possibly reasoning minds. (As when Ragnar Danneskjold shells factories and interdicts food shipments to socialist countries.) 3. Legal systems which are deemed to be irrational or dominated by evil human beings by reasoning minds can be flouted at will, to the extent that this does not endanger the lives or purposes of the reasoning minds themselves. (Numerous instances of piracy, sabotage, etc.) Reasoning minds may be in a very tiny minority of the population. They are not responsible for each other, not to mention anyone other than them. They can make mistakes, but are hardly capable of evil, per se. In fact, they do not even comprehend the motivations behind any act of apparent evil. Well, I can go on. I invite commentary. I have tried to avoid "misrepresenting objectivism" (an accusation I have faced in the past.) I have no answers to speak of. Only a sense that that much is missing from the Objectivist analysis of morality. Especially as expressed (*SPOILER TIME*) by an author who, at the end of her opus magnum, has her reasoning-mind hero say "We can go back to the Earth", while tracing out the following symbol: $ $ $$$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$$$$ $ $ Well, I think you can take it from here, Tom. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/28/83)
Another idea... Life is an N-person, strictly competitive, zero-sum games (usually). (Like, if you steal something, it behooves you but someone else loses. This is the strictly competitive zero-sum part.) This is evil. Good is when a given act breaks out of the zero-sum cycle, ie., when you do something that does someone (or yourself) good without doing anyone bad. Ideas, comments, (flames at me for being such a nerd?)... -Randy
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (07/01/83)
This idea (using the model of a zero-sum game as a metaphor for life and society) is not new. Lester Thurow of MIT wrote a book recently called "The Zero Sum Society." I haven't read the book, I just mention it as an example of how common the idea is. The problem with this formulation is that life and society are almost always a positive sum game if there is any cooperation at all. This is the basis of the industrial revolution. Any invention (or even any small good idea) improves the lot of the person or people who make use of it, and as long as other people's right to their own property is respected, they are made no worse off. If people generally don't respect rights, then the whole system is a negative sum game. If people can't count on being able to benefit from their labor or ideas, then they will learn not to bother trying. Only in the case of "every man is an island" does life become a zero sum game. And the proverb says that just doesn't happen.