Is Evil Impotent or Virile?

[Brant Gaede]

Evil is impotent and wins only by default of the good....

I have never agreed with the notion that evil is impotent. I'm not even sure what this maxim is supposed to mean.

Good and evil are moral evaluations of human action. An action is said to be successful to the extent that it achieves the goal of the acting agent. Evil actions are frequently efficacious in this sense. In fact, they have been a dominant and driving force throughout history.

Ghs

Ayn Rand hung everything she did, fiction and non-fiction, on the idea of the impotence of evil. Maybe that was the source of her famous curse on Nathaniel Branden in 1968.

This deserves its own thread and I'd be glad to contribute if Michael were to spin it off.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There you go, Brant.

Done.

Bring it on.

Michael

[caroljane]

Maybe evil is firtile.

[caroljane]

Dayamm Michael, you were too fast for me.

[Xray]

I have never agreed with the notion that evil is impotent. I'm not even sure what this maxim is supposed to mean.

Imo to state "Evil is impotent" points more to wishful thinking than to an objective assessment of reality. Denial as a psychological defense mechanism may also play a role.

[BaalChatzaf]

What about Hitler and Stalin. They did a lot of evil damage while they were able to operate. Nothing impotent there. Look at the body count.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

My understanding is evil gains potency from the potent who sanction it. X the sanction and it's left to its own negative and destructive devices most of which have been removed. The destruction caused by Project X was not an expression of potency but sanctioned by Dr. Stadler who died because of his contradictions.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

What about Hitler and Stalin. They did a lot of evil damage while they were able to operate. Nothing impotent there. Look at the body count.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I suggest the purpose of the thread is to explore the subject which means doing some thinking and reflection not assuming destruction reflects the potency of evil. Rand obviously meant it one particular way. You can change some of her suppositions and find yourself effectively in a different ballpark from her. That's not valuable for this thread unless you are also doing a comparison keeping your feet on the ground and facing the right direction. That an evil man can walk and talk and kill is not the kind of potency we are talking about. It's the potency to create and make and protect the same.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

My understanding is evil gains potency from the naturally potent (productive people) who sanction it. X the sanction and it's left to its own negative and destructive devices most of which have been removed. The destruction caused by Project X was not an expression of potency but the device and its use was sanctioned by Dr. Stadler who died because of his contradictions.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

Let's lay the groundwork for the discussion by defining our terms and clarifying the exact nature of the Objectivist position.

Lecture 19 of Dr. Branden’s Basic Principles course was titled: ‘The Nature of Evil.’ Here is an excerpt:

What is the definition of "the good," by the Objectivist Ethics? It is that which supports man's survival, that which furthers and enhances man's existence, that which makes possible the achievement of life and the enjoyment of life. "The purpose of morality," states Galt, "is to teach you not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

As I have said, only if one begins with the definition of "the good,” can one rationally arrive at a definition of "the evil.” Only if one begins with the definition of one's basic goal or purpose, can one judge what furthers that purpose, or defeats it. Life is man's basic moral purpose, and the good is all that which human survival requires.

What then, is "the evil”? It is the anti-life. What does man's life depend on? First and foremost, upon reason, upon the perception of reality and adherence to reality. The essence of evil, then, is willful blindness to reality. It is defiance of the facts of reality.

The moral is the rational. The evil is the irrational. And remember that this means that the moral is that which is in accordance with reality, and evil is that which attempts to go against the facts of reality.

All the evils which you see around you--the bewildering contradictions in people's behavior, the dishonesty, the acts of cruelty, of destruction, of expropriation, of torture, of murder--proceed from, and are made possible, only by the evasions and blank-outs of the guilty parties, by their willful suspension of their minds, their blind surrender to blind emotions, their rejection of reason and existence. Evil is self-made blindness. In order to make oneself evil, one has to first make oneself stupid.

All the values required for man's survival have to be achieved by virtues. Food, shelter, clothing, happiness, and self-esteem all necessitate positive actions that man must perform: first the action of thinking, then the action of translating one’s thought into physical form.

Virtue does not consist of a negation. It does not consist of passivity or resignation or renunciation or self-sacrifice. It consists of positive action, of self-assertion, of achievement.

It is evil, not virtue, that is a negation. Evil is non-thought, non-reason, non-reality, non-effort, non-achievement, non-life. And the result of evil in reality is not creation, but destruction--not happiness, but suffering--not self-fulfillment, but self-defeat.

The error made by many people is the belief that any rebellion against the traditional mystical-altruist morality is automatically, and necessarily, practical. This is palpably false.

Ascetic submission and the blind surrender to faith in the will of God is not practical, but neither is hedonistic whim-worship. Self-sacrifice is not practical, but neither is the sacrifice of others to self. Lying on a bed of nails and being fed by the charity of others is not practical, but neither is robbery and murder. Masochism is not practical, but neither is sadism.

By what standard are all these things declared to be "impractical"? By the standard of life and happiness. In the deepest and most metaphysical sense, "virtue" means: efficacy. "Evil" means: impotence. By the standard of life, and that which life requires, the mystic who spends his time in a self-induced trance, the criminal, and the dictator are all equally impotent, all equally ineffectual, all equally incompetent to live.

In judging the issue of efficacy and impotence, do not make the error of equating the power to create with the power to destroy. It is not by means of destruction that man achieves his survival.

Man is not born efficacious. He is born only with potentialities that he must choose to actualize. To make himself competent to live is man's basic moral responsibility. Man must choose to think, and to discover the values proper to him.

The alternative to the mystic’s doctrine of Original Sin is not a doctrine of Original Virtue. The alternative to the belief that man is born evil is not the belief that man is born good. Yet this is the explicit, or implicit, assumption of many people. They do not believe that virtue represents a positive achievement. They believe it is inherent in man's nature, and that it is maintained merely by abstaining from vice. And thus, they make virtue passive, and vice active.

But precisely the reverse is true. It is virtue that is active, and vice that is passive--it is virtue that is a positive, and vice that is a negative--it is virtue that is the result of effort, and vice that results from non-effort.

Every value of man, every rational premise, and every piece of knowledge has to be achieved. Virtue is not original, it is originated. Vice is the absence of virtue--virtue is not the absence of vice. Death is the absence of life--life is not the absence of death.

Now, then, if evil is impotent, if by its nature it can have no power, the question which logically arises is this: how has it been possible for evil to win the victory is it has won? Granted that all the irrational can achieve is destruction, what has enabled it to achieve even that on such a wide scale? The answer is this: evil left to its own devices is powerless, but evil has not been left to its own devices. It has been able to survive by harnessing and placing the power of the good in its service.

There is only one way in which a man could survive while remaining irrational: if he could somehow persuade an at least partially rational man to support him, to carry him on his energy--if he could somehow devise a means to drain the power of reason. But in such a case, observe that it is still reason that the irrationalist needs in order to remain alive. It is still the efficacy of reason that the irrational has to count on and ride on. It is still only reason that permits men to exist.

Nathaniel Branden, The Vision of Ayn Rand, (‘The Nature of Evil’), pp. 479-485

Here Dr. Branden applies these principles to the former Soviet Union. (Remember that this lecture course was presented at NBI in the early 1960’s.)

Omitting the help Soviet Russia gets from the outside world, if in Russia today there are any scientists of authentic ability, men who are willing to work under the conditions of slavery--to think, to produce, and to blank-out the question of what their work is serving--it is they who make the continued existence of Soviet Russia possible. The man of ability who is willing to work, but is indifferent to questions of morality, indifferent to the question of what his work is supporting, indifferent to such vulgarly "practical” issues as firing squads, slave labor camps, and torture chambers--that man is the ideal slave for every dictator. And such a man of ability is the guiltiest man on earth. Left to his own devices, a Khrushchev couldn't even spell "cyclotron,” let alone create one. It is the man of mixed premises, the man who is part good, part evil, who is most responsible for any victories that evil wins, and any harm done to the good.

Ibid., p. 487

As most OL members well know, Roger Bissell was the main driving force behind getting these lectures published in book form. Mankind will forever be in his debt. According to the “Acknowledgements” page, Jerry Biggers provided the transcript for lecture 19.

For those given to nostalgia, you can take a step back in time and listen to a young Nathaniel deliver a brief portion of this lecture by clicking here. (You can also purchase the book there.)

[Selene]

Dennis:

This is from the Lexicon page, and, as you know, from "the Speech:"

"Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us."

I do not think that this meets the "criteria" for a definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Dennis:

This is from the Lexicon page, and, as you know, from "the Speech:"

"Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us."

I do not think that this meets the "criteria" for a definition.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Definition

Adam

That means a Waffen SS Panzer Brigade rolling through your turf is not an evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis:

This is from the Lexicon page, and, as you know, from "the Speech:"

"Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us."

I do not think that this meets the "criteria" for a definition.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Definition

Adam

That means a Waffen SS Panzer Brigade rolling through your turf is not an evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, it means its power came from the sanction of the German people who had mixed premises and a fascist-socialist economy. Their "good" made the "bad" possible.

--Brant

so be good for goodness sakes!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sometimes I wonder about this phrase.

I agree with Rand when we talk about producing goods, but metaphysically?

It's like saying predators are metaphysically impotent and can only flourish by sanction of the prey.

There's something missing there.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Exactly. It just does not make any "common sense."

There is a companion piece missing.

A mere presence of "good" does not prevent evil, even when the "good" is clear and vocal.

I can't quite put my thought finger on why the original phrase does not compute.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Sometimes I wonder about this phrase.

I agree with Rand when we talk about producing goods, but metaphysically?

It's like saying predators are metaphysically impotent and can only flourish by sanction of the prey.

There's something missing there.

Michael

She's talking about human beings--good and evil--not moral-less mountain lions. People as predators are not creators and producers. They are thieves, rapists, and murderers. Build a skyscraper go home and have sex. Fly into one, you're done. The blow job from the co-pilot just before the smash doesn't count.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I realize that.

But humans are either rational ANIMALS, or they are rational freaks of nature.

You can't have it both ways and neither can Rand.

So you either devise morality for both the rational and the animal part (i.e., man as a rational animal), or you devise morality for man, the rational freak of nature.

When we look at the animal kingdom, we do not see uniform behavior within species on predation. Some animals even eat their young. I imagine primates are a little more uniform, but I need to look into it further to make an informed statement with a minimum of intelligence about what exists and what does not.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Sometimes I wonder about this phrase.

I agree with Rand when we talk about producing goods, but metaphysically?

It's like saying predators are metaphysically impotent and can only flourish by sanction of the prey.

There's something missing there.

Michael

A human predator--a predator on humans--can "flourish" if he eats long pig. There have been cultures that sanctioned and supported that. Now we are talking about what it means to flourish as a human being given his thinking, I hope rational nature. Human beings are flourishing--expanding in greater and greater numbers into their basically now static environment--by making better tools and increasing productivity and wealth. Sharks don't do it, not even after 400 million years of shark success. I don't think Rand was being metaphysical, simply humanistical.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I realize that.

But humans are either rational ANIMALS, or they are rational freaks of nature.

You can't have it both ways and neither can Rand.

So you either devise morality for both the rational and the animal part (i.e., man as a rational animal), or you devise morality for man, the rational freak of nature.

When we look at the animal kingdom, we do not see uniform behavior within species on predation. Some animals even eat their young. I imagine primates are a little more uniform, but I need to look into it further to make an informed statement with a minimum of intelligence about what exists and what does not.

Michael

.

We can say humans are both rational and irrational animals, but we cannot rend animal out of human. Rational or irrational appertains to morality. Morality is for humans, not even for your barking dog who wakes you at night to save you from a fire whom you love and he loves you.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

The typical Objectivist answer is that evil itself is impotent, but is made "virile" (i.e. effacious) by those good people that are ignorant/naive and thus fall for evil's attempt to make itself look like the good.

Before defending this proposition, one must remember that "evil" is rarely embodied in any human being. Most humans, even those that are ethically sub-optimal, are rarely "evil" in the fullest extent of the term. "Evil" in its purest form is very rare.

And of course, there is a distinction between people that are evil and actions which have awful consequences.

Whilst I think Rand's general characterization is right, it is important to remember that she was writing novels at very high levels of abstraction.

In general, I'd say evil "itself" (i.e. in its purest form) is very rare, and not particularly effacious. Evil consequences from mixed-premises people are a different matter. In all cases however, we must be careful to look at the specific contextual details and not rush to judgment.

[anthony]

My understanding is evil gains potency from the naturally potent (productive people) who sanction it. X the sanction and it's left to its own negative and destructive devices most of which have been removed. The destruction caused by Project X was not an expression of potency but the device and its use was sanctioned by Dr. Stadler who died because of his contradictions. --Brant

Quite. One may go further and claim that evil, metaphysically, is simply the absence of good.

("..for good men to do nothing", sort of thing.) Essentially, the evil lies with both parties then:

those who did nothing, and those who took advantage of it.

I don't claim expertise just because I have seen the results of evil personally (anybody has access to the facts

of evil) but if one digs a little past the obvious, I do not think there was ever a case when at some point somebody

knew of it in advance, and could not have stood up against it.

The "rational animal", that wonderful definition, speaks of a unified entity, each interdependent on the other.

But, which is in charge, here?

Without totally rational self-reponsibility, men are no more than instinctive predators.

[Xray]

What is the definition of "the good," by the Objectivist Ethics? It is that which supports man's survival, that which furthers and enhances man's existence, that which makes possible the achievement of life and the enjoyment of life. "The purpose of morality," states Galt, "is to teach you not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

As I have said, only if one begins with the definition of "the good,” can one rationally arrive at a definition of "the evil.” Only if one begins with the definition of one's basic goal or purpose, can one judge what furthers that purpose, or defeats it. Life is man's basic moral purpose, and the good is all that which human survival requires.

<...>

What then, is "the evil”? It is the anti-life. What does man's life depend on? First and foremost, upon reason, upon the perception of reality and adherence to reality. The essence of evil, then, is willful blindness to reality. It is defiance of the facts of reality.

<...>

If "evil" is the the "anti-life", is death regarded as "evil" too (instead of seeing it as a natural transformation process)?

The problem with a term like "evil" is its strong moral connotation.Thus one runs into problems when trying to back up 'the case against evil' with examples from nature, be it "man's survival", or the survival of other life forms.

[studiodekadent]

If "evil" is the the "anti-life", is death regarded as "evil" too (instead of seeing it i as natural transformation process)?

Not exactly.

Death is the end of life.

"Good" and "evil" are concepts which are formed as a response to the nature of the human condition; specifically, the fact that human life needs to be kept in existence via choice.

"Death" is not evil per se. But the fact that humans can die and will die unless their survival needs are volitionally sustained is the fact that gives rise to the concepts of "good" and "evil."

"Good" and "evil" are human abstractions formed in response to a fact about the human condition.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Death" is not evil per se. But the fact that humans can die and will die unless their survival needs are volitionally sustained is the fact that gives rise to the concepts of "good" and "evil."

Humans die for a basic reason. The chromosomes degrade at each duplication of a cell. Look up apoptosis and telemere. A human cell gets about 50 or so divisions (i.e. the original cell can produce no more than about 2^50 daughters by mitotic division). After which it no longer divides or becomes cancerous. Death can come sooner by way of misfortune or abuse.

Life is NOT self sustained. It requires external energy to continue the processes of replication. We are heat engines and inefficient heat engines at that. Apparently Rand was not paying attention to her biology teacher in St. Petersburg. Or perhaps she was never taught biology properly. Or perhaps she chose to disbelieve what she had been taught about cell biology.

To stay alive humans need sugar and oxygen to fuel the Krebs cycle (look it up) and sufficient ambient temperature to prevent the heat energy of metabolism to radiate or conduct away too rapidly.

Query: Why do Objectivists when they speak AS Objectivists rarely if ever mention apoptosis or the Krebs Cycle?

See http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-krebs-cycle.htm

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Lecture 19 of Dr. Branden’s Basic Principles course was titled: ‘The Nature of Evil.’ Here is an excerpt:

What is the definition of "the good," by the Objectivist Ethics? ...

<.....>

The posted excerpt provides ample material for checking premises.

It is claimed: "Evil means impotence." This posits "impotence" as a characteristic of evil. What immediately comes to mind is: 'Why bother at all about something that is essentially impotent, i. e. that has no power?'

"Evil means impotence" also negates a fact: the fact that evil very well has the potential of being destructive. Since it is also implied that "the good" has the potential of keeping evil in check, then evil is not impotent, but has the very real potential to be "potent".

The premise "Evil means impotence", which is obviously presented as a truth on an objective, factual level, can therefore be rejected as false.

This reduces the phrase "Evil means impotence" to a personal value statement, it is a 'call for perseverance' - type of phrase like "We will never surrender to the enemy!", not a statement of fact.

And the context in which John Galt uttered the phrase "...evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us" was exactly about that: not surrendering to "them", to the enemies, personified in "evil" AS protagonists like Ferris and Stadler.