Is Evil Impotent or Virile?

[Brant Gaede]

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.

It would seem that we are frequently conflating "evil" and "bad" here. "Good and evil" has so much more punch than "good and bad." Rand was quite the polemical writer and this seems to be something of a religious carry over. The phrase is common. We say "evil" to discourage us from doing bad things. Morality is controlling. "Good" sort of takes care of itself. Actors tend to have more fun in their craft playing villains--but the actor playing a villain is not the obverse of a villain who is an actor. The first mentioned is the good guy, the second the bad guy--or evil one.

Rand's emphasis on the impotence of evil seems to implicitly sanction the Utopian fallacy of the perfectibility of human beings. This is because good and evil represent an internal conflict concomitant with free will. Since she was a profound foe of collectivism this seems to have found an outlet in her fans self-molding themselves into acceptable shape for Objectivist social intercourse with unsatisfactory results expressed in a queer cultism headed by her.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

It would seem that we are frequently conflating "evil" and "bad" here. "Good and evil" has so much more punch than "good and bad." Rand was quite the polemical writer and this seems to be something of a religious carry over. The phrase is common. We say "evil" to discourage us from doing bad things.

I agree "evil" has heaps of polemical fire and the like. But it is still a legitimate moral concept. The dichotomy between "bad" and "evil" is arguably Nietzschean in origin since he separated the concepts in On The Genealogy Of Morality.

Rand's emphasis on the impotence of evil seems to implicitly sanction the Utopian fallacy of the perfectibility of human beings. This is because good and evil represent an internal conflict concomitant with free will.

"Perfectibility of human beings" is only a fallacy if you hold to one of two propositions...

1) A moral theory (of any type) which is beyond human ability to practice (Christian Altruism as an example),

or

2) Man is inherently hypocritical and cannot practice any moral theory consistently.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the surface, I like the idea that evil is impotent. It's especially appealing because it not only makes the idea of being committed to the good easier, it allows me to look down my nose at evil.

But when I look at something like Migram's experiment on obedience to authority, I see that such knowledge in the hands of a person with an evil intent can be quite virile. In fact, the whole history of propaganda and public relations in the hands of bloody dictators is proof.

"But that's different," I used to say to myself, "that is all about using and controlling people, not about producing anything."

Then I look at the weapons manufacturers of Nazi Germany. They produced a lot of stuff.

And I look at productive organizations that produce the things we use in normal living. They all use and control people. In fact, if they didn't, most of the things they produce would be impossible. And when there is high volume involved, this extends to just about all of them.

So both evil and good people use and control other people to achieve their values. (The fact that one involves the freedom to commit and the other does not is irrelevant to the point I am making here, which is looking at this issue through the lens of impotence and virility.)

When I look at planning and implementing systems. Yup. Both good and evil do this.

When I look at setting goals and achieving them. Yup again.

Power? Yup.

Reproduction of goods and results? Yup.

Distribution? Yup.

Discipline? Yup.

And I could go on.

When I try to analyze the details, I just don't see impotence in evil.

I see other things in evil, like how power over others is used by leaders to extend to killing people at whim and things like that.

But not impotence.

In fact, what I do see is that evil grows and reproduces by more than the neglect of the good. That's why you have to fight it, not just isolate it and let it die from atrophy.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe this is why Rand was so generally passive respecting foreign policy expecting the bad guys would implode. It certainly made the world she had left to deal with smaller.

--Brant

[Xray]

It would seem that we are frequently conflating "evil" and "bad" here. "Good and evil" has so much more punch than "good and bad."

In order to separate "evil" from "bad", providing concrete examples of the "bad" as opposed to the "evil" would be helpful.

[BaalChatzaf]

It would seem that we are frequently conflating "evil" and "bad" here. "Good and evil" has so much more punch than "good and bad."

In order to separate "evil" from "bad", providing concrete examples of the "bad" as opposed to the "evil" would be helpful.

Burning your toast is bad. Poisoning someone else's toast is evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

It would seem that we are frequently conflating "evil" and "bad" here. "Good and evil" has so much more punch than "good and bad."

In order to separate "evil" from "bad", providing concrete examples of the "bad" as opposed to the "evil" would be helpful.

Burning your toast is bad. Poisoning someone else's toast is evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The notion of "evil" implies a conscious intent to do damage to sentient beings then?

If yes, does declaring (as NB did) that "Evil means impotence" really grasp the essence of evil?

[BaalChatzaf]

It would seem that we are frequently conflating "evil" and "bad" here. "Good and evil" has so much more punch than "good and bad."

In order to separate "evil" from "bad", providing concrete examples of the "bad" as opposed to the "evil" would be helpful.

Burning your toast is bad. Poisoning someone else's toast is evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The notion of "evil" implies a conscious intent to do damage to sentient beings then?

If yes, does declaring (as NB did) that "Evil means impotence" really grasp the essence of evil?

No. Evil can be as real as rain and the damage done is very real.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

When I try to analyze the details, I just don't see impotence in evil.

end quote

Causation is always inexorable but time is the determining factor. A slice of life at any particular point may show evil “apparently” prospering but as time goes by it is obvious tyranny and destruction are not self sustaining.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

The problem is that we all eventually die. Good and evil.

One of the most rotten men I knew in Brazil lived to very old age, became wealthy beyond his wildest dreams, was in a happy mood every time I saw him, and will probably die in his sleep (if he hasn't passed already). He was a music publisher.

He did a lot of bad things to a lot of people who didn't deserve it. Some of them quite colorful.

One of my favorites was from when he was younger. He would insist on an employee having sex with him. Then, when he got tired of her, he would get another employee to marry her under false pretenses. A big mess usually resulted and he would often fire them both.

(Ya gotta hand it to him. He was an SOB, but he was a creative SOB... )

I want to believe in cosmic justice, but I've seen too much. Nowadays, I am good because I choose this for my life. I don't expect reality to reward me with anything other than a personal history I can be proud of.

But that's quite a lot, no?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The potency of the potent?

The Impotency of the impotent?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

But that's quite a lot, no?

Michael

Yup. Better to be remember for a blessing than a curse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

On the surface, I like the idea that evil is impotent. It's especially appealing because it not only makes the idea of being committed to the good easier, it allows me to look down my nose at evil.

But when I look at something like Migram's experiment on obedience to authority, I see that such knowledge in the hands of a person with an evil intent can be quite virile. In fact, the whole history of propaganda and public relations in the hands of bloody dictators is proof.

Branden covered this point in his lecture. Evil derives much of its power by enlisting the services of productive minds--i.e., providing tyrants and terrorists or other destroyers with scientific knowledge to aid them in the achievement of their evil goals. That's the key point--that evil must rely on the good for its success.

"But that's different," I used to say to myself, "that is all about using and controlling people, not about producing anything."

Then I look at the weapons manufacturers of Nazi Germany. They produced a lot of stuff.

Remember the story of Dr. Stadler and his State Science Institute and "Project X" in Atlas Shrugged? That was all about productive intelligence being placed in the service of evil--i.e., the dependence of evil on the complicity of the good. Weapons manufacturers in Nazi Germany were doing the same thing.

And I look at productive organizations that produce the things we use in normal living. They all use and control people. In fact, if they didn't, most of the things they produce would be impossible. And when there is high volume involved, this extends to just about all of them.

So both evil and good people use and control other people to achieve their values. (The fact that one involves the freedom to commit and the other does not is irrelevant to the point I am making here, which is looking at this issue through the lens of impotence and virility.)

Governments use and control people via force. Corporations "use and control" people (in a noncoercive sense) by appealing to their self-interest and volition. That's a fundamental difference. So the question becomes: How do dictatorships achieve the power to use and control people? And the answer is: They do it by relying on the complicity of the good. They rely on the producers to create wealth which they can then expropriate via taxation. They rely on scientists and engineers and businessmen to create their weapons and tanks and guns and instruments of torture. They rely on intellectuals and media to spread their propaganda. And they rely on the public at large to continue 'business as usual' while they prosecute their tyranny. If the thinkers and manufacturers and wealth-producers and productive workers go on strike, the bureaucrats and dictators are helpless.

The leaders could use the army to enforce their edicts, but only temporarily. If the productive minds once decide to bring down the government, no amount of military force will succeed in propping it up for very long. Tyrannical governments remain in power because good people continue to support them out of fear and cowardice.

When I look at planning and implementing systems. Yup. Both good and evil do this.

When I look at setting goals and achieving them. Yup again.

Power? Yup.

Reproduction of goods and results? Yup.

Distribution? Yup.

Discipline? Yup.

And I could go on.

When I try to analyze the details, I just don't see impotence in evil.

I see other things in evil, like how power over others is used by leaders to extend to killing people at whim and things like that.

But not impotence.

In fact, what I do see is that evil grows and reproduces by more than the neglect of the good. That's why you have to fight it, not just isolate it and let it die from atrophy.

Michael

Michael,

It’s true that thinking and planning and mental effort are not a monopoly of the good. Evil people (e.g., terrorists) can be very intelligent and apply their intelligence to achieve evil goals. Like bin Laden and his university-educated cohorts orchestrated 9-11.

Most all human activity requires some minimal effort and thought. But evil is primarily focused on destruction. This requires some mental effort and energy, but much less than the positive mental focus required to create the military weaponry, food, shelter and other necessities they must have to achieve their ends. Left to their own devices, tyrants and terrorists cannot create anything of lasting significance. They can knock down buildings—but they need the help of good, rational, productive people to put them back up again. They can use tax revenues to pay architects and contractors to build palaces, but those creative minds must choose to put their services at the tyrant's disposal.

If scientists like Milgram (or Wernher von Braun, the Nazi physicist) refuse to put their minds in the service of a dictator, it severely limits the amount of damage that dictator can do. If the majority of productive citizens withdraw their support, his government collapses. The Unabomber was intelligent (though psychotic), but all he could do was apply his intelligence to the goal of systematic killing and maiming. He produced little else other than long, boring diatribes nobody wanted to read.

Destructive mentalities have a very limited ability to wreak havoc on their own because their destructive motivation derives from their refusal to think and create. When has a mass killer ever invented or designed or produced the complex tools he used for killing? The terrorists who flew those planes into the twin towers had to rely on the productive genius of the men who designed and built those airplanes. And the knowledge of the instructors who taught them to fly. They could not have done it on their own.

An evil assassin might be able to design and assemble a unique rifle using equipment designed and produced by others--like rearranging the parts of a puzzle—but his ability to do so depends on the creativity of the minds who provided him with the materials to work with. His contribution to the creation of the final product is minimal.

The destroyers must rely on the genius of the creators. Without the assistance of effort-driven, creative minds, they can do very little. The inherent inability of a destructive mind to engage in long-range, thoughtful productivity is what makes such a mind dependent on others for his success. Their fundament destructiveness is the source of their impotence. If the creators and producers ever refused to allow their services to put be put at the disposal of tyrants and terrorists and killers, they would all be doomed to failure.

[BaalChatzaf]

The destroyers must rely on the genius of the creators. Without the assistance of effort-driven, creative minds, they can do very little. The inherent inability of a destructive mind to engage in long-range, thoughtful productivity is what makes such a mind dependent on others for his success. Their fundament destructiveness is the source of their impotence. If the creators and producers ever refused to allow their services to put be put at the disposal of tyrants and terrorists and killers, they would all be doomed to failure.

The constructive folks of the world also rely on the genius of the creators. Large scale important things do not get done by single individuals. It takes a co-operative effort. And no one, be they ever so creative and intelligent comes out of a cultural or intellectual vacuum like Athena coming fully armored out the Brow of Zeus. Individual genius and creativity are necessary but not sufficient.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

"Their fundamental destructiveness is the source of their impotence".

Good post, Dennis.

To state the semi-obvious, not many people get out of bed in the morning

and think " I'm going to go and do some evil today."

Contrarily, most evil stems from individuals or groups believing it is the right thing

they are doing.

I know what you need. We know what is good for you. The dictators and collectivists.

Or, in the case of the terrorist/murderer, it will only hurt for a second - but you need to be 'corrected'.

Where I am, we see increasing inroads on liberty by a State that 'cares' for 'the People'.

That's why I am vehemently opposed to compassion as advocacy.

If you care for me, keep your hands off.

Tony

[Xray]

Burning your toast is bad. Poisoning someone else's toast is evil.

The notion of "evil" implies a conscious intent to do damage to sentient beings then?

If yes, does declaring (as NB did) that "Evil means impotence" really grasp the essence of evil?

No. Evil can be as real as rain and the damage done is very real.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This would back up my argumentation in # 25.

Michael wrote:

When I try to analyze the details, I just don't see impotence in evil.

end quote

Causation is always inexorable but time is the determining factor. A slice of life at any particular point may show evil “apparently” prospering but as time goes by it is obvious tyranny and destruction are not self sustaining.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter,

The problem is that we all eventually die. Good and evil.

One of the most rotten men I knew in Brazil lived to very old age, became wealthy beyond his wildest dreams, was in a happy mood every time I saw him, and will probably die in his sleep (if he hasn't passed already). He was a music publisher.

He did a lot of bad things to a lot of people who didn't deserve it. Some of them quite colorful.

One of my favorites was from when he was younger. He would insist on an employee having sex with him. Then, when he got tired of her, he would get another employee to marry her under false pretenses. A big mess usually resulted and he would often fire them both.

(Ya gotta hand it to him. He was an SOB, but he was a creative SOB... )

I want to believe in cosmic justice, but I've seen too much. Nowadays, I am good because I choose this for my life. I don't expect reality to reward me with anything other than a personal history I can be proud of.

But that's quite a lot, no?

Michael

It's quite a lot, yes. It is a decision which falls under the category "personal ethical choice", and imo to rationally present the case for one's personal choices in that field is far more effective than to (wrongly) assert "Evil means impotence", and to believe that objective reality will eventually take care of the bad guys, as it happened in AS.

But as opposed to the world presented in a novel, evil people can become wealthy and powerful in the real world, and the damage they inflict on their victims may well go unpunished during their lifetime, as illustrated in the example you provided above.

The wish for post-mortem 'divine' justice probably also found its way into human thought because our ancestors frequently observed that many evil-doers did get away with their deeds.

But to wish for evil to end, to pursue the goal of promoting the good - is a high ethical ideal which can unleash tremendous benevolent energy. Promoting the good instead of the evil also implies the wish to reduce suffering, and includes empathy for the victims.

[i'm aware of the contextuality of a term like "good" ('good for whom and for what purpose?'), but the context of the current discussion is clear enough to convey what the terms 'good' and 'evil' are referring to here].

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I used to think exactly like in your post 38 for exactly the same reasons. And there is still a lot there I agree with.

But I have concluded that there is a fundamental misidentification in calling evil impotent. That doesn't make evil any better or less evil, but ignoring its true nature is dangerous. if you accept that evil is impotent at face value, you might even end up saying that Iran should be allowed to have nukes.

(All right, all right. I know you are thinking Robert Stadler right now. )

You made a lot of sweeping generalizations that I used to believe about tyrants never creating anything of lasting value, that when the productive minds refuse to work, the government always collapses and so forth.

I say look Pinochet. Was he one of South America's most bloody dictators and did he turn Chile's economy around by moving into capitalism? Yup on both scores. Look at North Korea. Do productive minds refuse to work there and has the government collapsed? Well, you don't see much productive stuff, in fact you see a lot of starving people, but the government has a chokehold on the country that has been near impossible to break for decades.

I could go on with example after example where evil is not at all impotent.

I now think that Rand had some great insights about when and where evil is impotent, and, as usual, her insights cut deep, but calling the whole shebang impotent was overreach.

Once again, I claim that evil must be fought and contained, otherwise it grows. And I mean fought intellectually and physically. But fighting it intellectually does not mean denying its nature.

You made a statement I totally agree with (but, probably, my agreement does not reflect what you were getting at).

... evil is primarily focused on destruction.

I agree with this.

Evil is a destructive focus within a wider context of focus on several elements. That is its nature. And focus does not mean exclusivity. Evil is never all or nothing nihilism and destruction qua destruction. There are always other goals and elements involved.

After checking this premise, I have concluded that one of the fundamental components of evil is the acquisition and use of power over others, not just the destruction of them. Even with genocide, only a portion of humanity is targeted. There is another part that is ruled with an iron fist by rulers who attempt the genocide.

Oppression and enslavement are both evil, but not necessarily destructive on a metaphysical level (meaning destroying everything). They can both be quite productive. For example, I just can't look at the cotten fields of the deep South during the slavery years and call the evil that was practiced impotent. And it wasn't productive people going on strike that made it "collapse." Other people, ones who had no business there, had to come down and kick some serious ass to get it to stop.

I no longer believe that evil people can't produce things of lasting value or that they have souls you can see in the art they consume. One of Hitler's favorite composers was Tchaikovsky (as proven by a hidden stash of records found after WWII), including the Piano Concerto Rand loved so much, but he kept that knowledge hidden from the society he purposefully manipulated. He was like Gail Wynand with his secret art room.

How does that fit with evil as impotent? You can try to rationalize this by saying Hitler was holding onto the parts of his soul that were not evil but that starts sounding like too much theory and not enouogh reality.

I do believe that evil qua focus (and I'm speaking at a fundamental level, not about specific contexts) produces a class warfare or feudal mentality of rulers and the ruled. And I believe that good qua focus leads to moral principles and individual rights.

But I don't believe in evil, or good for that matter, as metaphysically possible as an isolated condition. We have volition. One of the things we must always choose involves good and evil. If evil is metaphysically obliterated as impotent, it will shrivel up and die off. So what moral choice is left?

But it doesn't shrivel up and die off. Dealing with evil is part of the human condition. Evil ain't going anywhere. When one person successfully overcomes it, that does not mean the path is automatically paved so that others will no longer have to deal with it. Evil exists and must be dealt with individual by individual--just like everything else fundamental in reality.

Ronald Reagan was extremely wise when he said (on March 30, 1961 in his address to the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce):

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same...

Ditto for choosing good over evil, which is never a single choice, but one made time and time again over a lifetime. Supposing you managed to get your act together and choose good over evil enough times and with enough consistency to say you lead a good life. (Incidentally, I believe this is the case with you.) Look at how this phrase works when using your evil as focus idea (and I added bold to highlight my point).

"The focus on good is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same..."

Look at how many good productive people have awful children who grow up to be monsters.

Evil is metaphysically there, it always reappears, and it grows if you don't figtht it.

I can't call that impotent.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

So far my tentative conclusion is "the impotence of evil" is valuable as a think piece but a cop out for the good guys not doing really heroic things to thwart the bad guys which, btw, is the real story of Atlas Shrugged. It wasn't so much the productive creators disappearing from the world as their neutering. Can you believe the power of Washington, DC in that novel? They pass a new bunch of crummy regulations and Colorado shrivels up and dies!? Oh, no, it's the enforcers who try to enforce those regs who'll get killed. Real civil war on multiple fronts.

--Brant

I think Rand had a lot of European not overcome by her Americanism

[Peter]

Michael quoted Ronald Reagan who said:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same...

end quote

Brant responded about how that quote pertained to “Atlas Shrugged:”

It wasn't so much the productive creators disappearing from the world as their neutering. Can you believe the power of Washington, DC in that novel?

end quote

Rand and her latter day friends have fun at pointing at some new aspect of Big Government and its response from our citizenry. “Is Atlas Shrugging? is the gasped question.

Every generation produces a new crop of evil people as Michael mentioned. Eternal vigilance and a new crop of heroes, or even a simple, conservative silent majority is also needed with each new generation, yet there is also a lot of what I now dub “Freedom Insurance” in a strict interpretation of any Constitution that protects individual rights. We need to close the loopholes for ourselves and our children.

Ba’al recently said we need a stone cold killer at the helm of state, I presume like Harry S. Truman (did you know his middle initial “S” did not stand for anything? As children, when my brother and I found out about that we started calling him Harry Ass Truman. Then we would fall over giggling.)

Ba’al gets me thinking like a Vulcan mathematician. Should every generation nuke the evildoers? Starting now? We could turn Iran into rubble. Knock out Russia’s and Pakistan’s nukes? Do away with any government that subjugates its own people or transgresses on the rights of the people of other nations? We could easily do that. There might be retaliation. Once. After that the retaliator would be dead.

I don’t want to sound like a witch burning Puritan or a torturer from the Inquisition but IF after a trial, we are objectively sure of the evil of a person or a group of people, and IF it requires few IF any American lives, shouldn’t we destroy them IF it is deemed in our interest?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Notes (Caution. Ayn curses, and her answers bolster Phil Coates thesis, "The Hostage Principle.")

QUOTE 1:

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships {as} some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

end quote

QUOTE 2

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.

end quote

[BaalChatzaf]

If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.

end quote

A.R. is very Talmudic. In San Hedrin 72A: If he is coming to slay you, rise up early and slay him first. The Israelis did just that in the '67 war. It was a pre-emptive attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis,

I used to think exactly like in your post 38 for exactly the same reasons. And there is still a lot there I agree with.

But I have concluded that there is a fundamental misidentification in calling evil impotent. That doesn't make evil any better or less evil, but ignoring its true nature is dangerous. if you accept that evil is impotent at face value, you might even end up saying that Iran should be allowed to have nukes.

(All right, all right. I know you are thinking Robert Stadler right now. )

You made a lot of sweeping generalizations that I used to believe about tyrants never creating anything of lasting value, that when the productive minds refuse to work, the government always collapses and so forth.

I say look Pinochet. Was he one of South America's most bloody dictators and did he turn Chile's economy around by moving into capitalism? Yup on both scores. Look at North Korea. Do productive minds refuse to work there and has the government collapsed? Well, you don't see much productive stuff, in fact you see a lot of starving people, but the government has a chokehold on the country that has been near impossible to break for decades.

I could go on with example after example where evil is not at all impotent.

I now think that Rand had some great insights about when and where evil is impotent, and, as usual, her insights cut deep, but calling the whole shebang impotent was overreach.

Once again, I claim that evil must be fought and contained, otherwise it grows. And I mean fought intellectually and physically. But fighting it intellectually does not mean denying its nature.

You made a statement I totally agree with (but, probably, my agreement does not reflect what you were getting at).

... evil is primarily focused on destruction.

I agree with this.

Evil is a destructive focus within a wider context of focus on several elements. That is its nature. And focus does not mean exclusivity. Evil is never all or nothing nihilism and destruction qua destruction. There are always other goals and elements involved.

After checking this premise, I have concluded that one of the fundamental components of evil is the acquisition and use of power over others, not just the destruction of them. Even with genocide, only a portion of humanity is targeted. There is another part that is ruled with an iron fist by rulers who attempt the genocide.

Oppression and enslavement are both evil, but not necessarily destructive on a metaphysical level (meaning destroying everything). They can both be quite productive. For example, I just can't look at the cotten fields of the deep South during the slavery years and call the evil that was practiced impotent. And it wasn't productive people going on strike that made it "collapse." Other people, ones who had no business there, had to come down and kick some serious ass to get it to stop.

I no longer believe that evil people can't produce things of lasting value or that they have souls you can see in the art they consume. One of Hitler's favorite composers was Tchaikovsky (as proven by a hidden stash of records found after WWII), including the Piano Concerto Rand loved so much, but he kept that knowledge hidden from the society he purposefully manipulated. He was like Gail Wynand with his secret art room.

How does that fit with evil as impotent? You can try to rationalize this by saying Hitler was holding onto the parts of his soul that were not evil but that starts sounding like too much theory and not enouogh reality.

I do believe that evil qua focus (and I'm speaking at a fundamental level, not about specific contexts) produces a class warfare or feudal mentality of rulers and the ruled. And I believe that good qua focus leads to moral principles and individual rights.

But I don't believe in evil, or good for that matter, as metaphysically possible as an isolated condition. We have volition. One of the things we must always choose involves good and evil. If evil is metaphysically obliterated as impotent, it will shrivel up and die off. So what moral choice is left?

But it doesn't shrivel up and die off. Dealing with evil is part of the human condition. Evil ain't going anywhere. When one person successfully overcomes it, that does not mean the path is automatically paved so that others will no longer have to deal with it. Evil exists and must be dealt with individual by individual--just like everything else fundamental in reality.

Ronald Reagan was extremely wise when he said (on March 30, 1961 in his address to the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce):

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same...

Ditto for choosing good over evil, which is never a single choice, but one made time and time again over a lifetime. Supposing you managed to get your act together and choose good over evil enough times and with enough consistency to say you lead a good life. (Incidentally, I believe this is the case with you.) Look at how this phrase works when using your evil as focus idea (and I added bold to highlight my point).

"The focus on good is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same..."

Look at how many good productive people have awful children who grow up to be monsters.

Evil is metaphysically there, it always reappears, and it grows if you don't figtht it.

I can't call that impotent.

Michael

Yes, but you are fighting people. Who are these people and on what do they feed? That was what Rand explored.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Rand was the one who personalized evil, attributing a characteristic of living beings to it: "impotent."

I didn't do that. She did. I merely stayed within her parameter.

If you want to apply the "but you are fighting people" criterion to the argument I developed, you have to apply it to the one she did, too. Otherwise you are playing a double standard game with loaded dice.

And once you get into actual people at root, not an abstraction (evil) with a critter characteristic (impotent), you get into human nature and the ball game changes.

If you want to discuss evil as a value judgment human beings make against a standard for characterizing actions and intents, or the meaning of evil as an adjective for a type of person, instead of an oversimplified anthropomorphic rhetorical construction, I'm more than willing to do that.

(Dayaamm, that sounds like gobbledygook, but it really does mean something. )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Rand was the one who personalized evil, attributing a characteristic of living beings to it: "impotent."

I didn't do that. She did. I merely stayed within her parameter.

If you want to apply the "but you are fighting people" criterion to the argument I developed, you have to apply it to the one she did, too. Otherwise you are playing a double standard game with loaded dice.

And once you get into actual people at root, not an abstraction (evil) with a critter characteristic (impotent), you get into human nature and the ball game changes.

If you want to discuss evil as a value judgment human beings make against a standard for characterizing actions and intents, or the meaning of evil as an adjective for a type of person, instead of an oversimplified anthropomorphic rhetorical construction, I'm more than willing to do that.

(Dayaamm, that sounds like gobbledygook, but it really does mean something. )

Michael

I don't think of people doing things as being part of "metaphysically there." That's all. That seems to be way below free will. If "metaphysically there" is a cup, people are in that cup doing what people do, good or bad or mox nix. People are, it seems to me, "metaphysically there" only if you strip them of free will because free will denotes some choices to the exclusion of others but until those choices are made they can 't exist except epistemologically, if that. I disagree with your proposition of evil being such therefore.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

As I said (or maybe implied), the "metaphysically there" frame is Rand's not mine. She made evil "metaphysically there" so it could be virile or impotent, then called it impotent. How can anything be impotent if it isn't "metaphysically there"?

I usually don't think in such terms anymore. Now, good and evil to me are essential parts of morality, which I derive from human nature. Nothing less, but nothing more. And I agree with Rand that morality is "a code of values to guide man's choices." Principles. Good and evil are the end points of a degree scale for measuring values--with man's nature as the standard. They will be with us as long as morality is with us, which means as long as humans have a specific nature.

Good and evil are not actual metaphysical forces that can be virile or impotent.

But let's look at your disagreement with "my" proposition (when I use Rand's framework).

Will you use the same standard for Rand? In other words, does this mean you believe the expression "evil is impotent" is basically meaningless?

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

I say look at Pinochet. Was he one of South America's most bloody dictators and did he turn Chile's economy around by moving into capitalism? Yup on both scores.

Look at North Korea. Do productive minds refuse to work there and has the government collapsed? Well, you don't see much productive stuff, in fact you see a lot of starving people, but the government has a chokehold on the country that has been near impossible to break for decades.

Oppression and enslavement are both evil, but not necessarily destructive on a metaphysical level (meaning destroying everything). They can both be quite productive. For example, I just can't look at the cotten fields of the deep South during the slavery years and call the evil that was practiced impotent.

Michael

Michael---A few notes on the above points:

Dictatorial governments are able to use force to maintain themselves in power over a period of time while enslaving and massacreing their own citizens. When evil has a monopoly on military weaponry, it can wreak all manner of destruction. So evil has potency to that extent--again, if you consider the power to destroy to be be an expression of potency, Dictatorships harness the productive energies of others, including their own citizens, to sustain themselves in power. The principle is: evil survives by placing the power of the good In its service,

But Rand would say that any "power" evil may achieve is inherently destructive. Any time evil forces get their hands on a gun, they become “powerful” to that extent. Every month or so the newspapers feature stories about some wingnut who gets hold of a gun and uses it to kill innocent people who are unlucky enough to be in his line of fire. If you want to call that evidence of evil’s "potency," then you can definitely make that argument. The parents of the Columbine victims would probably say that Klebold and Harris wielded enormous "power" over their childrens' lives for one day. In a metaphysical sense, however, they did not wield any real power over reality—all they succeeded in doing is wiping themselves out of existence. That is the essence of futility. And the same principle applies in different forms and differing degrees to all evil.

For tyrants to sustain their domination of their people for very long they need either outside help or the complicity of their victims. Pinochet had the backing of our CIA before and after his coup. His brutality was also sustained by the genius of the ‘Chicago Boys’ -–the economic experts trained at the University of Chicago—and then by the productivity of Chilean citizens after the economy turned around. Kim Jong Il has been sustained in power through foreign aid for food and other necessities for the North Korean people.

Whether or not slavery was productive or profitable for slaveholders is irrelevant here. Force definitely can be used to the short-term economic advantage of the person wielding it. Bank robbers may in some cases reap the rewards of their crime. I’m sure there are criiminals—including mafia bosses-- who have found crime profitable. But economic benefits alone do not establish practicality. The destructiveness comes from the fact that force creates misery for all those involved in it. A leash is a hangman’s rope with a noose at both ends, as Ayn Rand said. Coercion does not create a properly human mode of existence, and destroys the lives, well-being and happiness of all those involved in it. That is the sense in which it is inherently destructive.

Whether they profit from their enterprise or not, criminals (killers, bank robbers, slave-owners, mafia bosses, et. al.) are the most miserable people on earth. First and foremost, they destroy their own lives and the lives of those they vicitmize. And slavery was made possible by the willingness of a lot of otherwise intelligent, productive people, such as statesmen and lawmakers, who were willing to support it or look the other way. Without their support and complicity, it could not have lasted as long as it did.