The nature of evil

[Ken Cotton]

Hello,

 

I would like to give FDR a sort of open letter about what I consider to be the nature of evil. For the purpose of this I will define evil as a willingness to engage in selfish acts at the expense of others. In essence, evil is inherent in win-lose situations. From this we can determine what things exist in the world as "necessary evils". For example, most people agree that things like a standing army are a necessary evil. My perspective on this issue is formed by the fact I am fairly sure I suffer from narcissistic personality disorder or NPD. While I have not been clinically diagnosed with it I exhibit many of its symptoms. One of the obstacles of the situation is the fact that I don't want to be officially diagnosed because I feel as though it would hurt my career options moving forward.

 

I set forth as a principle of this good-evil arrangement that nothing is objectively, mathematically good or evil. Good and evil are therefore subjective. For practical reasons we can assume that good and evil in relation to humanity are what matter primarily. It is important to keep in mind the objective reality however, because creatures acting without empathy are more inclined to act in a way that can be regarded as objectively. For example, we don't generally regard animals as being good or evil. *We generally regard animals as fancy robots that simply reproduce ad infinitum. From this simple exercise we can determine how someone with low empathy is able to view actions. I would argue that our templates for evil robot overlords who dispassionately act with no regard for human life are directly tied to the natural phenomenon of low-empathy human beings. We have learned what a robot MIGHT do or be capable of from what robot-like humans can do or be capable of.

 

( *I think there's an interesting train of thought to be explored where living creatures are a sort of cyborg by default, with traditionally understood living elements forming from traditionally inanimate objects, ashes to ashes and dust to dust - but I digress )

 

Taking our initial purpose to be simple reproduction, we must explore different forms of reproduction. In this we need to also establish priority. Each person is going to prioritize things differently. Forms of reproduction can vary from the base ( children ) to the more esotetic ( ideas ). We can see in examples of Nobel Prize winners and geniuses people that have reproduced through ideas, but have not had children. In a way that borders on the spiritual they are able to transcend physical limitation as we commonly know it and transfer their defining traits via book, radio, TV. For a person who absolutely prioritizes their mind and ideas physical relation can be more abstract. They can die without children and leave behind a legacy that is picked up by someone on the other side of the world. That person can then become a "spiritual successor", or grow up on those ideas and experiences, a child of that person in the context of ideas. The much more common means of human reproduction is fairly basic and consists of sexual reproduction. A well understood and complex process in its own right, but comparatively basic. ( And maybe this incredibly loose, incredibly basic web of idea-sharing is the stirrings of transcendance, and those engaging in it are neanderthal equivalent for future technological singularity transhumanists, a breed all their own, who knows! )

 

Different forms of reproduction therefore have different reproductive strategies. Not all reproductive strategies are effective. Human beings have evolved advanced empathy, which has served us well, but that does not inherently make empathy a superior reproductive strategy. A divergent creature with similar intellectual capacity but no appreciable empathy might be able to reproduce at a faster rate. Reproductive strategies and evolution are can be looked at as a gamble, or perhaps just things aimlessly tumbling around a dryer - a reflection of matter tumbling endlessly and recklessly through space. Reproductive strategies are also keyed to environment. In an environment with scarce resources altruism might be an ineffective strategy. In an environment with many resources violence might be an ineffective strategy. An additional risk of all these reproductive strategies is the fact that they might ultimately prove too effective. It is certainly possible for creatures with no natural balancing factor ( predators, disease, etc ) to overpopulate an area.

 

My reproductive strategy has been labelled by some as parasitic, though I prefer to think of it as symbiotic. At my core I am engaged in a multi-leveled competition with other human beings. Traditionally, human beings are engaged on one level of competition. My first level of competition is the same as anyone else, I am against other human beings competing for resources. This can be healthy competition and does not necessarily require violence. The second level of competition is against other narcissists. I am driven by my nature to gather together a host population, and to afford them the benefits of my existence in return for their cooperation and consent to my presence. The primary advantage I offer my host population is insight into the "enemy" and protection from that enemy. There are other perks, such as organization and productivity, the objective view, the will to power, etc.

 

It's important of course to understand that I, like anyone else, am fairly unique. There can be different levels of narcissism present in a person, different levels of willingness to engage in good/evil behavior, etc. When push comes to shove, I will pretty much survive at anyone's expense by doing anything necessary. Being self-aware of this fact but having a desire to do good/have a good world, my self-serving interest becomes insulating myself from those circumstances. It becomes in the mutual best interest of myself and others for me to build them up, to acquire resources, and to shield the collective against threats. If I can be thought of as a conquerer, an entity that asserts its existence at the expense of others, then it stands to reason that I would demonstrate this quality in all relationships. I am inclined to conquer the people I meet, to accurately gauge my limitations and act within them, and to expand my resource base whenever possible.

 

Impaired empathy, like most forms of brain damage, is practically impossible to fix. Damage however, is not necessarily indicative of a decrease in capability reproductively speaking. A sword is a damaged piece of metal, one that has been sharpened by grinding the edge. A human being can be transformed into a weapon in a similar way by calculated damage. The result can be the creation of a creature exhibiting different reproductive traits than its peers, superior or inferior as determined by the long view of history. Naturally occurring and ideologically occurring reproduction can operate with each other, against each other, or alongside one another. One way of looking at this is to take into account circumcision. Men throughout history have been crudely referred to as "cut" or "uncut". If human beings routinely and institutionally damaged themselves for a long enough amount of time its possible that their evolution might reflect the practice. A people that exists in an environment of perpetual militarization for thousands of years might internalize those traits.

 

 

This has become a lot longer than I expected. I suppose I want to say, I would like to be a better person as its commonly defined. I think that in the broad view of good and evil, I am the kind of evil person that yearns for a suicidal moment of redemption. The sort of person that craves a moment where I can betray my nature and take self-defeating action to the benefit of others. I am incapable of doing this in the long term repeatedly. The kind of selfish evil that has trouble getting along with others long term, but has useful traits for those that can abide by my existence. I have been described as "working like a machine" many times for example, for my willingness to subject myself to hard work without distraction. Not as the result of a learned work ethic, but as the result of my nature. I do not actively seek the pain and misery of others, I simply do not have the same obstacles when it comes to utilizing necessary evils.

 

I hope that one day I am surrounded by people willing to utilize my gifts and give me what I need in return. I am here to learn as much as I can from you anarcaps, and I hope that one day we have nations ( or geographical areas if you prefer ) that can exist peacefully alongside one another. I sincerely hope that circumstances never pit us against one another.

 

Wishing you the best,

Ken

[J. D. Stembal]

I can't get past the second paragraph. Your definitions are very unclear and contradictory. Can you outline and clarify them first? You will get more replies if you do.

 

1. (From the supporting violence thread) The initiation of force is universal.

2. (From the supporting violence thread) The morality of an action is judged by the net amount of happiness it causes.

3. Evil is a willingness to engage in selfish acts.

4. Evil is inherent in win-lose negotiations. (In the last thread, you claimed to simply aim to win and that violence rewards winners. You support violence because you want to win. In this thread you are claiming to be evil.)

5. Evil is necessary.

6. Good and evil are both subjective.

7. There is a correlation between lack of empathy and objectivity.

 

Tell me which of those statements jive and which ones contradict. Fix the ones that contradict. I don't think Kevin Beal, Dsayers, WataschMan or myself have the energy or desire to do the heavy lifting for you. I'm not going to lie. This is going to take some work on your part.

 

Thank you!

[AustinJames]

This is all interesting to ponder.  I'm sorry to say I don't have much to say in direct response to the points of your post, but it might be worthwhile to share a personal experience regarding the nature of evil.

 

The novel Perfume, by Patrick Süskind, tells the story of a sociopath in 18th-century France who goes on a murderous rampage in order to distill and collect the scents of young virgins.  It is stunningly visceral and well-crafted, and upon reading it, I had the almost-immediate impression it was a portrait of the nature of evil, beginning with the shocking circumstance of the protagonist's birth.  The novel is a vast allegory exploring the nature of evil, rich with vivid metaphors and brain-tickling twists.

 

To anyone interested in exploring the nature of evil, I would recommend this book.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You might be interested to know what Stefan thinks the nature of evil is.

 

[dsayers]

From this we can determine what things exist in the world as "necessary evils".

 

This is not only begging the question, but begging a question that has already been answered. There's only one thing in the world that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence. For clarity's sake, my use of the word violence is meant to indicate the initiation of the use of force / violation of property rights.

 

So your claim of necessary evil was not established, cannot be derived from what preceded until it is established, and has now been refuted. Additionally, I think you're intentionally not including your bias as revealed in this thread. It's rather important because just as with your claim of necessary evil, your attempt at addressing the subject matter seems to be from the origin of already presuming it's outcome. The very definition of begging the question.

[McBeer]

My first level of competition is the same as anyone else, I am against other human beings competing for resources. 

 

I am sorry you feel this way. It is not true that everyone sees the world the way you do. The logical error in this type of thinking is that resources do not just exist in nature, they are the product of the productive capability of man.  I understand that resources are not infinite, but they are not fixed either.  Resources are maximized by cooperating with others to increase productivity.

 

 

 I would like to be a better person as its commonly defined. I think that in the broad view of good and evil, I am the kind of evil person that yearns for a suicidal moment of redemption. The sort of person that craves a moment where I can betray my nature and take self-defeating action to the benefit of others. I am incapable of doing this in the long term repeatedly.

 

This is another false dichotomy where either you sacrifice others for yourself, or sacrifice yourself for others.  If these were the only options, then of course you would choose to use people for you own benefit. The problem with this dichotomy is that both options are destructive, and cannot be universalized.

 

Cooperation with others is not self-defeating, or entirely for the benefit of others. Maybe the lack of empathy is why cooperation doesn't seem to be an option for you and people are nothing but tools to serve your needs.

 

One more thing. "most people agree" is not an argument. Most people used to agree that the world was flat, and disease came from angry sky ghosts. I think that maybe the idea of "necessary evils" is an excuse you tell yourself to justify whatever you may have done.  Evil is not necessary.

 

Necessary evil is a contradiction, and since contradictions do not exist you should check your premises because one of them must be incorrect.

 

Sorry if I come across as rude or insulting, as that was not my intention with this. 

I don't know what it is like to not have empathy, but from the way you describe it, it sounds like the worst kind of hell I could imagine.

Were you born this way or was this inflicted on you as a child? I don't know if it matters, but I am curious and sympathetic.

[Ken Cotton]

I can't get past the second paragraph. Your definitions are very unclear and contradictory. Can you outline and clarify them first? You will get more replies if you do.

 

1. (From the supporting violence thread) The initiation of force is universal.

2. (From the supporting violence thread) The morality of an action is judged by the net amount of happiness it causes.

3. Evil is a willingness to engage in selfish acts.

4. Evil is inherent in win-lose negotiations. (In the last thread, you claimed to simply aim to win and that violence rewards winners. You support violence because you want to win. In this thread you are claiming to be evil.)

5. Evil is necessary.

6. Good and evil are both subjective.

7. There is a correlation between lack of empathy and objectivity.

 

Tell me which of those statements jive and which ones contradict. Fix the ones that contradict. I don't think Kevin Beal, Dsayers, WataschMan or myself have the energy or desire to do the heavy lifting for you. I'm not going to lie. This is going to take some work on your part.

 

Thank you!

 

1. The initiation of force IS universal. By this I mean, all animate things exert force on other things. Objectively speaking this is all tracked by action and reaction, and has no overarching meaning. Tilling the land and killing a human being cannot be shown to be objectively moral or immoral actions. They are simply the movement of matter by animate objects which is a universal occurrence.

2. Morality is subjective. The human experience and consciousness is what dictates morality. To suggest that the human appreciation of morality is the ultimate authority on morality is supremely arrogant. Human beings derive morals from the way that actions make them feel.

3. Yes, I believe that evil is a willingness to engage in selfish acts with awareness of alternatives. If there is 1 apple and 2 people, and they're starving to death, it would be understood to be evil to eat the entire apple oneself and let the other person die. This is a win-loss scenario, contrasted by a cooperation win-win/loss-loss scenario like splitting it in half. ( Depending on if you're a cynic or an optimist )

4. Evil is present in win-loss arrangements. I do aim to win at any cost, which is a direct result of deeply rooted selfishness. The degree of evil or selfishness is measured by the need for it. Using the above example, I am inclined to consume the entire apple except in instances where I feel as though I can afford to share, or sharing is ultimately more beneficial. A willingness to use violence ( taking the apple by force ) at the expense of another person only compounds the matter.

5. Evil is necessary. As all resources are finite, all living creatures must compete for resources. Animals are exempt from the assumption of evil because they are unaware of morality. Human beings have the capacity for morality and empathy, but are animals. They simultaneously aware of morality and unaware of morality, as different portions of the brain are responsible for different actions.

6. Good and evil are subjective in that they are tied to human consciousness. A human being that is unaware of the consequences of their actions and right and wrong cannot be reasonably regarded as evil. Since evil requires a certain level of intellectual capacity it is by its nature subjective.

7. Empathy is the key to establishing the human understanding of morality. A typical human being does not kill another human being in the same fashion an animal might kill another animal due to advanced empathy. For example, the vast majority of people would regard the act of infanticide to be deeply immoral. However, animals routinely engage in infanticide and even the cannibalism of their own young. Objectively, we do not regard an animal killing its offspring as an "evil" act. By being able to disable empathy you are more capable to view things the way an animal typically does, which is in a rudimentary, more objective fashion.

[Ken Cotton]

 

This is not only begging the question, but begging a question that has already been answered. There's only one thing in the world that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence. For clarity's sake, my use of the word violence is meant to indicate the initiation of the use of force / violation of property rights.

 

So your claim of necessary evil was not established, cannot be derived from what preceded until it is established, and has now been refuted. Additionally, I think you're intentionally not including your bias as revealed in this thread. It's rather important because just as with your claim of necessary evil, your attempt at addressing the subject matter seems to be from the origin of already presuming it's outcome. The very definition of begging the question.

 

I am sorry you feel this way. It is not true that everyone sees the world the way you do. The logical error in this type of thinking is that resources do not just exist in nature, they are the product of the productive capability of man.  I understand that resources are not infinite, but they are not fixed either.  Resources are maximized by cooperating with others to increase productivity.

 

 

 

This is another false dichotomy where either you sacrifice others for yourself, or sacrifice yourself for others.  If these were the only options, then of course you would choose to use people for you own benefit. The problem with this dichotomy is that both options are destructive, and cannot be universalized.

 

Cooperation with others is not self-defeating, or entirely for the benefit of others. Maybe the lack of empathy is why cooperation doesn't seem to be an option for you and people are nothing but tools to serve your needs.

 

One more thing. "most people agree" is not an argument. Most people used to agree that the world was flat, and disease came from angry sky ghosts. I think that maybe the idea of "necessary evils" is an excuse you tell yourself to justify whatever you may have done.  Evil is not necessary.

 

Necessary evil is a contradiction, and since contradictions do not exist you should check your premises because one of them must be incorrect.

 

Sorry if I come across as rude or insulting, as that was not my intention with this. 

I don't know what it is like to not have empathy, but from the way you describe it, it sounds like the worst kind of hell I could imagine.

Were you born this way or was this inflicted on you as a child? I don't know if it matters, but I am curious and sympathetic.

 

Upon closer inspection, I should amend my earlier statements:

 

Evil is never necessary, but increasingly attractive.

 

I think it stands to reason that animals aren't evil because they are unconscious of morality. Human beings have an "animal brain" that can kick in in times of extreme duress. In situations where the higher functions of the brain aren't working, the lower functions of the brain will take over. This can be considered action that is unconscious of morality and not evil. Therefore, when acting in that fashion one is not exhibiting necessary evil because the actions are objective, unconscious, and neither good nor evil. As a person is driven closer and closer to this point, evil becomes increasingly attractive.

 

 

 

I'm sorry for being difficult. I find it extremely hard to look at things in a principled fashion instead of a consequentialist fashion. Necessary evil cannot exist in a principled binary format, only in a commonly understood fashion. My mistake was putting the commonly socially acceptable amount of selfishness ahead of the absolutely acceptable level of selfishness.

[jpahmad]

This is all interesting to ponder.  I'm sorry to say I don't have much to say in direct response to the points of your post, but it might be worthwhile to share a personal experience regarding the nature of evil.

 

The novel Perfume, by Patrick Süskind, tells the story of a sociopath in 18th-century France who goes on a murderous rampage in order to distill and collect the scents of young virgins.  It is stunningly visceral and well-crafted, and upon reading it, I had the almost-immediate impression it was a portrait of the nature of evil, beginning with the shocking circumstance of the protagonist's birth.  The novel is a vast allegory exploring the nature of evil, rich with vivid metaphors and brain-tickling twists.

 

To anyone interested in exploring the nature of evil, I would recommend this book.

 

Ha, I read that book awhile back!  Great book.  You bringing it up now makes me want to go back and read it from the new perspective that I have since joining FDR

[dsayers]

Human beings have an "animal brain" that can kick in in times of extreme duress.

 

Practice how you will perform and you'll perform how you've practiced. I'll give an example (and I accept that anecdotal evidence is not evidence). When I was learning to drive, my father taught me that while approaching a street light, to tell myself, "I can stop, I can stop, I can no longer stop." This way, in the moment the light changed from green to yellow, there would be no "duress".

 

One way we can perform with greater intention in the moment is to prepare in advance. This includes consistent rational thinking and a principled grasp of universal property rights. Habit (even genetically) and modeling during formative years can play a huge part in this.

 

Check out Alison Gopnik's The Philosophical Baby. I doubt it was always this way, but present day, it would appear that 1) Empathy is the default. This includes recognition and reward. 2) Epigenetics and nuero-elasticity allows us even to overcome trauma.

[Ken Cotton]

Practice how you will perform and you'll perform how you've practiced. I'll give an example (and I accept that anecdotal evidence is not evidence). When I was learning to drive, my father taught me that while approaching a street light, to tell myself, "I can stop, I can stop, I can no longer stop." This way, in the moment the light changed from green to yellow, there would be no "duress".

 

One way we can perform with greater intention in the moment is to prepare in advance. This includes consistent rational thinking and a principled grasp of universal property rights. Habit (even genetically) and modeling during formative years can play a huge part in this.

 

Check out Alison Glopnik's The Philosophical Baby. I doubt it was always this way, but present day, it would appear that 1) Empathy is the default. This includes recognition and reward. 2) Epigenetics and nuero-elasticity allows us even to overcome trauma.

 

I do support cultivating a strong personality, code of ethics, and self control. However, I think that even in the example of the car driving you are faced with the threat of pain. In that case it is the objective reality that a car accident can cause you or others immense harm. This is the same kind of phenomenon you get from learning not to touch a hot stove. It is my opinion that by intiating force you can provide this phenomenon where it might not otherwise naturally occur.

 

For example, if I turn on the stove and it gets red hot, I can bring my child to the stove and explain it to them. I can hold their hand near it to teach them what dangerous heat feels like without burning them, and explain the lesson to them. Because this dangerous level of heat is naturally occuring in the world I make the decision to force this lesson on them, even if they are interested in doing something else. This patronizing approach extends itself into other preparedness classes, such as military training. By simulating violence, pain, discomfort, you are able to train people to be more resistant to these natural occurences. This requires force however, with a rigid structure that permits few freedoms. In the same sense that I don't bring my child near the stove without holding their hand, neither do you freely let people onto a firing range with guns at their peril.

 

Training human beings then is of penultimate importance. There can only be a few true goals to any mass movement. The goal of the movement itself, like the goal of any other massive human endeavor, is ultimately to bring prosperity and happiness to the people. In order for people to be prosperous and happy, they need to abide by a set of rules. In order to learn rules they need to be taught. Statism simply brings people toward a single standard, depending mainly on the quality of the state.

 

 

To be concise, my offer ( if I was president of the world! ) would be a deal with the devil. How much better off would the world be if Stefan's work and the work of other philosophers was mandatory reading? How much better off would the world be without smoking? How much better off would the world be with any number of controls? If we rid ourselves of the most corrupt, reined the most ambitious, and set our sights on the goal of human happiness what glory could we accomplish? Could there be any limits to our successes other than those of envious states?

 

When we are pushed to the very brink of losing ourselves to our animal impulses, there will arise from within the state those few who walk the line between man and animal, those with the will to seize power and use it for better or worse. They and their followers will be judged by the caliber of their character and the aim of their movement. I am here to tell you that we are increasingly pushed to the point where the insepid nature of liberal democracy will fail us, and without embracing purposeful and designed reform of the people, will condemn us to a dark age of ignorance and isolation. I have seen the face of the poor, the increasing mass of the welfare state underclass, know them inside and out. There will be no noble savages among them when the yoke of the state finally breaks. They will consume you orgiastically, utterly incapable of processing the reason you spout with your dying breaths.

[dsayers]

In that case it is the objective reality that a car accident can cause you or others immense harm.

 

There is no car. The point was preparation in advance leads to practiced decision. If the light turns yellow, I don't have to fumble in the moment for whether to proceed or not. Regardless of circumstances, I don't have to fumble with whether to initiate the use of force against another moral actor or not.

 

This is important to understand because somebody that thinks aggression is an option is only going to engage in non-aggression when it's convenient for them. Let us suppose a person looking for sex. It takes time, effort, expense, and risk of rejection to woo a potential partner. Whereas rape is quicker and (in the context of superior might/guile) easier. If a person thinks rape is an option, they may attempt to woo for the sake of conformity, but the moment they are resisted, they will just rape. THIS person might have a "duress" moment where they have to decide on the spot what to do.

 

Regardless of level of duress, I personally will never be fumbling with whether to rape or not because I've invested the time in advance to understand universal property rights. Is it clearer without the mention of cars to serve as a distraction?

[Ken Cotton]

There is no car. The point was preparation in advance leads to practiced decision. If the light turns yellow, I don't have to fumble in the moment for whether to proceed or not. Regardless of circumstances, I don't have to fumble with whether to initiate the use of force against another moral actor or not.

 

This is important to understand because somebody that thinks aggression is an option is only going to engage in non-aggression when it's convenient for them. Let us suppose a person looking for sex. It takes time, effort, expense, and risk of rejection to woo a potential partner. Whereas rape is quicker and (in the context of superior might/guile) easier. If a person thinks rape is an option, they may attempt to woo for the sake of conformity, but the moment they are resisted, they will just rape. THIS person might have a "duress" moment where they have to decide on the spot what to do.

 

Regardless of level of duress, I personally will never be fumbling with whether to rape or not because I've invested the time in advance to understand universal property rights. Is it clearer without the mention of cars to serve as a distraction?

 

I think I could devise scenarios in which you would enage in rape, but maybe I'm just creative. Unless, I suppose, you're saying that that's a foundational principle for you around which your entire being revolves. You wouldn't rape someone to save your life, to save their life, to save your kid's life, or to save the entire world. If that's true then I applaud your moral fiber.

 

However, you seem to have missed my point, which is that I agree with your practiced decision making but stress the reason for its necessity. There is no reason to slow to a stop at a red light besides other cars or pedastrians. There is no reason to practice restraint sexually except for encountering others. As varying levels of understanding in basic concepts of law and sexual reproduction show, people cannot be entrusted to freely teach these lessons to their children. There are other scenarios to be encountered that require different lessons.

 

You might choose to die for the NAP, but I will not, nor will my children. I will survive at any cost, and I will teach my children to survive at any cost. My children will not be as the natives of north america, trampled underfoot and exploited by colonial forces. I have seen the effect of naivety, ignorance, and pacifism. I have seen what happens to people who are ignorant of their enemy, who do not acquire and refine arms, nor engage in manipulation or espionage. The result of disarmament is invariably death. Your blind dedication to the NAP and UPB will be an exploitable weakness now and for forever.

 

Learn to stop your car. I will learn to stop my car, and also learn to accelerate it and run over anyone who threatens me. Versatility and adaptability are key to survival, and survival is more important than anything else.