Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

[RichardY]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

[Tundra]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

Yes. 

 

I don't see how being 'evil' necessitates being insane. I mean what is the rational reason for acting morally. 

 

The way I see it is, it is either the case that it is in your own interest to act in a way that is 'morally good' in which case, even a nihilist would be rational to 'act good' out of selfishness. Or it is the case that you can benefit from acting "morally bad", in which case why is it irrational to act in morally wrong ways if it benefits you? 

 

For the record, I think of these two cases, the latter is the case in reality. 

 

This thread is more or less the "why act morally?" question rephrased. 

[WorBlux]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

 

 

The Y chromosome associated with the clan of Genghis Khan, is found in 1/3 of Asian men. If evil wasn't a good bet to make in certain circumstances, it would have died out a long time ago.

l if you adopt such means by any rational standard.

[aviet]

I think it depends on what you believe the words mean.

What is rational is very subjective. If you don't believe me try talking to a Jeremy Corbyn supporter.

Evil is not so subjective. But, for example, some people think it is perfectly acceptable to feed guinea pigs to a snake they keep in a small tank.

NAP is subjective, because people don't agree on the clauses of the principle or if there are any clauses.

Sane is subjective, e.g. gays were considered insane, now they are not.


If you believe person X is insane because Y. There will be others who disagree.


What are your own feelings? Can you give examples of evil when you think it is sane and insane?

[shirgall]

This question can be turned around: do people always do what they say they should do?

[dsayers]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

Aren't these two different questions? As aviet pointed out, you'd have to define what you mean by evil and sane?

 

Anybody can choose to behave in any way, regardless of what they think, know, or are told. Empathy, intellect, courage, etc do not inhibit our ability to act against them.

[EclecticIdealist]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?  What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

Rationality is objectively definable. Evil, is not. Evil is largely a matter of sentiment. One can certainly be both rational and what some or even many would consider evil. Most consider murder to be evil, and yet many who commit murder do so after rationally evaluating the pros and cons of murder (including the likelihood of succeeding in the murder and escaping the societal consequences). Some serial rapists and murderers were rational and what most would also consider to be evil.

 

I think it depends on what you believe the words mean. What is rational is very subjective. If you don't believe me try talking to a Jeremy Corbyn supporter.

I would suggest precisely the opposite, that what is rational is not very subjective at all. Support of Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be rational, and even if it is rational, that does not mean it is sound (i.e., any rational support may not be founded upon correct premises.)

 

Evil is not so subjective. But, for example, some people think it is perfectly acceptable to feed guinea pigs to a snake they keep in a small tank.

There are a great many things which some consider evil and others do not to suggest that evil is many respects very subjective. Some consider abortion to be evil, others do not. Some consider subjecting babies and young children to genital mutilation to be evil, others do not. Some consider spanking to be evil, others do not. Some consider subjecting children to superstitious religious beliefs is evil, whereas others, even those who consider the beliefs to be nothing more than superstitions, do not.

 

NAP is subjective, because people don't agree on the clauses of the principle or if there are any clauses.

The Non-Aggression Principle is NOT subjective. Principles are objective. Adherence to principles is mostly objective. Whether it is good or not to adhere to, or under what circumstances it may be violated and still be considered good is subjective.

 

Sane is subjective, e.g. gays were considered insane, now they are not.

Sanity is generally regarded as adherence to rationally justifiable behavior, not the presence of deviations of sexual orientation or desire. It would generally be considered sane for a person who identifies as homosexual to pursue a voluntary homosexual relationship in a culture which does not stigmatize such relationships. It would generally be considered insane for a person to pursue a mutually voluntary sexual relationship with a person or thing incapable of a voluntary sexual relationship (e.g. pursuing a mutually voluntary, sexual relationship with deceased author and philosopher Ayn Rand).

 

If you believe person X is insane because Y. There will be others who disagree.

Irrelevant. Your belief or others' beliefs may have no rational basis for such an assessment of insanity (or sanity).

 

[Will Torbald]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

 

I think it is possible to be rational and think of yourself as a hero while others see you as evil. I think it is possible to think of yourself as evil, while others think you're being irrational.

[sweathog1]

a cat plays with a mouse before killing it.(is it torture or play?) Saw the strangest behaviour the other day, young cat was playing with with a mouse for the longest time, momma  cat finally had enough, gave the young one a good swat, promptly sat down, killed the mouse then ate it.

 

Had a room mate who was an active Satanist while in the army, 2 or 3 in the morning, he'd be mumbling this gibberish over a inverted pentagram. Used to tell him to shut up, after waking me, all sorts of spells, ash of some creature he had tortured, bits of corn, etc. Was very proud of a book he had of the exploits he had done, course there was no writing in it, used to laugh about that, just numbered pages.

 

My humble opinion, in short pure god power trips for them.

 

In terms of rational, I'd say ya, we used to have these double blackboards on 4 walls, where the professor would write out these electronic maths problems, sometimes using all the boards. This guy would figure the answers in his head.

[Hannibal]

Yes. If you are inherently 'evil', by normal standards, then doing evil is rational. I.e. if you obtain real joy from doing evil, then that is good. Fortunately most of us aren't inherently evil.

[Tundra]

Yes. If you are inherently 'evil', by normal standards, then doing evil is rational. I.e. if you obtain real joy from doing evil, then that is good. Fortunately most of us aren't inherently evil.

What if you merely obtain joy from the byproduct of 'evil'

EG: I steal $1,000 from you, I get to enjoy that $1000

 

Is it rational then? Or is it only rational when you enjoy the actual evil act itself.

[Donnadogsoth]

Rationality can be either individual or societal.  Individually rationality is merely a tool, that can be used or good or evil like any other tool, and one can be good or evil while still being rational.  But socially, reason is directly associated with the survival of the group.  Using reason for good is indispensable for survival of the group historically.  So in that sense evil is irrational, because it leads to collective doom.  You can be an evil rationalist for your own purposes, but if you're evil socially, you're insane, socially speaking.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Rationality of some degree would be a prerequisite of evil. Evil is when someone knows the action is wrong but they do it anyway. In order to know the action is wrong you have to be somewhat rational. That's why animals can't be evil. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Rationality of some degree would be a prerequisite of evil. Evil is when someone knows the action is wrong but they do it anyway. In order to know the action is wrong you have to be somewhat rational. That's why animals can't be evil. 

 

Those mosquitos know what they're doing.

[RichardY]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

No. To be Rational is to be purely objective and "motivated" by logic (something akin to a Calculator). Evil must involve some non logical incentive coming at the detriment of others.

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

Yes. 

 

Note. As dsayers pointed out they are in fact two different questions, something I did not initially realise.

I define Evil as a violation of the NAP. i.e. the non-Initiation of force or theft.

Sane as self, family or kin preservation.

 

What are your own feelings? Can you give examples of evil when you think it is sane and insane?

 

Insane Evil:

Moors Murderers. 

Crucifixion. A long drawn out process, although I can see some sanity in as far as it intimidates obedience to a particular ruling class or gene-set.

The Wickerman. I know a film, but, human sacrifice was practised around the World. Again I can see some sanity as a method of population control, adding music, "honouring the gods", drink and festivities probably made the action more palatable to the culture.

 

Sane Evil:

Diversion of people's will and acceptance of Forced human experimentation and centralised research. A bloody shortcut, not necessarily the most efficient, but possibly effective in the short term. A Grail Quest of sort.

[Hannibal]

What if you merely obtain joy from the byproduct of 'evil'

EG: I steal $1,000 from you, I get to enjoy that $1000

 

Is it rational then? Or is it only rational when you enjoy the actual evil act itself.

 

A far as I can see it, that which is rational is that which furthers your ability to act according to your nature (for want of a better phrasing).

That is to say that stealing is irrational for most of us because for most of us it comes with risk, and it damages our own self-esteem and our own ability to derive real joy from a sense of self-pride. 

 

If, though, you are a sociopath, then it's only the risk that is to be weighed up when making a rational choice (in that scenario).

 

I.e, good and evil are man-made concepts. They apply to 'man' insofar as man is common. Where man is not common (a small percentage are psychopaths, etc) then good & evil will mean something different. 

 

With that being the case, there is no difficulty is imagining a scenario where an evil (by other people's standards) man does evil rationally.

 

That man, though, is a man insofar as his categorisation with regards to species is concerned. But his nature is not what the rest of us would consider to be that of a 'man'. 

[violet]

good and evil are man-made concepts. They apply to 'man' insofar as man is common. Where man is not common (a small percentage are psychopaths, etc) then good & evil will mean something different. 

 

With that being the case, there is no difficulty is imagining a scenario where an evil (by other people's standards) man does evil rationally.

 

That man, though, is a man insofar as his categorisation with regards to species is concerned. But his nature is not what the rest of us would consider to be that of a 'man'.

 

Agree.

 

I don't see why rationality and evil can't go together. Rational just means that you use the rules of logic to get from point A to point B. If your first principles are fundamentally evil then you are rational when you commit evil in accordance with those values.

 

Evil, to me, is about lacking empathy or acting as though you don't have empathy. The non-aggression principle is the standard for good - also called "the golden rule" and "love thy neighbour."

 

I like the idea of considering nature. Fundamentally "good" (empathetic) people cannot harm others without suffering from pangs of conscience (hard-wired empathy). Fundamentally "bad" (callous) people can harm others without feeling any remorse.

 

So, if you are are an unempathetic person, it is rational to pursue evil when it suits you.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

So, if you are are an unempathetic person, it is rational to pursue evil when it suits you.

 

It's not rational to pursue a goal that will lead to the destruction of your society, unless you plan on dying before that eventuality.

[RichardY]

Agree.

 

I don't see why rationality and evil can't go together. Rational just means that you use the rules of logic to get from point A to point B. If your first principles are fundamentally evil then you are rational when you commit evil in accordance with those values.

But why use Rationality in the first place or calculated risk? The Desire or Value, valued above the non-initiation of force is in itself irrational. Meaning to commit Evil would involve some extent of irrationality, not required in not doing evil(Rational and Good). From what I understand in Stefan's UPB book Good is basically not doing Evil, as what is good depends a lot on preferences.

 

Evil, to me, is about lacking empathy or acting as though you don't have empathy. The non-aggression principle is the standard for good - also called "the golden rule" and "love thy neighbour."

Lacking empathy  in itself though does not directly affect other people, even if it effects you through lack of care towards your future self. Both the Christian Golden Rule and love thy neighbour, would depend on the person in what they find acceptable. One person might find playing loud music early in the morning acceptable and expect the same, another might be annoyed by it. Love might involve a person making very different decisions in what is best for a person than another might.

So, if you are are an unempathetic person, it is rational to pursue evil when it suits you.

If someone is an unempathetic person then fundamentally they are not sane. As sane involves concern of your own future welfare and/or others.

[whirlingmerc]

yes...   its also possible to be irrational and evil

evil has more to do with what you lean on and put your delight in  

 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/MichaelScaman/right-hand-of-god-in-psalms

[Nathan Metric]

It is possible for a rational person to commit evil by accident, but evil in and of itself is irrational because evil does not serve the pursuit of truth nor is there a rational justification for evil.

[Kikker]

If someone is an unempathetic person then fundamentally they are not sane. As sane involves concern of your own future welfare and/or others.

 

If someone is unempathetic and acts in self interest he is sane according to your own definition: "sane involves concern of your own future welfare and/or others".  You may want to change your statement to: "and/or others".

[RichardY]

If someone is unempathetic and acts in self interest he is sane according to your own definition: "sane involves concern of your own future welfare and/or others".  You may want to change your statement to: "and/or others".

If someone is unempathetic, they can't act in their own self interest, they just act. There is no self.

 

Sane as self, family or kin preservation.

With my original definition including mosquitoes as sane, improvement seems to be in order. 

 

I think the addition of the word "concern", would be more accurate.

So, "Sane as concern for self, family or kin preservation."

 

"Preservation" is not specific enough, originally I was thinking along the lines of survival, but now I'm not so sure.

[Kikker]

If someone is unempathetic, they can't act in their own self interest, they just act. There is no self.

After you said this I checked the word and unempathetic is the lack of empathy,  which is 1: the ability to project your own characteristics onto another person in order to better understand them or 2: projection of your personality trait upon a object.  I don't see how the lack of those projections prevent you from acting in self-interest.

 

With my original definition including mosquitoes as sane, improvement seems to be in order. 

 

I think the addition of the word "concern", would be more accurate.

So, "Sane as concern for self, family or kin preservation."

 

"Preservation" is not specific enough, originally I was thinking along the lines of survival, but now I'm not so sure.

Well there is another point I would like to make, the occurrence of information deficiency. A person can be 'sane' and act rationally but still commit evil because he misses information about consequences of certain actions. A person can also simply disbelieve the information even if it is available. In that sense a religious fanatic can be sane and rational when he commits mass-murder if he believes certain premises and was never exposed to alternatives. Even rejecting alternative premises can be sane and rational if the person believes that accepting alternative premises would have detrimental consequences for his/herself, family or kin.

[RichardY]

After you said this I checked the word and unempathetic is the lack of empathy,  which is 1: the ability to project your own characteristics onto another person in order to better understand them or 2: projection of your personality trait upon a object.  I don't see how the lack of those projections prevent you from acting in self-interest.

You can have empathy for your future self, I don't think there is a situation where you could act in your own self interest and not have empathy for your future self. Perhaps an example of someone acting in their own self interest without empathy for themselves? 

 

Well there is another point I would like to make, the occurrence of information deficiency. A person can be 'sane' and act rationally but still commit evil because he misses information about consequences of certain actions. A person can also simply disbelieve the information even if it is available. In that sense a religious fanatic can be sane and rational when he commits mass-murder if he believes certain premises and was never exposed to alternatives. Even rejecting alternative premises can be sane and rational if the person believes that accepting alternative premises would have detrimental consequences for his/herself, family or kin.

Yeah I guess Ideologies/Religions (Absolute Idealism) that "may" appear to have no null hypothesis ie "Its not even wrong".For example you may have a Christian who believes it better to die for their faith ("Life Everlasting") than convert and be spared. Or the Islamic Terrorist who thinks he maybe rewarded in heaven. Or an Invasion of the Body Snatchers scenario. All irrational, but not necessarily incorrect beliefs.

 

Though if a person is acting rationally they are still following an irrational belief. Perhaps the most sane thing a person could do is follow an irrational belief but one that has no end or endures the longest.

 

Perhaps Insane as might be applied to a religious fanatic is not an entirely appropriate word, maybe not-sane/not-present/oblivion is more accurate. To further elaborate the inverse of truth(sanity?) could be; not-present/oblivion, rather than something identified as false(insanity?), which could apply to anything within a rational system.

[Kikker]

You can have empathy for your future self, I don't think there is a situation where you could act in your own self interest and not have empathy for your future self. Perhaps an example of someone acting in their own self interest without empathy for themselves? 

 

That's a weird distinction between present self and future self because in practice we use the word unempathetic for a psychopath who clearly show actions which have their future self in mind. Another problem that arises when you consider your future self to be another being instead of just being yourself is: when are you your present self? I mean I can try mindlessly satisfy my current hunger but it would take me 5 minutes to buy some food, does that mean I have empathy for myself in 5 minutes? Furthermore  my future self of 3 minutes is moving towards the supermarket which means the hunger only gets worse for that particular future self, do I hate myself to induce more suffering like that? And even long term goals like being a doctor can be fueled by my current self's desire to be a doctor in which case the line between yourself and future self really starts to blur.

 

Viewing your future self as a separate entity only needlessly complicates things and in practice we already use unemphatic to describe people who, according to you, have empathy for their future selves.

 

Yeah I guess Ideologies/Religions (Absolute Idealism) that "may" appear to have no null hypothesis ie "Its not even wrong".For example you may have a Christian who believes it better to die for their faith ("Life Everlasting") than convert and be spared. Or the Islamic Terrorist who thinks he maybe rewarded in heaven. Or an Invasion of the Body Snatchers scenario. All irrational, but not necessarily incorrect beliefs.

 

Though if a person is acting rationally they are still following an irrational belief. Perhaps the most sane thing a person could do is follow an irrational belief but one that has no end or endures the longest.

 

Perhaps Insane as might be applied to a religious fanatic is not an entirely appropriate word, maybe not-sane/not-present/oblivion is more accurate. To further elaborate the inverse of truth(sanity?) could be; not-present/oblivion, rather than something identified as false(insanity?), which could apply to anything within a rational system.

Perhaps, though I'm very interested to know how those irrational believes come into existence in the first place. I mean it would be easy to believe it's one irrational person who makes up an irrational believe, but it would also be very possible that simply a observation of a rational person who draws an untruthful conclusion could snowball over generations into an irrational believe.

[Mole]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

Praxeology would say yes. Evil is purposeful behaviour. Purposeful behaviour is human action. Human action, as opposed to reaction, is always rational.

[ClearConscience]

Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?

 

What I mean by that is can someone who commits evil actions violating the Non-Aggression Principle be sane?

Yes, because the prisoner's dilemma exists.  The end.

[shirgall]

I wouldn't necessarily use the term "rational", but there certainly is such thing as "intelligent evil", and it's probably the most dangerous kind because it is cold and calculating, well planned and efficient.

 

I think casual evil ("I'll be bad this one time and no one will notice") is more common and when it gets habitual more pernicious. I think it leads to the "rules for thee and not for me" attitude that leads to abdication of personal responsibility in favor of the state.

[RichardY]

That's a weird distinction between present self and future self because in practice we use the word unempathetic for a psychopath who clearly show actions which have their future self in mind. 

They might be unempathetic towards others, but if they have their future self in mind, I would say that have some degree of empathy if perhaps limited for themselves. If someone does not have their future self in mind then why would someone not do whatever feels good in the moment and if they have zero empathy how are they even sane, how does a person establish self interest without empathy?

 

Another problem that arises when you consider your future self to be another being instead of just being yourself is: when are you your present self? I mean I can try mindlessly satisfy my current hunger but it would take me 5 minutes to buy some food, does that mean I have empathy for myself in 5 minutes? Furthermore  my future self of 3 minutes is moving towards the supermarket which means the hunger only gets worse for that particular future self, do I hate myself to induce more suffering like that? And even long term goals like being a doctor can be fueled by my current self's desire to be a doctor in which case the line between yourself and future self really starts to blur.

I think ever being your present self is difficult I think the nature of the mind is to be forward thinking and anticipating, like those pictures on the Internet usually chequered circles that appear to move but stay the same. Empathy involves an element of projection into the future, delayal of gratification, but also an aesthetic element to it. A person may not decide to eat certain foods if they are on a diet, perhaps trying to improve fitness. The conception of time also brings up an important point I think emotions seem to be more analogue from something insignificant and barely noticeable to perhaps overpowering. 

 

Viewing your future self as a separate entity only needlessly complicates things and in practice we already use unemphatic to describe people who, according to you, have empathy for their future selves.

It is possible to have empathy for another living thing, which is a separate entity and involves emphasising for their future state. For example not leaving a dog in a car on a hot day, would be implying empathy through compassion. The question becomes if it is possible to have empathy for another entities future state, then why not for your own future state.

 

I can imagine Empathy being a difficult topic to define thoroughly or identify what it might be dependant on. So I started another thread on Empathy in the General discussion.

[Ninja]

If the person in question interprets the action as evil and would not welcome the treatment of oneself to the standard they apply to others then through action they agree with something that they don't agree with in their own right. The long term effect of this kind of hypocrisy inevitably will victimize the supporters of that behaviour personally.

 

If the person doesn't see the action as evil then further question is necessary.

 

For example if I were to go around killing infants I would rightly face severe consequence.

 

But if I were a doctor aborting fetuses it is viewed differently

 

If I were a doctor performing these surgeries and I beleive that if I was the fetus being aborted I would be better off not being born then it follows that I accept my moral claim fully that would be 'I believe that in certain circumstances it is better to prevent a fetus from forming completely and to end its life prenatally regardless of what is unknown about the potential of its life'

 

If I were the same doctor but was born to unfortunate circumstances and thrived regardless then I may be in moral conflict, if I decide what I'm doing is wrong after analysis of my logic then what I'm doing becomes evil regardless of the rationality behind the action objectively

 

I think that part of not allowing the hostility and futility of human life drive us insane is the act of rationalizing things we can philosophically accept to be evil.

[cassidy408]

"Is it Possible to be Rational and Evil?"

Yes

to rationalize is to justify chosen actions if they are seen as valid. Evil actions can be seen as valid to those who are evil