Historically there has been a widespread bias against intellectuals; and for the most part it has been a bias rooted in envy and fear. However, every once in a while there are moments when the musings of intellectuals leads people to a ‘bias-confirmation’ of sorts. Those moments usually occur when in the exercise of hypothesizing over some particular question or idea, the intellectualizing becomes so far removed from reality, that the conclusions drawn are absurd.
Just for the hell of it, I re-read this entire thread, including my own comments, and asked myself: what conclusion about those that have commented on this thread, would the average person draw after reading it? The answer I keep coming up with is: they’re nuts!
The question is asked, who is more evil, Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler; a nun that lived true to the code of her church’s teachings by living her life altruistically, or a genocidal dictator responsible for the suffering and death of tens of millions? That this type of question is deemed worthy of serious debate is why the majority of people, do not consider philosophy worthy of serious consideration.
The problem lies in the two archetypes that have been chosen to represent the two extremes of value destroying. As Objectivists, we are all familiar with the fictional, Ellsworth Toohey, the spiritual destroyer whose ideas make monsters possible. In search for Adolf Hitler’s “Ellsworth”, whom has been chosen, none other than, Mother Teresa! Jesus Christ (no pun intended), what an incredible and ludicrous stretch of logic! This tiny Albanian woman, whom early in life completely bought into the altruistic ideal taught by the Catholic Church, and then tried to live her life in accordance with the letter of that ideal; this is the woman that is being compared to a mass murderer?! But Mother Teresa is no Ellsworth Toohey, at worst; she is a Catherine Halsey. So the proposition that has been set up, the choice between Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler - is absurd beyond all measure of reason (or decency). Mother Teresa is more ‘effect than cause’, and as such, she makes a terrible example as a spiritual enabler to proven monsters.
Compounding the problem is the fact that not all erroneous ideologies are equally flawed, much less proportionately evil. It is one thing to compare a Pope during the ‘Inquisition’ to Adolf Hitler; it is something altogether different to make an analogy between Pope John Paul II and Adolf Hitler: an analogy made absurd by the enormously changed historical and ideological context of the Pope’s role, influence and teachings. Properly asked, the question should be, who is more evil; Oswald Spengler or Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx or Joseph Stalin. In these two examples it’s apples to apples, and the context is not dropped.
Within this thread, Robert Bidinotto said,
“Conventional connotations of the concept "evil" include not just matters of value-content, but also of degree of harm and of malicious motive.” I cannot agree more. But later, Robert asked,
“Then what actually and primarily defines "evil": that "evasion" which we do within the privacy of our skulls, or that destruction which we carry out in the world? … who is the most evil: he who accepts bad ideas and who evades facts -- or he who acts on bad ideas or evasion, and directly, willfully causes harm and destruction? Kant or Hitler? Mother Teresa or Ted Bundy?”
Notwithstanding the fact that I find the Catherine Halsey (Mother Teresa) - Ted Bundy analogy, a poor one, I would like to answer Bidinotto’s question; Robert, its Hitler and Bundy, hands down and no fucking contest. The scribblers of nonsense and evil are not the moral equivalent of those that transform evil, from the theoretical - to the actual.
George
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/12, 9:00am)
|
