RoR: Forum

John,
You said:

Ms Branden goes on to have us imagine a twelve year old Arab boy thusly:

"If this young boy considers himself a fundamentalist and upholds its doctrines, is he evil?" I guess him being twelve means that he should be cuddled instead of shunned? My own view is yes, if he upholds the doctines of the Koran he is upholding evil ideas. Furthermore, in todays context, he could easily threaten my survival and the survival of my family. She can't be serious here. Does she not know of the level of committment many of these children have to self-sacrifice and the destruction of others? Do I think his ideas are evil? Most definitely, inasmuch as they call for my destruction.

Ms. Branden's question was: "Is he evil?" You said "he is upholding evil ideas" and "his ideas are evil", but that doesn't answer her question. Doesn't being evil have a component of volition? Given the conditions Ms. Branden gave for this imaginary child; he cannot read or write, he has no knowledge of the outside world, he has learned nothing but what was read to him from the Koran, and he has had no real opportunity to check what he has learned against reality, do you really think that this twelve year old has these beliefs of his own volition?

Also, she goes on to say that if this person was an adult who "had seen something of the world, who had had an education, .. then yes, we could consider him evil". Do you think this is an irrelevant distinction when deciding whether someone is evil?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 101

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:23am

In response to John Newnham's excellent Post 98 in this thread, which I sanctioned, Glenn Fletcher asked:

Doesn't being evil have a component of volition? Given the conditions Ms. Branden gave for this imaginary child; he cannot read or write, he has no knowledge of the outside world, he has learned nothing but what was read to him from the Koran, and he has had no real opportunity to check what he has learned against reality, do you really think that this twelve year old has these beliefs of his own volition?

The evidence of natural law -- A is A, either implicit or explicit -- surrounds us in all experiences of the world. One must necessarily engage in some form of fantasy, wishful thinking or other evasion to embrace the concepts of the supernatural, mysticism and self-sacrifice. So, yes, to the degree that this boy holds to these convictions in the core of his soul, he is evil.

If you want to know how to treat this boy when push comes to shove, refer to this passage from Atlas Shrugged, Part Three, Chapter X, "In The Name Of The Best Within Us":

Dagny walked straight toward the guard who stood at the door of "Project F." Her steps sounded purposeful, even and open, ringing in the silence of the path among the trees. She raised her head to a ray of moonlight, to let him recognize her face. "Let me in," she said. [...] He shook his head frantically, pressing his back against the door. "Oh Christ, ma'am!" he gulped in the whine of a desperate plea. "I can't shoot at you, seeing as you come from Mr. Thompson! And I can't let you in against the word of Dr. Ferris! What am I to do? I'm only a little fellow! I'm only obeying orders! It's not up to me!" [...] Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/09, 10:29am)

Post 102

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:53am

I can't begin to express how profoundly I disagree with Luke's post #101.

When children are held responsible for "evading" facts that have never even been presented to them, and regarded as so "evil" as to merit a bullet between their eyes, I am left speechless.

If I believed for a moment that the Objectivist ethics implied that we can deem people as "evil" regardless of their knowledge or volition, I would vow never to have a thing further to do with Objectivism.

But I know better.

Post 103

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:22am

Glenn perhaps I am just not getting her point, or perhaps she chose an unfortunate and naive example. I read her point as being that because of his age, and given the information available to him (the context) then his ideas are not evil. Furthermore she says ideas are not evil, but merely either correct or incorrect.

Some of the arguments are silly. Sometimes the word evil is bandied about with little regard for weight, degree and consequences. Forgive me but when an idea is ONE STEP away from my extinction then my hackles are raised.

So back to the kid. Is he evil, or ill informed? Is he evil only when he starts training, or when/if he actually kills someone in the name of Allah? If he becomes a cleric and preaches is he less evil?

Heres another: does evil exist independent of education, or mental status? Is Manson less evil because he is mentally "ill" and has a diagnosis?

John

Post 104

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:52am

Robert wrote:

When children are held responsible for "evading" facts that have never even been presented to them, and regarded as so "evil" as to merit a bullet between their eyes, I am left speechless.

If you had to choose between shooting him and letting your lover die in a torture chamber, what would you do?

Dagny made her choice in the passage I cited. A 12 year old could have reasoned about the issue as well or as poorly as the grown man did. The urgency of the facts stood right there. Do you disagree with the quoted passage or just its applicability to the boy in question?

I did not mean to imply that any "evil" person deserves death. But one who threatens me or a loved one with immediate deadly force deserves immediate deadly force in retaliation regardless of age or background.

Post 105

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 12:16pm

Barbara's example posited a young boy who simply held fundamentalist Islamist views that he had been taught, and -- because he knew no better -- longed for the day he could implement them.

Her example did not posit that he had committed, or was imminently about to commit, actual violence. It did not posit a situation of self-defense, where using force (even deadly force) against the boy might be necessary, regardless of the question of his moral status.

Her example certainly did not posit what you have added to it: circumstances analogous to the climax of Atlas Shrugged, where suddenly this 12-year-old Arab kid is transformed into a member of some gang torturing your lover!

Where did THAT come from?

Luke, given Barbara's restricted example, where a child simply holds fundamentalist Islamist views in his head, and longs to one day become a Muslim martyr, let me ask you again:

First -- regardless of whether his ideas can be labeled "evil" -- is the child himself "evil," solely by virtue of the content of his views, and even though he has been deprived of any real knowledge of alternative views, or meaningful opportunities to learn about them?

Second, does he deserve to be shot for holding those views?

Post 106

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 12:26pm

I'd shoot a "morally perfect" man if he's gonna to shoot me! Whatever ideas he may hold or however good a person he is is completely irrelevant here.

Post 107

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 12:29pm

Luke,
I think a more relevant analogy from Rand, from Atlas Shrugged is the Wet Nurse:

[Rearden] walked, as if this were his form of last tribute and funeral procession for the young life that had ended in his arms. He felt an anger too intense to identify except as a pressure within him: it was a desire to kill.
The desire was not directed at the unknown thug who had sent a bullet through the boy's body, or at the looting bureaucrats who had hired the thug to do it, but at the boy's teachers who had delivered him, disarmed, to the thug's gun�at the soft, safe assassins of college classrooms who, incompetent to answer the queries of a quest for reason, took pleasure in crippling the young minds entrusted to their care.

Glenn

Post 108

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 12:44pm

Good grief, Robert, let me bullet (!) the list for clarity:

Yes, I think people who cling to ideas that require evasion, e.g. supernaturalism, have tainted characters to the degree that they engage in such evasions. Sadly, that describes most people today. Build relationships carefully. Rather than "rage" I recommend caution.
No, they do not deserve to be shot simply for holding those ideas.
No, I would not brand them as thoroughly evil and warranting of execution or even shunning unless they execute their deadliest ideas. The boy in question starts with a tainted character because of his initial evasions of reality and then commits emotionally to that false vision, thus evading even more. His heart grows blacker with each passing day. Eventually, his "path to the Dark Side" empowers him to commit horrendous crimes.
Yes, such a tainted character can, up to a certain point in his moral development, cleanse his own soul with focus and reason, e.g. the Wet Nurse.

I base much of this on the moral development Ayn Rand outlines in "The Comprachicos," especially Part II in which she discusses "little manipulators [who] acquire a vested interest in evasion."

Hong wrote:

I'd shoot a "morally perfect" man if he's gonna to shoot me! Whatever ideas he may hold or however good a person he is is completely irrelevant here.

You would be completely right to do so. I would do the same.

Obviously I need to work on my skills at written communication, else I would not have had to state my viewpoint repeatedly in this thread.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/09, 12:47pm)

Post 109

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 1:05pm

Luke Setzer writes:

> "If you had to choose between shooting him and letting your lover die in a torture chamber, what would you do?"

Well, Luke, the situation you describe, taken from Atlas Shrugged, was an action and not merely a thought or idea. Yes, you can defend yourself against an adult who is aiding in the torture of a loved one or against a 12 year old who picks up a rifle and points it at you with the intent to blow out your brains - even if you must kill the other person in the process. But this does nothing to bolster your claim that ideas per se are evil and that simply holding them in the absence of direct violent action is enough to condemn another to death.
--
Jeff
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 8/09, 3:33pm)

Post 110

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 1:17pm

Hong said: "I'd shoot a "morally perfect" man if he's gonna to shoot me! Whatever ideas he may hold or however good a person he is is completely irrelevant here."

priceless ;-)

Of course, Hong, I hope you realize that in order to shoot a morally perfect man - you have to be a morally perfect shot.

George

Post 111

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 2:10pm

Ah, George, very true. This reminds me of Voltaire who said: "God is not on the side of the big battalions, but of the best shots". Maybe we can substitute "big battalions" with "perfect morals"?

Did Voltaire also have said something about morals? Something like "I have no morals, yet I am a very moral person?"

BTW, I got all this Voltaire from a recent viewing of the TV show Sharpe's Enemy. The Napoleonic Era was an interesting time, when enlightened France was at war with the rest of the Royalist and Religionist Europe. In the end the frogs lost, and Bourbon was restored. So, ideas are not everything.

Post 112

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 2:28pm

Hong, Voltaire?!

Shame on you. ;-)

Of course we are all familiar with his famous remark about how he may not agree with what you are saying, but would fight to the death for your right to say it. But my favorite Voltairism is a bit different, and has something of an "edge" to it.

George

Post 113

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 2:39pm

Here is where I have a problem, Luke: with your designation of "ideas that require evasion, e.g. supernaturalism..."

"Require"? Is evasion intrinsic to holding such an idea?

Time permitting, I could propose any number of examples of people raised and taught from earliest childhood that a belief in God was the only thing that made sense of the universe. Let me name just one example: Thomas Aquinas. In his time and context, he was exercising extraordinary mental energy to try to grasp reality and its laws.

Was Aquinas an "evader"? Was he one of those who "starts with a tainted character because of his initial evasions of reality and then commits emotionally to that false vision, thus evading even more. His heart grows blacker with each passing day. Eventually, his 'path to the Dark Side' empowers him to commit horrendous crimes."

(In "The Anatomy of Cooperation," I challenged this view about the alleged inevitability of "bad premises driving out good" -- the philosophical version of Gresham's Law -- as an instance of pure rationalism -- and of philosophic determinism.)

But that point aside, can you not conceive of individuals raised in intellectual circumstances so limited that they come to accept a premise or premises, such as "supernaturalism," because they have been taught that it makes sense?

I not only can conceive of this; I meet such individuals all the time. I also know it first-hand, because I myself was such an individual as a youth: someone raised in a religious home and taught a set of religious beliefs that I did not have the intellectual means to challenge until my late teens.

My reason for believing in God was not "evasion." It was the "first cause" argument. Because I didn't grasp causality properly, I believed that logical causality necessitated a supernatural creator of the universe.

And you know what? I bet that life experience describes many, if not most, of the people reading this thread. So, were we all "evaders" through the age of 12 and beyond?

And since we were supposedly emotionally committed to ever-increasing evasions while our "hearts grew blacker with each passing day," how do you explain the fact that most of us "evaders" suddenly stopped evading one day, and became Objectivists, presumably pure as the driven snow by virtue of our Good Premises?

Or, in fact, do we need to check some premises here -- such as the one that damns as "evaders" even children who were taught to believe in God at a time when their knowledge and intellectual judgment was no match for those of the adults around them?

Since you quoted Rand, let me quote her, too. While there is some ambiguity in her statements in the following linked item, these interview excerpts don't exactly support the position on moral judgment that you are advancing -- and clearly not in the case of the moral judgment of children.

Post 114

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 2:44pm

MSK,

Actually, I said "So maybe those who thought is was a wonderful speech can offer some reasons for that evaluation. Did I skip over the really important part?"

Also, I don't consider the fact that "knowledgeable" Objectivists liked this speech as a reason to think it's brilliant or even good. No arguments from authority here. And since those who praised it weren't able to provide a reason for that praise, I have to consider it baseless.

And I'll even argue with your point that she identified not-so-obvious causes or solutions. Her causes were pretty obvious. And she offered no solutions at all, except to avoid morally judging people (which I don't consider a solution).

She warns against jumping to conclusions about how obvious an idea is, but doesn't offer a correct method in it's place. She argues that we shouldn't conclude people are evading because psychology isn't a science, but doesn't suggest when it is appropriate. The theme of her article is that we shouldn't become morally outraged because we just don't know!

And no I'm not forgetting that she makes exceptions for the trivially easy cases to recognize. But she doesn't say how we recognize these cases, and she discusses them as if they're such remote cases that they don't matter. In short, she argues against moral outrage in everyday life, but keeps the door open for any cases that would easily refute her arguments.

There's no solution there at all. A solution would say how we should approach moral condemnation or outrage without being unjust or overly simplifying. The only answer you can read out of this speech is an appeal to skepticism. It follows the same line of reasoning as other well known arguments for skepticism. If we just admitting we didn't know what was right and wrong, then we wouldn't use violence to get our ways. Nonsense.

Of course, you're free to consider whatever she writes as brilliant, as is everyone else. I just figured those who thought it was and advertised their belief might be able to offer support for that belief.

Post 115

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 3:28pm

Everyone talking about evil ideas, evil people, etc., could we get some definitions? I've argued elsewhere that the term 'evil' has so much baggage that we should try to clarify our exact meaning.

One problem I have is the discussion of people as evil. I said elsewhere (on Robert's Unilateral Moral Disarmament thread):

As an aside, I had a conversation the other day about all of this. This guy I talked to was upset that Muslims were being treated as if they were inherently evil. From his way of seeing things, evil was something like Satan or the dark side of the force. It's not about making destructive choices or being irrational. So when he hears people talk about how evil the terrorists are, he sees it as some kind of irrationality on the part of those making the claim. It's like saying WWII was caused by German's being naturally aggressive. Or discussions of demonic possession, or the children of Satan, or whatever.

In other words, evil has such stupid connotations that people have started believing it is possible. This is the kind of moral disarmament that exists now. They can't even identify evil in its most obvious forms.

How many views of evil are there? Just taking a view that evil revolves around destruction.
1.) A person is inherently evil. He's consciously aware that what he's doing is destructive, and does it anyway. True Hollywood villain.
2.) A person who performs a destructive act. Say someone who murders another.
3.) A person who does destructive acts frequently. At some point his destructive acts are a significant part of his character.
4.) A person who wants to do destructive things, but hasn't done them yet. A wannabe terrorist who hasn't seen anyone to blow up.

Which is the better use of the word? I think we can't answer that without answering a much more significant question. What's the point of judging someone as evil?

If moral judgment is just a way of making us feel good about ourselves, then it doesn't matter. Pick whichever makes more people evil so you can be happier with yourself.

If the goal is to identify threats, does it matter whether the terrorist is brainwashed or whether he's consciously aware of his crimes?

If the goal is to figure out which of the threats might be able to redeem themselves given a chance, would we say that the young terrorist wannabe is mostly evil (assuming it would be difficult to change his mind). If the boy kills a bunch of people, but could be redeemed, would we say that he's not evil?

Without understanding the goal, it's just verbal gymnastics.

And going back to the speech, what's the purpose of moral outrage? Why get angry when someone threatens your life? Why get angry when someone adopts a pattern of thought that will probably lead to a threat to you? Should we get morally outraged when someone does something stupid with their lives? Should we be morally outraged when they try to apply that same stupidity to someone else's life? Should we be morally outraged when they promote these ideas that are destructive? Should we only get outraged if they should know better, but not get upset if they were raised to believe it? Does it matter if they evade knowledge or just never bothered to go find the knowledge? Should we not get upset if there's a chance they would change their minds if better informed?

Post 116

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 3:56pm

Joe,

You wrote:

The only answer you can read out of this speech is an appeal to skepticism.

The only answer? That's an amazing statement. I have no argument using the logic that leads to it.

It presupposes that Barbara says what she didn't say. So you probably know what she said better than she did. I have no mental access to understanding or using that kind of higher logic.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Michael

Post 117

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:40pm

Robert B., good Catholic lad that he was, received that same intellectually sophisticated scholastic arguments for God that I did. I remember, as a 9-year old, being amazed by the First-Cause argument for the existence of God, as it was given to me by a priest. Father (whatever-his-name-was) -- O'Flaherty or some such Irish name, probably -- held up the Oak tree as an example, and asked us where it came from. Well, from the acorn, of course. So, the good Father then said, "All right, children, so where did the acorn come from?" Well, it came from another oak tree, and so for the first time, we saw an infinite regress looming on the horizon -- little 9-year old kids, getting a lesson in philosophy for the first time and finding it irrefutable. Obviously, there had to be something or someone to start this process, and, of course, who better or more capable than God! How could anyone be an atheist, after hearing that argument. And, no we didn't evade its refutation, for Christ's sake. We couldn't conceive of a refutation to it. That argument stuck with me until I was 20, at which point I encountered an atheist who gave me an argument I couldn't refute, and so I had to accept it. Then I read Branden's superb refutation of the First-Cause argument and that sealed it for me.

I was no Ayn Rand, who saw through religion at -- what was it? -- 9 or some ridiculously young age? If only she were there in my Sunday School class with all the other 9-year olds to mount a challenge to the priest when he delivered Aquinas' argument. I do remember, at the age of 11, asking my mother how she would respond to someone who made a good argument against her religion, as I imagined that there might very well be one -- but she simply said that it didn't concern her, because she accepted the religion on faith. I thought at the time, how convenient, since I viewed her answer as a cop out. But I still didn't see through that rationalization until I was 20. I simply didn't have the intellectual firepower. I wasn't the brightest light on the block, but as Garrison Keeler would say, I was "above average," as were all of us in my home state of Minnesota.

So, if someone is religious, I don't automatically assume that he or she is an evader (like my mother - God rest her soul!). I would need to know more about the person to determine that. Not that there probably aren't a lot of them out there -- the faith-based disciples of the supernatural -- but you can't tar all religionists with the same brush.

- Bill

Post 118

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 4:59am

Robert wrote:

Time permitting, I could propose any number of examples of people raised and taught from earliest childhood that a belief in God was the only thing that made sense of the universe. Let me name just one example: Thomas Aquinas. In his time and context, he was exercising extraordinary mental energy to try to grasp reality and its laws.

Bill wrote:

I do remember, at the age of 11, asking my mother how she would respond to someone who made a good argument against her religion, as I imagined that there might very well be one -- but she simply said that it didn't concern her, because she accepted the religion on faith. I thought at the time, how convenient, since I viewed her answer as a cop out.

I recall from my own childhood refusing to engage in the Sunday School "end of class" prayer around age six until my mother called me onto the carpet for it. In retrospect, I consider the entire church experience a collective act of willful self-delusion, i.e. mass evasion.

While I still think belief in God and the supernatural requires some evasion to take root, I would not condemn such a believer in whole as an evader. I think the difference between myself and Robert lies in the fact that I accept that most people evade in some area of their lives. But I still build relationships with them for their virtues and not for their vices.

For example, I had a friend with whom I built a friendship even though he drank vodka like water, smoked pot regularly and believed in God. He eventually died of liver disease exacerbated by his drinking. Why did I make friends with him? We shared common interests like Neal Boortz, etc. He had virtues that outweighed his vices. He had his redeeming qualities despite his evasions regarding his drinking and so forth. He admitted he had a problem but took no action to correct it, and he paid for it with years taken from his life. Fortunately, he forced no one else to suffer any initiations of physical force for his evasions. I can tolerate that.

So while I would say that people evade in areas here and there, that does not amount to a good reason to condemn them in total as immoral. This does not constitute a "cult of moral grayness" but merely the recognition that we live in reality and have to deal with it in a way that best serves our own interests. We need to build productive relationships of the right kind with the right people to maximize self-interest.

As for the whole question of error versus evasion, I remain puzzled about how much I should really care about people's internal thought processes or how they arrived at them. Substitute "error" for "evasion" in the previous discussion and you still have people who adhere to ideas that lead them to engage in life-diminishing actions ranging from heavy drinking to destroying skyscrapers. That certainly warrants cause for upset from people who know better. As Joe said in Post 115 of this thread:

Without understanding the goal, it's just verbal gymnastics.

Post 119

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 5:37am