Keith's Weblog: Comments on "Evil"

by Keith Gaughan

Mon, 10 May 2004 20:53:44 +0000

... Conservatism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Feudalism, Nationalism, Republicanism, Unionism, Royalism, Catholicism, Protestantism, &c. Any -ism, frankly.

The problems with ideologies arise when people lack a healthy skepticism concerning their own belief system, leaving themselves believing that everything they believe is right so those who disagree are most certainly wrong.

What's the quote?

by Keith

Mon, 10 May 2004 21:19:38 +0000

Any -ism, frankly.

Any "ism" is evil? That's silly. An "ism" just refers to some set of beliefs, and those beliefs can be good or evil. I think you've just "jumped the shark" with your self-perceived ideological independence.

The quote isn't a "real" quote of something outside of Smallville. It's something Lex said that starts to give insight into why he's going to be Superman's arch nemesis. The part I'm referring to is the last quote listed on this page (in the quotes section). They have a little analysis of it in the "analysis" section. I don't agree with their conclusions, but it'll give you some idea of what I'm talking about.

by Ben

Mon, 10 May 2004 22:32:23 +0000

He didn't say every -ism is evil per se, but (as I understood it) implied through his second sentence that every -ism carries the chance to make people blind to their own actions. Once you follow a chosen doctrine that enables you to justify whatever you do, you've got a lot of power in your hands. Everything you do will be okay, unless you actually take a look in the mirror and start questioning if it's really that simple... though this would include accepting to be wrong sometimes. Or in other words, quite a lot of -isms have the power to develop fanatics, besides Communism et al.

I don't buy the argument that beliefs are either good or evil. The world isn't black and white, and morals aren't binary. Maybe for you it's easy to consistently decide what's good and what's not, but I say you always find a rather large number of people for whom it's not that clear, me included. I wonder why that is, assuming the concept of good and evil is a universal one?

by Sean

Tue, 11 May 2004 04:38:32 +0000

Keith Gaughn wrote...
Any -ism, frankly.

The problems with ideologies arise when people lack a healthy skepticism concerning their own belief system

Keith, please note the "ism" at the end of skepticism. Skepticism is a belief system/ideology as well, and one that refutes itself. Skepticism cannot stand for two main reasons. It, as an ideology, isn't subjected to skepticism. And secondly, there are necessary foundations for intelligibility (i.e., the normative foundation of the laws of logic, etc) that cannot be doubted without destroying reason along with it.

by Keith

Tue, 11 May 2004 18:52:24 +0000

I don't buy the argument that beliefs are either good or evil.

Ben, what does it mean to you for something to be evil?

by Keith Gaughan

Wed, 12 May 2004 15:06:55 +0000

Any "ism" is evil? That's silly. An "ism" just refers to some set of beliefs, and those beliefs can be good or evil. I think you've just "jumped the shark" with your self-perceived ideological independence.

Nah, you're definitely misunderstanding me, and misquoting me! And so did Sean. The point is a qualified one: people need (and Sean, notice the key word before skepticism) a healthy skepticism. I said that it's an unquestioning belief in an ideology that's harmful. Communism, for instance, isn't by itself an evil system. However it degenerates in an evil way because it's not really a system that people with faults and foibles can live within; it descends into dictatorship. People just aren't the angels it requires.

Me? Jump the shark? I hope not! The reason I discuss like this is in the hopes of not doing so. Part of the reason for being here is to accept criticism of my thought processes! And I definitely hope my ideological independence isn't just self-perceived.

Sean, I qualified the skepticism. Even skepticism taken to extremes is harmful, I don't disagree. Wine in moderation is good for your heart, but too much definitely isn't.

Other points: not all -isms are ideologies, however it makes a good pithy rhetorical device because many do. The laws of logic don't form an ideology, so I don't see where you're getting your second point from.

by Ben

Wed, 12 May 2004 20:49:52 +0000

Ben, what does it mean to you for something to be evil?

It's kinda hard for me to define a general principle, as I wrote, I'm not really categorizing each and every belief into either good or evil belief, exclusively. If I had to, I would say that the ingredients of Facism/Nazism pretty much fulfill the requirements for an evil ideology. But that was fairly easy. More interesting would be a characterization of Capitalism: Though I agree with its basic premises, I refuse to say that it's not without its problems (and severe problems they are), and can't bump the "good belief" sticker on it and be done. As I neither want to regard it as an evil belief, it's the already mentioned shade of grey. Not all good, not all evil. Much of improvement required. Has my point become clearer now?

May I ask you the same question in return - what is an evil belief?

by Ben

Wed, 12 May 2004 20:53:35 +0000

Forgot to mention: Labeling every belief/ideology as either good or evil strikes me as very simplificating. I think that's what I'm uncomfortable with.

by Keith

Wed, 12 May 2004 21:20:26 +0000

Communism, for instance, isn't by itself an evil system.

I disagree. Any system that advocates stealing (even though it's by the government) is wrong. Any system that subjugates men to the government and places full control over the economy in the hands of the government is evil. Or, to criticize more "pure" communism, the abolition of private property is evil.

Marx specifically said that a communist system requires atheism: it puts ultimate power in the government rather than God, and it is predicated on an un-Biblical view of human nature. In case I have to spell it out, I think atheism is evil.

And I definitely hope my ideological independence isn't just self-perceived.

My point is mainly that you have your own unquestioned assumptions and your own "isms" you hold to. In the nature of the case, everyone has beliefs they take as foundational, even if they don't realize that they're doing it.

Quine made the point that our beliefs form a "web" in which some threads of the web are more central than others. If you stretch the web, a few strands may break, but you can't change the center without moving to a new web (through a "paradigm shift"). Furthermore, given a challenge to one's beliefs, it's not clear which belief a person will choose to give up. The classic example is of a guy who goes to the doctor complaining that he's dead. The doctor asks him "Do dead men bleed?", and he answers no. The doctor pricks him and he starts bleeding, and the doctor says "See, you're bleeding, so you must be alive", but the patient responds "Hey, I guess dead men do bleed!"

So, we all start with a certain foundation, and to the extent that our differing foundations result in different "higher-level" beliefs, we can never agree or resolve differences without changing our very foundations themselves. And in the nature of the case, you can't be skeptical about your foundation. You can question it, certainly, and have reasoned reasons for believing in it (your foundational beliefs aren't necessarily chosen "fideistically").

Anyway, kind of rambly, but I think you get my point. We're all equal in that we all have some foundational beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that; it's necessary. The problem is that for most people, their foundations are unacknowledged, and they think they're free of prejudice, bias, or "ideological blindness", and that they're paragons of impartial objectivity, but in the nature of the case that's impossible.

by Keith

Wed, 12 May 2004 21:59:11 +0000

Labeling every belief/ideology as either good or evil strikes me as very simplificating.

I don't think so. "Capitalism" is just the principle that private property is a fine thing and that the economy should be run by market forces (people) rather than centralized control (government). I think that's a good belief. You can take capitalism to mean more than that and turn it into some kind of selfish utilitarianism that can justify dumping toxic waste as long as it's not in your back yard, but that's not implied by capitalism. You can also take it to mean more than that and think that it implies that the acquisition of material goods is of the highest importance, but it doesn't imply that either. Note that there's a difference between an ideology and its practical implementation, or to give an example, there's a difference between the principle (or "ideology") of capitalism and capitalist societies. But that's obvious.

what is an evil belief?

An evil belief is one that contradicts a belief that God would have us hold. Just like an evil act is one that violates (either the spirit or word of) God's law. And by "God" I don't mean some abstraction that people make up, but the God of Christianity as revealed in the Bible.

Or in other words, quite a lot of -isms have the power to develop fanatics, besides Communism et al.

Well, that kind of begs the question. Every belief can engender fanaticism, but I don't know of anyone who thinks he's a fanatic. In other words, "fanatic" is a relative and subjective term. It doesn't really make sense to argue against fanaticism as such, but only the beliefs held by someone you may consider a fanatic.

Maybe for you it's easy to consistently decide what's good and what's not, but I say you always find a rather large number of people for whom it's not that clear, me included. I wonder why that is, assuming the concept of good and evil is a universal one?

Because I believe in the Bible, I have a standard by which to judge. It doesn't mean that all decisions are easy, but at least I have a sure foundation to start with. On the other hand, you have no objective standard, so (continued below)...

Labeling every belief/ideology as either good or evil strikes me as very simplificating. I think that's what I'm uncomfortable with.

It's not that it's simplifying. It's not a matter of things being more complex. In philosophy sometimes we distinguish between "easy" problems and "hard" problems. An easy problem is something we know how to solve, or at least know how to approach. We've developed frameworks to reason about the thing, etc. A hard problem (this easy/hard distinction was made in reference to the mind/body problem) is something about which we're not even sure where to begin, what would constitute proof, it may even be hard to formulate the question we're trying to ask, etc. So, hard, in this sense, doesn't mean "takes a lot of work", but rather that it can't be successfully approached given our current framework of thought, or because of our inherent limitations. In this sense, questions like the one we're debating, which beliefs are good and evil, is a "hard" problem for you, because your current framework can't support such a discussion. In contrast, these types of questions are "easy" for me, even though they may be "hard" in the sense of "takes a lot of work".

To bring back up your quote:

Maybe for you it's easy to consistently decide what's good and what's not... for whom it's not that clear, me included.

So, that's how it's "easy" for me. It's not a question of clarity (for instance, I may still be unclear about some question that my worldview may be able to account for or answer), but rather of having a suitable foundation for my beliefs.

Notice that in my response to your question about how I'd define an evil belief, I didn't shy away in the least from invoking the Bible as my foundation. That's what I self-consciously take as my foundation, and I believe I have very good reasons for that. I believe that's the only foundation that's workable, and which allows me to reason intelligibly about all these hard but essential questions about things like ethics, knowledge, etc. So, on other worldviews, it's not that these types of questions are unclear, but that they're fundamentally unsolvable.

To add one more thing: to avoid going into "fanaticism" you need a "rudder" that keeps your beliefs in balance. So, to avoid falling into either fallacious implication of capitalism I outlined above, you need some other beliefs in your framework (or "web") in addition to your beliefs about capitalism. In other words, you need a coherent system of belief that keeps things in balance. I would argue that Christianity is the only system that can provide this.

by Keith

Wed, 12 May 2004 22:09:31 +0000

One more thing:

...I think that's what I'm uncomfortable with.

The reason you're uncomfortable, I think, is because you have a sort of "existential" angst. How to approach these problems is unclear to you because you don't have a foundation upon which you can build a solution. Keep in mind, when I say things like this, I don't mean this in an insulting or derogatory way, but simply as a philosophical criticism.

To give an anecdote: One time my brother and dad and I were talking about the (enormous, wasteful) medicare drug bill that was passed by the Bush administration. The discussion veered towards socialism, necessarily, and I asked my brother what standard he has that can justify the government taking money from some to give to others. I pointed out that he had no moral foundation upon which to answer that question, and he flipped out and started swearing bloody murder at me. He perceived me as saying that I was more "moral" than he is, when I was merely making a philosophical point. However, the fact that he got so angry I think shows that I hit the right nerve and pointed out that he has no foundation upon which to answer these questions.

by Ben

Thu, 13 May 2004 00:25:32 +0000

Well, thanks for these extensive posts, Keith. It's late over here, so I can't comment in detail on each of the issues you addressed... only some I can't resist:

The reason you're uncomfortable, I think, is because you have a sort of "existential" angst. How to approach these problems is unclear to you because you don't have a foundation upon which you can build a solution.

No, approaching the problem isn't the point. And I wouldn't exactly say I'd lack any objective standard or moral foundation - it's just not the same as yours. You have a point with that I'm not able to build a solution, but I don't need to. I can live very well with unresolved issues, I'm not claiming my standard is perfect.

What I didn't understand in your line of arguments is how your very own interpretation of the Bible fits into the picture. That is - everyone reads the Bible a little bit differently, as countless churches and schools of theology show. What makes you so sure your interpretation is the correct one?
Neither did I understand how the Bible/Christian faith helped you come to the conclusion that capitalism is a good belief.

Oh, and about the existential angst you mentioned... personally, a lot of my angst went away after I dropped Christianity from my belief set, along with its contradictions I never could fully solve. Of course that's only a personal anecdote.

Keep in mind, when I say things like this, I don't mean this in an insulting or derogatory way, but simply as a philosophical criticism.

Nice disclaimer.

by Keith

Fri, 14 May 2004 02:09:36 +0000

Well, thanks for these extensive posts, Keith.

Yeah, sorry to talk (write) so much.

And I wouldn't exactly say I'd lack any objective standard or moral foundation - it's just not the same as yours.

Really? What's your objective standard, or objective moral foundation?

What I didn't understand in your line of arguments is how your very own interpretation of the Bible fits into the picture. That is - everyone reads the Bible a little bit differently, as countless churches and schools of theology show. What makes you so sure your interpretation is the correct one?

Well, my main point is that I and other Christians have an objective foundation to build on, even if we may disagree about certain theological issues. That's very different from other worldviews, which ultimately wind you up in skepticism. That sometimes Christians disagree doesn't diminish our sure foundation.

Neither did I understand how the Bible/Christian faith helped you come to the conclusion that capitalism is a good belief.

A lot of it has to do with the Biblical view of the role of the state. In the Bible, the state should build an army and provide for the common defense, can collect taxes, and is responsible for administering the laws and meting out judgements, and performing other administrative tasks (such as census taking, etc.). Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of. Plus, the Bible clearly condones owning private property, being rich, etc. Wealth is a blessing you can leave to your children, it's not something the state can take from you. Also, income redistribution is clearly stealing, which of course is prohibited by the Bible.

Keep in mind, it's possible that some other economic system besides capitalism might also be Biblical, though I'm not sure what that would be. As some have said, "capitalism is what you get when the government gets out of the way". Socialism and communism, in my opinion, are clearly ruled out by Christianity, and I think that opinion is borne out by the fact that socialism/communism are explicitly anti-Christian and atheistic.

Oh, and about the existential angst you mentioned... personally, a lot of my angst went away after I dropped Christianity from my belief set, along with its contradictions I never could fully solve. Of course that's only a personal anecdote.

Well, I'm no slouch about theology and religious philosophy (if I do say so myself), and I'd be happy to discuss things with you if you'd like to. Feel free to e-mail anytime.

by Keith Gaughan

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:07:24 +0000

I disagree. Any system that advocates stealing (even though it's by the government) is wrong. Any system that subjugates men to the government and places full control over the economy in the hands of the government is evil. Or, to criticize more "pure" communism, the abolition of private property is evil.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read the Communist Manifesto! There's a lot in there I find repugnant, but nothing I could characterise as "stealing". Nor did Engels and Marx state taht any of the ten measures were required, only "generally applicable".

Marx specifically said that a communist system requires atheism: it puts ultimate power in the government rather than God, and it is predicated on an un-Biblical view of human nature.

A common misconception. That's Leninism. What he said was that Christianity, like the religous beliefs before it, would be swept away. A subtle but important difference.

In case I have to spell it out, I think atheism is evil.

No, I'm fully aware of that.

Me: ... I definitely hope my ideological independence isn't just self-perceived.
...
You: My point is mainly that you have your own unquestioned assumptions and your own "isms" you hold to. In the nature of the case, everyone has beliefs they take as foundational, even if they don't realize that they're doing it.

Ok, I misinterpreted what you said. I'd taken that by independent, you were talking about the fifth definition.

I'm fully aware that I have my own ideology, and have even taken steps to pin its exact content down. That was part of my point: none of us are free from bias, but that "healthy skepticism" I mentioned is, in part, the realisation that you are, rightly or wrongly, biased.

I don't think so. "Capitalism" is just the principle that private property is a fine thing and that the economy should be run by market forces (people) rather than centralized control (government).

Capitalism, too, can lead to evil even if it isn't evil in and of itself. It's a kind of secondary effect. It does this through causing a concentration of wealth and the growth of oligarchy. Mind you, for all its imperfections, it's the best economic system we've had yet.

You also have to question how that private property became assigned in the first place. After all, what property there is wasn't always private, and so must have been privatised. Either that, or it's still commonage, but is under lease for private individuals to exploit for the greater good of society. I hold the second view: I'm a bit of a georgist.