A grand project
Alright, so I've started work on an inverse version of Plato's "The Republic." The premise is that I'm trying to figure out how to create the perfectly unjust state. There's a few things that are important to figure out in order to achieve this, so I intend to attempt using my LJ as a sort of discussion forum for the purpose of doing solid
( Read more... )
First, isn't causing harm merely a way of expressing one's desire to do so? In this way, one who murders is satisfying some sort of want for inflicting evil, whether he collects torsos or not?
Secondly, would you agree that there are three classes of things: those things which are desirable for the rewards they bring (e.g. exercise), those things which are desirable for the sake of themselves (e.g. confectionaries), and those things which are desirable for both their rewards as well as for their own sake (e.g. healthy food that is also delicious)? If so, would you agree with me in placing evil in this third category of things, i.e. those things which are desirable for what they bring as well as on their own? I would say that evil can be seen to be more profitable than good in a material sense, as it requires less time and effort to achieve goals through evil than through good. Also, doing evil brings a certain sort of satisfaction that is unattainable through any other means. In this way, I am inclined to place evil in this ultimately desirable category of things. Thus, there can be no disputing the overall evil of the man who pursues evil for his own gain, whether it be material or spiritual in nature.
Furthermore, is it not true that the most evil of things imaginable is for the forces of evil and injustice to conquer those of good and honor? In this vein, if evil (whatever that may be) could be made to rule over good for all eternity, would that not be the most terrible of things imaginable? If this is the case, then evil should be able to propogate itself in such a way as to perpetuate its existence into forever. I believe that such a feat would require that the vast majority (who are greedy by nature) feel that the path of evil is the best choice for themselves, which would imply that true evil should bring some sort of gain rather than remain only an ideal that people strive towards.
Your thoughts?
Reply
Agreed on the three classes of desirable things; thing is, there's more than one type of evil. While evil done to further one's own ends is much more common, you were asking for 'absolute' evil. By setting a distinction between the two, I feel that the man who murders even though he takes no pleasure from it is the more evil of the two. Justification follows.
Your 'conquering of good and honor' point shows that we actually agree, I just need to elaborate a little more. This feeds back into the "karmic abyss" statement from earlier. To define evil, we should first define good in a karmic sense. If there's no evil, then there is no benchmark from which to establish what is 'good', it exists only as a relative term. So, if good were to absolutely conquer evil, snuff it out entirely, then a certain faction of that good would then become the new evil by default. Since evil cannot be snuffed out, it must be kept subjugated. So, in order to maintain the appearance of absolution, the forces of good must keep the battle lines from changing. It wouldn't do to make an ally of those you have been fighting, or to alienate those who had once stood by you.
There's our karmic Good: Maintaining the balance between the relative forces of "good" and "evil". Evil is the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. So, our karmic Evil is to have no interest in maintaining that balance, while an Absolute Evil would seek to topple the balance entirely.
This is why the absolutely evil murderer cannot gain pleasure in any sense from his crimes; the basis of karma is action and reaction. If he does harm, but creates pleasure for himself in doing so, then the impact of his evil actions is diluted by feeding good back into the karmic circle.
To completely eradicate good from the world, no semblance of such good things as pleasure could be present. By destroying each and every good thing and person, one by one, with no emotional attachment to doing so, Evil is done with no gain in Good elsewhere to counteract it. The karmic balance is disturbed. Also note that evil is not bound by the same relativism as Good. Absolute absence has precedent; absolute zero, complete darkness. Absolute being has no precedent, unless you'd like to argue the existence of God and stretch this out even more.
So in conclusion, Absolute Evil is that done coldly, and for the sole purpose of doing evil. If it's absolute, then the peripheral pleasure attached to lesser acts of evil cannot be present.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment