Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner
From: ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Life as basis for good vs evil - (nf)
Message-ID: <134@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jun-83 16:53:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.134
Posted: Thu Jun 23 16:53:48 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Jun-83 22:00:07 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley, CAD Group
Lines: 117

#R:houti:-30700:ucbesvax:11400003:000:5032
ucbesvax!turner    Jun 22 04:05:00 1983

	"Without human life, there can be no good or evil - ..."

Fine.  I would substitute "sentient" for "human", but that begs another
question.  Better stated: "good and evil are meaningless concepts in
the absence of any capacity to judge the difference."

	"Since human life is necessary for there to be anything good, and
	does not require evil to continue, human life is the most fundamental
	good."

But does human life *necessitate* good?  Does good simply spring into
existence by the capacity to judge?  This says that if one can tell good
from evil, then good and evil things must exist--tautological.
It does not mean that the being that is discerning the distinction is
itself good, by it's own perception.

	"Since human life is the most fundamental good, evil is that which
	is anti-life." [A list of crimes follows.]

And yet, evil is perpetrated by human beings.  In light of the supposed
human capacity for judgement, it would seem that human beings that choose
evil over good are inherently anti-life and anti-human, and anti-good.
Inherently evil.  Even if they steal in the interests of their own
survival, while not compromising the survival of the one stolen from.
Of course, this seems to require some prior evil on the part of the
some other human being who cannot be easily punished, else we would
have the death penalty for even the most minor offenses.

The principle of "stealing is evil" can be accepted.  Must the thief must
also be evil?  At times, violation of the principle is not "anti-life".
We cannot assume a purely good society, since none exist, so far.

In short, we must allow for poor judgement, as an evil which has not
been eradicated.  The question arises: is there any *other* evil than
this inability to judge?

If there is not, then there is good vs. inability to perceive good,
rather than good vs. evil.  If good is--pardon the expression--all
it's cracked up to be, then there is no other reason for a human being
to do evil than that human's inability to understand good.

To return to the beginning, a human being's very existence is good,
in itself.  Inability to be good would seem to imply inability to
perceive oneself adequately.  Total evil implies a completely inaccurate
self-view (at least in reference to physical reality).  But whence
this evil?  Is it inherent in human beings?  If this fallibility has
propagated itself even to the present day, it must have some standing
in human origins.

In short, where did evil come from, regardless of whether it is simply
poor judgement, or has some metaphysical existence of its own?  Perhaps
human beings do not require evil to survive, but does this mean that
they do not themselves necessitate evil (if only to have something to
distinguish from good?)

Can human life be basically good if it results in evil?  The fact that
we are not instinctively good is an outgrowth of not only of a reasoning
mind, but also of an unreasoning mind.

Ayn Rand presents, in her novel/manifesto "Atlas Shrugged", a morality
which has some interesting facets:

	1.  Reasoning minds can destroy unreasoning minds in the defense
	    of other reasoning minds.  This act is at the discretion of
	    the reasoning mind, as it assumes itself to be.  Thus,
	    summary execution is not always murder.  (As when Dagny
	    Taggart shoots a guard outside the building where John
	    Galt is being tortured.)
	
	2.  Reasoning minds may destroy or confiscate the property of
	    unreasoning minds, if they deem this property to be stolen
	    in any sense, regardless of the possible life-threatening
	    effects of their action on other--possibly reasoning minds.
	    (As when Ragnar Danneskjold shells factories and interdicts
	    food shipments to socialist countries.)

	3.  Legal systems which are deemed to be irrational or dominated
	    by evil human beings by reasoning minds can be flouted at
	    will, to the extent that this does not endanger the lives
	    or purposes of the reasoning minds themselves.  (Numerous
	    instances of piracy, sabotage, etc.)

Reasoning minds may be in a very tiny minority of the population.  They
are not responsible for each other, not to mention anyone other than
them.  They can make mistakes, but are hardly capable of evil, per se.
In fact, they do not even comprehend the motivations behind any act
of apparent evil.

Well, I can go on.  I invite commentary.  I have tried to avoid
"misrepresenting objectivism" (an accusation I have faced in the
past.)  I have no answers to speak of.  Only a sense that that much
is missing from the Objectivist analysis of morality.  Especially
as expressed (*SPOILER TIME*) by an author who, at the end of her
opus magnum, has her reasoning-mind hero say "We can go back to the
Earth", while tracing out the following symbol:

		    $  $
		  $$$$$$$$
		 $  $  $  $
		 $  $  $
		 $  $  $
		  $$$$$$$$
		    $  $  $
		    $  $  $
		 $  $  $  $
		  $$$$$$$$
		    $  $

Well, I think you can take it from here, Tom.

	Michael Turner
	ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner