Ignorance Is The Root Of All Evil

[Killean]

Perhaps potentialy dangerous would have been a better word to use. While most of our faults can been seen as incorrect, they can have their merits as you said linda. I was also incorrect in thinking that said attributes are preventing growth, but they are making things difficult.

[Aquagem]

Perhaps potentialy dangerous would have been a better word to use. While most of our faults can been seen as incorrect, they can have their merits as you said linda. I was also incorrect in thinking that said attributes are preventing growth, but they are making things difficult.

 

Considering our birth rate as a planet, growth has its own dimension of evil. See? Anything is evil to someone. Eye of the beholder, plus the context of the situation. Relative. Not fixed.

 

By this, I'm not saying that there is no evil. And two people who see exactly opposite from one another on an issue, say, mercy killing, would probably agree on a DEFINITION of evil ("dangerous idea", "slippery slope","outright immorality","intentional harm"...). That makes this more interesting -- because we can agree on what EVIL is, but not on WHAT is EVIL?

 

This could go on forever...

[lindagarrette]

That makes this more interesting -- because we can agree on what EVIL is, but not on WHAT is EVIL?

 

This could go on forever...

You are quite right. Absolutism vs. relativism is an old and ongoing debate topic.

[Killean]

Ouch. Here is a little more fuel for the fire, not too sure how many after the fact read what I wrote earlier about good and evil.

 

These two action describing concepts have simple definitions. Good being an action that benefits or follows the will of others. Evil being an action that harms or ignores the will of others. The actions in which I follow are good in theory yet contain evil applications. I call this "The greater good". An extream example is, if I had to kill a million people in order to save a billion people. In the end it means good will come, but in the process I am commiting evil acts.

Some people like to think of good and evil as a positive force and a negative force or good karma and bad karma. I see it as logical and illogical behavior that is passed on in your genetic code and your culture from generation to generation...

A beautful observation, one in which I shall ponder upon further. Logical and illogical behavior does seem like nice way to think of "good" and "evil" actions. But how can we determine what is truely logical and what is illogical? Every person has their own point of view on how things should work which is passed on to others as you said. The main driving force which would seem to be 'logical' thing to do is decieded by the majority who think the same. But that majority thought could have been the end result of a butterfly effect set in motion so many years ago. Maybe the logical thing to do was to go out and murder, rape and steal. But I shall remain with the majority on that subject.

 

The majority of people can decide what is evil, and the same majority can decide what the definition of evil is. These definitions have been semi-forced upon us by way of law, either religous or cultural (Not too sure if cultural is the word I am looking for. Laws created by man that we see every day, not including killing, stealing, adultary which are adaptations from the religous side of law). As both Aqua and Linda have mentioned a few times, this argument about what exactly is evil and good are an individuals choice to make, the absolute definition might never be able to exist unless we all share the same mind.

[infamous]

I believe there are a few absolutes that we could determine as either good or bad, righteous or evil. For example, I believe we could all agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad, "evil", thing. Therefore any action taken that would further the probability of such a final result would be a bad, "evil" thing. Conversely, any thing that would improve the chances for the continuation of our species would be a good, "righteous" thing. If you dissagree with this view, you may wan't to check your pedigree.

[Tim_Lou]

The majority of people can decide what is evil, and the same majority can decide what the definition of evil is. These definitions have been semi-forced upon us by way of law, either religous or cultural (Not too sure if cultural is the word I am looking for. Laws created by man that we see every day, not including killing, stealing, adultary which are adaptations from the religous side of law). As both Aqua and Linda have mentioned a few times, this argument about what exactly is evil and good are an individuals choice to make, the absolute definition might never be able to exist unless we all share the same mind.

 

Very true...The majority...

The majority is always the right one, and always the one that the rest has to follow. Since everyone else follows, the majority stays as the right one. It can only be changed when someone stands up, and fight against all the discriminations and criticisms. Anyway, how many of these people had succeeded?

 

teenagers like some of you and me cant really do a thing. Going to school, doing homework, taking tests.... why do we have to do all these stupid stuffs? because everyone else is doing the same thing, if you dont do it, it is your own fault and your own irresponibility. SAT, ACT, SATIIs, if you do well, then you are good to go, if you suck, guess what? you suck, you are stupid. The problem is standards from the past, and people use these standards to judge others.

 

the world sux, and yeah it is depressing.

sometimes i think the world as a game to make myself feel better: the world is a role-playing game, where only I am the player, the rest of the people are NPCs, creeps...etc. You do the same thing as others to gain experiment and knowledge, you level up after certain experiment gained.

It is just a game, you do well when you know the rules and cooperate with the computers.

If you do bad, no problem, just hang out and have some fun.

 

ah....cant believe i came up with all these non-senses... i guess i'll do my homework.

[lindagarrette]

I believe there are a few absolutes that we could determine as either good or bad, righteous or evil. For example, I believe we could all agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad, "evil", thing.

You may have your own values but they are not necessarily absolute at all times in every circumstance. Nature, for instance doesn' care one way or the other what happens to the human race and many animals, if they could chose, would prefer we not be here at all.

[J.L. des Alpins]

In an attempt to unearth the root of all evil, I will expand a bit on the foundation of consciousness that I presented in an earlier post . In the micro-essay below, I will introduce bad faith.

 

(1) In my earlier post, we have been introduced to the prereflective and the directional levels of consciousness, both levels being needed to expose the ego. A human being that has discovered his ego can, through experimentation, become aware

 

1. of him as a conscious being in the world;
   
2. that there are objects he can change and others that he cannot;
   
3. that there is a realm of possibilities in front of him;
   
4. that he has absolute freedom to choose any options in his realm of possibilities;
   
5. that nothing in the world can stop him to choose or make choices for him;
   
6. that every single choice he makes creates new possibilities and, at the same time, annihilates others;
   
7. that there are consequences when making choices; and
   
8. that he has no way to know for sure the consequences of his choices—he can only evaluate the likeliness of what may happen.
   

(2) Now there is a loophole in the sequence presented in (1) above. Because there is no way to know for sure what will be the consequences of a choice [(1)g, h] and that a choice is absolutely one’s responsibility and nobody else’s [(1)e], someone may be unwilling to take the chance of making a choice alone. Because of his absolute freedom of choice [(1)d], that person can decide to choice to limit his choices, that is, to close his eyes on some of his choices in order to make his life easier. Limiting one’s own possibilities is called bad faith.

 

(3) Bad faith is a form of self-deception that, in making use of his freedom, he in fact denies it. Bad faith is not lying. In lying one hides the truth from others. In bad faith one hides the truth from oneself. There is no input from the outside. A person, when in bad faith, is not a priori conscious of his bad faith. This is because bad faith occurs in the prereflective consciousness. Bad faith can only be avoided when one directs his positional consciousness toward himself and makes a conscious effort to consider all his possibilities—that is, to exercise his freedom of choice to the fullest—before making a choice.

 

(4) The world goes haywire (one may even say “goes to hell”) when people enter bad faith, thus set arbitrary limits to their capabilities to grow. This is the door from which evil enters into the world. Evils like greed, violence, and prejudice are all the result of someone refusing to fully exercise his freedom of choice. Take prejudice, for instance. Prejudice appears when someone leans toward just one side of an issue and refuses other considerations, even though there is nothing—really NOTHING—that can stop him from looking at both sides. Now take greed. Greed surges when someone considers only satisfying their desires, even if it harms himself or others, and flatly refuses to consider other avenues.

 

(5) Is ignorance the root of evil? I don’t think so. Long ago, there was nothing evil in the belief of a flat earth. Everyone was ignorant. Consideration of a round earth was just not part of people’s realm of possibilities. Troubles came when a few scientists of the day started to present evidence for a round planet. With this evidence, the round-earth consideration entered everyone’s realm of possibilities. Most people, in bad faith, were afraid of the consequences of a round earth, thus made themselves truly believe that round-earth claimers were heretics and had to be burned at the stake. Their bad faith made them do evil things.

 

(6) Another example of bad faith: Suicide. One has freedom of choice, but he is not free to obliterate his freedom. He is condemned to be free. He is condemned to be wholly responsible for himself. One can get sick of his freedom, having to make choices at all moments, never be able to take a break and let others be responsible for his being for a while. So many choices must be made over and over again, like the gambler who has to tell himself every day not to play today, even though he knows quite well that tonight he will be free to decide to play again ‘for the last time’. There is no way out of freedom, but in bad faith. When exhausted, depressed, or desperate, one can abandon himself in the belief that he has no energy left to make choices, that there are no choices left, that he is a liability to others. By considering only these possibilities and rejecting all others, he comes to the conclusion that self-termination is the only choice, that it is unavoidable. Bad faith leads to evil action.

 

I would like to propose the following conjecture:

 

All evil acts can be traced back to a choice made in bad faith.

Comments are most welcomed.

[IrishEyes]

I would like to propose the following conjecture:

All evil acts can be traced back to a choice made in bad faith.

Comments are most welcomed.

 

Well, that is certainly one way to look at things. All evil acts can be traced back to a choice made in bad faith, huh? I don't think I agree.

 

I think that evil is a choice, yes, but not a subconcious avoidance of a certain choice. Probably subconcious is not the best word to use, but I hope you get my meaning. I don't believe that evil 'just happens' as a lack of other possible options. I think that an act is evil if the person committing the act knows that the act will cause pain to others, that it goes against certain moral standards, and they commit the act anyhow. I also think that people are basically selfish, immoral creatures, and the 'evil' things that they do are most often the result of acting on basic impulses without fully considering their actions, and not really caring what the possible consequences are.

 

What is the root of all evil? Well, I don't think it's ignorance. I don't think it's money, or greed; though those can all be considered evil, I guess. I think the root of all evil is apathy. Sorry, Killean, I don't mean to imply that YOU are evil, because I honestly don't believe that at all. I just think that apathy is the beginning of all things evil... at least that is what i think right now. give me a few hours and my answermight change to 'alarm clock' though. :)

[jazzn85]

In order to establish the root of all evil, wouldn’t we be required to first provide a definition of evil? How can we determine evil’s source if we still argue about what evil is? But the underlying problem is that the evil is too abstract and subjective to label with a unanimous definition. There are just too many conflicting views to consider if one is to derive a definition. Simple example, USA verses Terrorism, which side is truly evil, if either is evil at all, or what about them makes them evil? It’s impossible to specify the cause when we can’t even agree on the subject.

 

On a different note... With respect to the heading, if ignorance is the root of all evil, and “ignorance is bliss”, are the happy people of the world evil, or just those who are happy as a result of ignorance? Furthermore, is it possible to be bliss, but not ignorant? Stupid maxims...

[lindagarrette]

On a non-scientific level, or strictly my opinion, ignorance is a blissful state for people to sustain as long as the crisis doesn't happen. If you are flying in an airplane about to crash and only the cabin crew knows it will, then until it does, you can sip your cocktail in bliss . Ignorance is evil as it hinder progress to the extent it existst in a society. That breed all sorts of problems such as prejudice, carelessness, poverty, and religious fanaticism. On the other hand, knowledge can be a cause of stress, which some consider at least bad if not evil. So it depends on your values.

[Aquagem]

On a non-scientific level, or strictly my opinion, ignorance is a blissful state for people to sustain as long as the crisis doesn't happen. If you are flying in an airplane about to crash and only the cabin crew knows it will, then until it does, you can sip your cocktail in bliss . Ignorance is evil as it hinder progress to the extent it existst in a society. That breed all sorts of problems such as prejudice, carelessness, poverty, and religious fanaticism. On the other hand, knowledge can be a cause of stress, which some consider at least bad if not evil. So it depends on your values.

 

Just a couple of interesting associations dredged up by your post...

 

Re: Ignorance is bliss -- Have you ever seen "The Fool", the first tarot card in the trump suit? It represents the beginning of the journey, and shows a nattily-dressed young man walking along in the mountains, admiring the scenery ... and stepping off a cliff. This is one of those timeless metaphors captured in a pre-scientific universal model. I think it would be worth teaching kids about our intellectual history, so they'd have images like these for their own future growth.

 

Re: knowledge and stress -- Think of the classic story of Oedipus, who just HAD to know the truth, had to have KNOWLEDGE to defy determinism and avoid his unsavory fate. But then, purely because of his insatiable need to know the truth, fulfilled the very prophecy he abhorred. Now, putting out your eyes -- that's a stress reaction!

[CHADS]

Everybodys ignorant of something so that would mean that everybody is potentially evil .. for Example the creator of thehttp//media.. fastclick. popup that has caused me untold amounts of stress over the last couple of days and my own ignorrence with relation to preventative measures has certainly made me think evil things about them..... :)

[CHADS]

I suppose you could be ignorant of everything but if you lived your life and managed never ever to cause anyone any emotional discomfort you would surly be negated from any charateristics of evil... so i suppose good and evil evolve around emotional feelings .. emotions that human beings have evolved a high state of awarness .. its our duty as aware adult humans to always be aware of how we make others feel because as our lives are hectic and full of desires its easy to become selfish and blissfully hurtfull towards others .. of course children are totally innocent and not fully aware of the logic of emotion so they are negated ... evil has no conscience in the sense that although evil knows of conscience logically.. it is negated with the full empathic knowledge that evils hurtful ways will cause pain...... Sorry im trying to sum up evil and may be waffling a bit.......So maybe the route of all evil is not being ignorant of hurt and consciously inficting pain anyway . . emotionally or physically with empathy....... :) On a happier note my computer is now safe and i can join back in with the forums......

[motherengine]

in this world

we walk on the roof of hell

gazing at flowers

 

- kobayashi issa

[Aquagem]

i will try to be careful here because i do believe in the power of linguistic influence as well...

 

I'd like to suggest a couple of things about this whole discussion, which I think is suffering from some linguistic/semantic problems. I wrote a couple of posts last week sometime, and when I was done I had the feeling I'd done a disservice to an important topic. It's been on my mind ever since. Here's what I see as a problem.

• The word, "evil", is so overburdened with centuries of religious dogma that just to use it in a sentence makes associations all the way from the bottom-most levels of biology to the stratospheric heights of our imagined theology. My somewhat flip comments about the subject, I realized, were rebellion against what I see as a pollution of sorts in the stream of thought brought about by this influence.
  
• Therefore, I'd like to leave "evil" out of the discussion for a while, and ratchet things back down a couple of steps. That would be to talk about "good" and "bad" -- tasty food good; rotten food bad -- that sort of thing. Starting with a general, simple definition of good and bad in a biological, individual sense, we can get a grip on where our loftier metaphors come from. Good and bad have perfectly usable and relatively unambiguous secular uses that predate our religious meanders by millions of years.
  
• Recent research into the process of metaphor formation would be useful to gain a perspective on how we turn basic biology into abstractions, how early emotional/cognitive experience translates into adult ideas that allow us to communicate easily with one another. We have a sense of what a "warm" person is because we have all felt the soothing, pleasant sensations of warmth from our first day on Earth. These are associations we all have and that become our shared basis for communication through cultural and other linguistic interchange. "Good" and "bad" are derived through the same process. "Too little vitamin A, bad; enough vitamin A, good; too much vitamin A, bad."
  
• "Good" and "bad" become abstractions in our minds, as all empirical experiences are abstracted into concepts through the automatic operation of the brain. We can, at a level or so above that of an infant, say, "He's a bad boy", meaning that he shares some sense of badness we developed because of a toothache, watching bread mold spread to other slices and ruin the loaf, and so on. A bad cold, a bad hair day, and a bad stretch of weather fall into the same category because of our abstract sense of badness.
  
• "Good" and "bad" operate on different levels. What is good for me as an individual is not necessarily good for my local population, town, state, nation, or world. "Hummer good" may be true in my mind while the planet groans under the weight of my heavy foot and disregard for others.
  
• Looking ahead, an old definition I still like for "evil" stresses that it is intentional harm. Harm may be perpetrated in ignorance (a predator stalking and killing prey) but not be evil. (It's entirely possible that ignorance is productive of a lot of good, but nobody seems to talk about that.) Planning a murder would generally qualify as evil, as probably would planning a war in which you know a large number of civilians will die. Likewise, a mercy killing would be "intentional harm", but with the best of motives. Then, although evil may occur, it may be outweighed by a "greater good", by somebody's definition. Then again, evil, like beauty, may be in the eye of the beholder.
  

So, whaddya think? I'm advocating for a reintroduction of some precision in our terminology in order to make some measurable progress in moving from basic to more complex understanding of one of the world's very oldest of questions. I'm suggesting we get our heads around something workable, rather than wandering among the highest levels of abstraction, where we are at a loss even to comprehend what they have in common.

 

So, whaddya think?

[infamous]

Hello Aquagem; I would like to put forth one simple example of "good" and "evil" if I may. Frankly my purpose here is to extablish some groundwork upon which to build a logical base. I agree that good and evil are relative terms when applied to dfferent individuals or different circumstances, so let us first apply these standards to only the human race as a whole. Firstly it would be evil for the human race to become extinct, and logically any thing that would help bring this about would be evil. On the other hand, anything which could prevent this extinction would be a good thing. Understand that we are only considering the continuation of our species when determining what is good or evil. By definition, this can only apply to the extinction or continuation of the species. If we as humans don't understand this simple example, we had better check our pedigree.