Evil Created, Evil Sustained

Listen to this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

There is a difference between what an evil act can create, and what situations are sustained by evil action. I think the former is not necessarily evil, while the latter is necessarily evil. Lets take an example...

Click pic for more awesome prints from LawrenceArtsCenter.org

One of the most evil acts known to man is rape. The use of force to physically control another person. It is not uncommon for a woman victim to get pregnant from the assault. In this case, there is no obligation for the child to follow in the steps of the father. Good raising and care will create a good person, regardless of the father. We have all seen cases of good children from bad parents.

On the other hand, there are situations that can only exist - be sustained, perpetuated, by evil acts. Take another extreme evil: slavery. It is not possible to possess slaves, without coercing yourself on them. Without continuous coercion, slavery will not exist, instantly so.

It seems that anything caused by evil may be either good or bad, while anything sustained by evil must be also wrong. This observation lets us better judge people's choices! Anyone who enjoys the results of another's evil is not liable, unless they are also involved.

However, if you are enjoying the sustained evil actions of others, then you are collaborating and are necessarily committing evil!

Hacking Is Moral

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

You do not own your privacy.

Privacy is a social term that defines an acceptable limitation of interference into another person's life. It means that even if the space around me is not mine alone, we all agree that I have greater rights over it, than others.

For example, even if no one is touching me, it is within my [socially accepted] right to remove people from my near proximity. Or, even if the sound of my echoing voice is not strictly under my possession, it is still frowned upon to eavesdrop to a conversation.

However, simply because a group or society might hold certain aspects of privacy as the norm, that does not mean that they are logically correct. If a person, by chance, walks near my door, and overhears me saying something of relevance to them, then it is hardly expected that they pretend otherwise.

Continuing with that logic, if I really wish to uphold my privacy, then it is up to me to take responsibility on the matter, and not discuss my private matters in an open environment, or in plain words.

But, am I blaming the victim?

I am not. Privacy is not akin to property! There is no ownership of information. For example, my voice and words are mine, but once they go out into the air, they are attached to a public medium. Thus, they are public.

If I wish to protect my privacy in a public medium, then it is entirely my responsibility to add safeties that will make my information less accessible, for anyone whom I did not intend it.

xkcd has an opinion on everything, and so do I.

On Moral Agnosticism

Click here to download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Ayn Rand, the 20th century philosopher and novelist, who coined the term Objectivism, spoke of the avoidance of moral judgement by one person on others:

Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 82–83.

We lose our personal integrity, when we deny the existence of morality. This is our own belief in ourselves: opinions and emotions. Our ultimate natural intuition. This denial is equal to naming ourselves liars. It is often correlated with dismissing our own opinion in favor of someone else.

Self-trust is not about being right or correct. It is about having a clear set of priorities in mind. All decision come from and rely on the self. If the self is dismissed, then no critical thought is allowed. Without the benefit of critical thought, we cannot come to conclusions. We then must either wager or rely on others.

It is the responsibility of each person to choose. Without choice there is no free will. Without choice there is no learning and correction. Choices are always based on our inner morality; what we decide is good or bad.

Would you care for an uneducated life?

Only The Wise Person Is Good

And the stupid person is bad. Let us clarify!

I have always liked the infamous quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Other versions go something like this:

"Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works." - Variation

"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs." - Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

"Facilis descensus Averno." - Virgil's Aeneid

What does this mean?

If a person's view of what is good or right is such that it ignores other people's views, then by necessity, that person will harm those others. This is, because being considerate of other people requires the use of empathy and sympathy based on information. When a person bases their feelings on personal opinion, then their actions ignore the will of others.

In other words, a person who is ignorant of the will (even opinion) of others, is bound to create conflict between themselves and those others, eventually and often.

How can a person take others into consideration without knowing what they think?

No person can take others into account, without knowing them properly. It is true that some things seem easily generalized. Noticeable examples would be the need for food and water, hygiene and the company of others. Never the less, beyond the very basic needs, without proper communication, there is no way to avoid the conflict of wills.

This is why we have the Golden Rule in its' variations:

"己所不欲，勿施於人。" – Confucius

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." – Laozi

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus

Do notice that I take only the versions that use negation. I do not think that a person who chooses to harm themselves should harm others, likewise.

Pittacus would agree!