Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001
Evil is not Necessary
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
[Note: The following essay was submitted to the University of Dallas
newspaper, "The University News."]
In the November 7, 2001 issue of "The University News," Katie Loufus stated
that I was mistaken about "both nature of evil and 'sense of life'" when I
claimed that "evil is nothing, and we shouldn't take any of it seriously."
One paragraph is the key to her argument, and explains why she thinks even
an evil man like Osama bin Laden "is a living human being with an inherent
sense of dignity."
"Evil is real and should be taken extremely seriously; otherwise there
would be no need for religion at all - not even the fundamentalist ones,
which leave no room for the 'enjoyment of life.'" (page 14)
This is a remarkable paragraph in that it states that the very existence of
evil is a necessary evil, according to her moral theory. The implication is
that if there was no evil, there would be nothing for a good man to do.
That the good consists primarily of fighting evil or resisting temptation.
That it is the existence of evil that gives rise to the need for morality
as such.
When one has accepted the morality of altruism -- the moral theory that
places others above oneself, a morality that holds charity and forgiveness
as primary virtues, one that holds that helping others is more important
than living one's own life -- it is true that the existence of evil or the
occurrence of disasters becomes a primary moral consideration. Without such
events, there would be no one to forgive and no one to be charitable
towards - which would leave the altruists with nothing to do, and they
couldn't be good by their standard. A case in point is the idea that
donating to charitable organizations after the terrorist attacks of 911 are
more virtuous than the creation of the World Trade Center in the first place.
Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, takes an entirely different
approach to morality. Aside from illustrating the nature of evil via
characterizations in literature, Objectivism has no need for evil
whatsoever. There is no need for suicidal hijackers for the World Trade
Center towers to be built; there is no need for fatwas (death threats by
Fundamentalist Muslim Clerics) for there to be books written; there is no
need for anthrax laced letters for there to be healthy human beings; there
is no need for jihads for freedom to endure; there is no need for ignorance
for rationality to persist.
Man's actual nature as a living being is the standard of the good in
Objectivism; anything that negates or tries to deprive man of his nature is
the evil. Rationality is the key to understanding the nature of man,
because it is the primary means of his ability to survive as a living
being. Man is born without any knowledge, and it is the acquisition of
knowledge and the applications of that knowledge that makes it possible for
man to live in reality. And there is no need for evil to exist for this
type of moral living to flourish.
Objectivism does take evil seriously, insofar as it becomes a threat to
one's values; but the fighting of evil is not its central purpose. It's
focus is on living the life of a rational human being, a life full of the
values that are needed to sustain human life. Such values are skyscrapers,
airplanes, books, music, computers, philosophy, etc. -- and the core
curriculum of the University of Dallas, which helps to preserve Western
civilization. It is these values that are taken quite seriously, along with
their defense when warranted. In this code of morality, evil is a hindrance
and an imposition to living the good life.
Evil is impotent in the creation of values that are needed for human
survival -- all it can do is destroy these values. If left on its own,
without any help from the good, evil would perish by it's own ineptitude.
Though evil must be taken seriously and fought, once the impotency of evil
is understood, fighting it takes on a whole new meaning: We can mock its
vaunted pretense of power by poking fun at its ineptitude; which is the
intent of those buffoonish images [of the evil doers].
Even though Objectivists will continue to combat evil and take delight at
its ineptitude, we prefer to just let it die out.
And it would perish if people wouldn't go around saying that evil men
have a shred of dignity, or that they should be forgiven, or that they
should be supported in any way whatsoever.
[Tom Miovas 06/04/2005: Taking delight in the ineptitude of evil should
not, here, be taken to mean that Objectivists in general or myself in
particular like to see ineptitude, because we don't; but some of us do
take delight in seeing ineptitude fall flat on it's face. But I am
personally for redemtion over destruction in those delimited cases where
someone has shown that they realize what they did was evil and go through
an effort to change their ways (depending on the nature of the destruction
they wrought, and if it was minimal -- i.e. caught early enough).]
