How do we tell "right" from "wrong"? When I ask this I am not talking about choosing the "right" color of car, or what to eat for lunch, where one choice was determined to be "right" and the other "wrong" based upon your mood or values. Rather, I am talking about "good" and "evil".
So, how do you discern between the two? Do you need a God or a religion? Do you need other people to tell you? Do you need a government to decide for you with its "laws"? Is "right" and "wrong" subject to a majority opinion, or a "vote"? Or, is it something that is set in your human genes, only to be altered by trauma, serious brainwashing, or abuse?
"Evil" is any act which harms those who do not deserve to be harmed right now, in other words, it is anything which harms "the innocent". It doesn't change its nature because you wish it would. It doesn't change because you "need" it to change. It doesn't change because your God (or a representative thereof) tells you it has changed in order to get you to commit some act you otherwise wouldn't. It doesn't change because some Ruler has passed a "law".
Every human, other than those who have been mentally or emotionally damaged, understand this concept instinctively. Experimentation and observation even show that some non-human animals have more of an understanding of "right" and "wrong" than has usually been suspected. In humans who have had this basic wiring altered, where does the damage which short-circuits this understanding come from? It can be from a physical or chemical problem with the brain, but it is usually the result of manipulation by an authority or "collective" which depends on confusing this natural human understanding. Religions and states are the two biggest offenders, but even individuals can be guilty of this. Sometimes it is decided by an individual who thinks it will "help" him to hurt others for some reason. In the short-term, it can "work". But it is still wrong.
I am quite certain you understand the difference between the two, even if you pretend you don't in order to get away with something without thinking badly of yourself.
Libertarianism, anarchism, or whatever you want to call the philosophy of liberty, flows logically from the acceptance of this simple understanding of the differences between "right" and "wrong". It really isn't that difficult to understand, unless you try really hard to miss the point. If that is the case, you might want to ask yourself "why?"
Comments
Hi Kent:
I think you've hit on a definition probably most people would agree with: "'Evil' is any act which harms those who do not deserve to be harmed right now, in other words, it is anything which harms 'the innocent'."
But what's not so easy is how people apply that. When I think back on discussions with many people, it seems like the biggest stumbling block for them with libertarianism is they think the innocent would be harmed ... that the poor and disabled would not be taken care of, for instance ... or that kids wouldn't be taught to read. I'm talking about my liberal friends of course and they really sincerely see the idea of the community not helping those in need as evil, as harming the innocent.
I only know a handful of conservatives and try not to engage them on politics but I imagine they also feel they're fighting evil and protecting the innocent in some totally different way.
It's a slippery topic!
Ellen
Most of life is really just that simple. Amazing how human beings insist on complicating it so much.
No, Ellen, it isn't difficult at all. Just ask those liberal (or conservative) friends this:
Do your plans to help the sick, poor, kids, etc. involve stealing the property of others in order to do so?
Everyone is free to help the "less fortunate" in any way they choose - from their own resources. They are not thereby justified to steal from others, or worse, murder those who resist having their property stolen.
Ellen,
One of the hardest human duties is to understand that
"There will always be Human Suffering"
This is the way of the Universe.
However, in one manner or another, Moral Man works to solve as much Human Suffering as he can.
You cannot reduce human suffering by increasing human suffering.
Attacking the innocent to help the suffering merely transfers the suffering to those that are innocent.
Very good points raised. I had a discussion with someone, an immigrant who had spent a good deal of time in Europe, about something as simple as parks. He felt it was good that money was used to create beautiful parks and so it wasn't bad that people were taxed to support them. I pointed out that if he and other like minded individuals wanted a park so bad that they could pool together and build one themselves from their own resources and if need be charge those who didn't pay for it admission or simply let everyone use it with the understanding that he would get nothing financially in return but warm fuzzy feelings. He was stunned that I asked him to think outside the box. When people are not coerced to hand over money they then can think about and ponder whether they wish to make life better for the less fortunate. This then becomes their "choice" plain and simple.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!