the concept of evil is a bad idea
The use of the terms “good” and “evil” arose from those primitive circumstances in which it was assumed that virtue was defined according to supernatural revelation. The problem with this is not the fact that we make such a dichotomy but rather the basis on which the dichotomy is made. After all, if “god” (the ultimate authority) has told us to perform some acts and to refrain from performing others, there can be no basis for violating, or even questioning, such instructions. That is, if something is evil our only option is to destroy that something. It’s apparent that the use of the term evil tends to reinforce and perpetuate ideological assumptions and to foreclose rational analysis. And that is a problem, since rational analysis has frequently shown ideological assumptions to be false, and false assumptions lead to false conclusions, which lessen the potential for the survivability and success of the human species. Therefore, we understand that nothing can be exempt from rational analysis.
Two issues arise with regard to things that have been labeled “evil”. First, is the designation accurate in our terms? That is, is the activity so labeled really detrimental to the promotion of virtue? And second, if it is, what course of action is required to mitigate its effects?
With regard to the first issue, let us consider homosexuality. All of the foundation texts of the Abrahamic religions roundly condemn such practices. As a result, all cultures in which such religions were dominant considered homosexual activity as “evil”. Indeed, it was considered so great an “evil” that the use of imprisonment, and even torture and execution, were often thought justifiable in attempting to exterminate the practice. These are pretty serious “negative sanctions”. So it’s incumbent upon those of us with a commitment to human decency to undertake an analysis of the issue to determine if there is a reasonable basis for such supernaturalist social prescriptions.
The first thing that becomes apparent is that homosexuality has been a persistent feature of the human condition. That is, it seems to exist at all times and in all cultures. That being the case, it’s apparent that homosexuality is a condition expressing one of a number of ways of being human. Others would be such conditions as synesthesia, Asperger’s syndrome, sociopathy etc. These are all specific conditions arising from Darwinian dynamics in effect in the general human condition and, as such, are beyond anyone’s competence to “condemn”. That is, to the degree that such conditions are the result of those dynamics, they are no one’s “fault” and, therefore, not subject to a priori condemnation. What is at issue is, are the particular expressions of these conditions destructive to the promotion of human decency?
Now by definition, the condition of homosexuality is exclusively concerned with sexual practice. So the fundamental issue is, does any adult mutually consensual sexual practice constitute an impediment to the promotion of human decency? The deeply intimate nature of sexual practices renders them as resolutely private affairs, as long as they are acts that directly affect only the individuals involved. In effect, they are actions based on a mutual “insight” and, therefore, beyond the competence of those outside of the “mutual consent” arrangement to make any social judgment on.
Civilized people now recognize that whether or not heterosexuals practice oral or anal sex, for instance, is useless information for assessing to their commitment to the promotion of human decency. Personally, we may be appalled or delighted by either or both practices. However, the idea of personal freedom gives each of us the latitude to indulge or reject such practices, but it also provides that same latitude to everyone else. Now homosexuality is simply one of the many expressions of being human and that expression has no implications for the promotion of human decency - since homosexual practices fall under the same category of being ‘resolutely private” as do heterosexual practices. So what is the problem in extending the results of the analysis to homosexuals?
The problem arises from the fact that once all rational arguments for the persecution of homosexuals have been disposed of, we come up against the contention by the Abrahamic supernaturalists that apparently such practice makes god angry - and there will be consequences. Why this should make him angry in terms that we can understand, they do not say – it just does. Of course, the linchpin for the success of the contention is the “there will consequences” part. That is, the contention is substantiated through fear. Now as it happens, fear is the most powerful motivator in the human condition. It seems to be much more powerful than such positive emotions such as love, hope, etc. Therefore, if you can scare the “bee Jesus” out of people through an irrational fear, you can effectively disengage all other operations of the human psyche and pretty much herd them around as you desire.
However, we live the happy circumstance in which we have the capacity to defuse the effects of irrational fear. In consequence, we can see that the persecution of homosexuals is not only a crime against such persons but also diverts attention from the pursuit of issues that really are important for the improvement of the human condition. So the claim that homosexuality is “evil” is bogus.
With regard to the second issue, let’s consider the “war on drugs”. The “war on drugs” is the “knee jerk” response to the labeling of drug use as “evil” - if it’s “evil”, it must be destroyed. Since this policy has been in force for many decades, we are in a position to assess the results it has produced.
The first thing that becomes apparent is that the policy has had little effect on the incidence of drug use. That is, from the information available, there is no evidence that drug use has significantly changed during the period beginning with the inception of the ‘war” to the present day. While the incidence of drug use is subject to cyclical fluctuations, since both the increase and decrease in use have occurred while the “war” is in effect, the “war” cannot be the explanation for those fluctuations. So, the criminalization, “wholesale”, approach failed to achieve its intended purpose.
In addition to that failure, however, there are also the issues of “unintended consequences” that arise from the implementation of the “war on drugs”. This approach has produced a drug sub-culture, and that sub-culture has had the following affects.
First, the nature of addiction is such that legal penalties will have a negligible effect on the addict. That is, if satisfaction of an addiction is someone’s primary motivation in life (which is the definition of an addict), that satisfaction will be achieved regardless of the consequences. If the satisfaction requires the commission of felonies, that will happen. So these policies have had the effect of converting a personal problem (the addiction) into a social problem (the commission of felonies). Now the addict has no interest other then satisfying the addiction. If that can be done legally, the personal problem still exists, but the social problem that is created by the addict’s behavior has been remedied.
Next, competition for the control of the illegal drug trade has spawned huge criminal syndicates that are engaged in, more or less, constant violence for markets. The level of social destabilization that results from that violence is exponentially larger than the “street crime” problem ensuing from addict activity. In addition, the enormous profits generated by the trade have corrupted the American social apparatus. Those profits are used directly to corrupt the police, judges, legislators, etc. Moreover, once those profits have been “laundered”, we have lost the ability to determine how drug trade money is indirectly shaping American society. In short, it seems apparent that it is the criminal syndicates that have the largest vested interest in seeing the “war on drugs” approach remains official policy.
From this analysis, it is clear that the enforcement of such laws, however well intentioned, produces consequences more dire than the consequences produce by the condition it seeks to extirpate.
Incidentally, this isn’t the first time policies have been pursued which produced such catastrophic results. The same dynamics were in effect during “Prohibition” with substantially the same results. However, in that case the absurdity of the policy was recognized in little more then a decade and the law was repealed. Since we have gone five decades with a similarly catastrophic policy with regard to drugs, why is there not a similar recognition? The answer would seem to be the successful characterization of drug use as an “evil”. Now the proponents of Prohibition also tried to characterize alcohol use as “evil”, but it didn’t quite resonant that way with most Americans. Everyone knew alcohol users, the vast majority of whom didn’t seem to present a threat society. However, most people do not have that kind of personal knowledge with regard to drug users and are, therefore, easily manipulated through propaganda into a reaction of hysterical fear on the issue.
It is obvious from the above that the hysterical reaction to the perceived “evil” of drug use has spawned policies that only produced a greater “evil”. But the hysterical mentality has no means to deal with this dilemma. For such mentalities, to abandon the “war on drugs” implies that in some sense drug use will be legalized, and legalization would imply social approval. And that is an insuperable hurdle, since, by definition, society can’t be in the business of issuing imprimaturs for “evil”.
This conundrum evaporates once we dispense with the term “evil” as characterizing drug use. Redefining drug use as simply a problem liberates the mind from the hysterical prescriptions and allows the use of rational analysis to attempt to find solutions that actually mitigate its effects to the degree possible in the real world. That is, any solutions proposed have to accommodate the dynamics in effect in the human condition. In consequence, we have to abandon the infantile assumption that a legal fiat that disregards those dynamics can be of any use.
This analysis must begin with the recognition that the “war on drugs” with the goal of producing a “drug free America” has always been a bogus characterization of what’s going on.
America is awash in legal psychotropic drugs. But their legal status renders them exempt from the effects of the “war” - apparently they have the status of “non-combatants”. When Nelson Rockefeller died, it was discovered that he was a heavy user of such drugs although, as far as was known, he was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. There is also the case of Rush Limbaugh who enjoyed the status of a legal “junkie”. That is, he was heavily addicted to a range of legal drugs but that discovery did not result in his incarceration or the incarceration of the doctors who prescribed the drugs. Finally, there is the situation with regard to Prozac. That drug has been prescribed to transform people who are naturally shy into more extroverted personalities. Now shyness, in so far as I am aware, has never been designated as a psychiatric illness. But extroverts certainly are more successful in American culture than are the shy.
These are interesting examples of the dynamics that really apply in drug policy. It isn’t the issue of drugs per se that creates the perceived problem; it’s where the control of access lies. Seen from this perspective, the current distinction between legal and illegal drugs seems somewhat arbitrary, and the abuse of drugs of either variety can have tragic consequences. Whether or not an individual has access to legal drugs is largely a class issue. If a person is depressed (that is, in despair) and has financial access to a doctor and the drugs, that person can be legally treated for that condition. If neither of those conditions can be met, no legal treatment is available. But the condition will still exist and the dynamics of the human condition tells us that such an individual will attempt to treat the condition with whatever solution is at hand - illegal drugs. Of course, this is not to imply that the use of illegal drugs is only a problem for the downtrodden; it is not. There is considerable illegal drug use in the privileged classes. From this we can infer that these privileged individual users judge the illegal drug to be a more effective treatment of their psychic problems than the legal drug would be. But illegal drug use is overwhelmingly a problem for the downtrodden and that is an indicator of psychic damage the current class structure inflicts on these people.
The dynamics of the human condition insures that “war on drugs” (“Plan A”) will continue to fail. While that chimerical quest does provide a certain emotional satisfaction for the induced public hysteria over the issue, it does nothing to actually solve the problems arising from drug use – in fact, as we have seen above, it exacerbates them. Therefore, we need a “Plan B” that mitigates the destructive effects of drug use to the degree practically attainable in light of the dynamics that prevail in the human condition.
We can begin the analysis for the formulation of such a plan by revisiting the fundamental issue – that is, the reasons for any mind-altering drug use (legal or illegal) initiated by the user. It seems clear that such drug use arises from the psychic pain resultant from a perceived inability to successfully deal with environmental conditions. At the very least, drug use ameliorates that pain, and that is enough to insure its continuation, even in the absence of any improvement in dealing with environmental conditions. From the viewpoint of the user, this situation is analogous to that of a particular schizophrenic for whom no cure is available. But drugs can dampen the most robust manifestations of the condition, and thus lessen the psychic pain. In this circumstance, pain relief is considered proper treatment (indeed, laudable and legal), even without prospect of a cure. Now from the perspective of all drug users (both legal and illegal), that analogy validates (for them) the “pain relief only” effect of their drug use. And that pain relief result is a more powerful motivator in the human condition than the fear that can be induced by the infliction of social penalties.
From this we can infer that drug use will be a persistent feature of the human condition as long as psychic pain exists. Now, of course, some psychic pain can be alleviated by the adjustment of social conditions – that arising from the existence of the condition of being “downtrodden”, for example. But other psychic pain is a function of human variability. That is, a social condition that gives pain to some, could give joy to others. Here, there is no remedy through social adjustment. So some psychic pain will be a persistent feature of the human condition and, therefore, so will drug use.
That being the case, we must forge a policy that mitigates, to the degree possible, the destructive effects of drug use on the human condition. Formulating that policy has to begin by treating the personal tragedy that often results from drug use as a separate issue from the catastrophic social effects that the wholesale “illegalization” approach has produced. By that separation, it becomes apparent that alleviating catastrophic social effects has to be of more immediate concern than remedying personal tragedies.
Once we have reached this point in our analysis, there is a template to be used for the construction of a sound drug policy. That is, of course, the approach already in force for the “legal drug” – alcohol. Understanding that alcohol use cannot be controlled by legal fiat, we have constructed a social framework that controls, to the degree possible, the social destabilization effects of legal alcohol use. This is not a “perfect” solution since we still have drunk drivers, alcoholics, etc. But we understand that pursuit of the “perfect” solution (“illegalization”) produces the unintended consequence of criminal syndicates, which has catastrophic effects on social stability. So in totality, the current policy produces the best results practically attainable, and we deal with the downside effects (alcoholics, drunk drivers) as best we can.
This same mentality must be employed to effectively deal with the drug issue. That is, our primary concern should be the elimination of the criminal syndicates since they have the most destructive social effects. And in order to do that, we have to disrupt the power of the syndicates by the institution of a “legal” social framework to handle the issue of drug use. It is only through such legal frameworks that there is any possibility at all of exercising responsible social control on the issue.
This will not be a simple task since the variety of drugs will require different frameworks, depending on the direct social effects of each drug. For example, it’s apparent that marijuana has about the same social impact as alcohol. Therefore, the marijuana framework should mimic the current framework for alcohol, using licensed distributors and not investing a lot of social effort in monitoring for “reasonable” and “abusive” use of the drug. For a drug like heroin, the framework would be different. Heroin use has no direct social consequences. It is a “nodding drug”; its use produces self-absorption, not violence. The only violence that erupts from heroin use stems from the inability of the addict to get the drug. Here, the rational approach may be to distribute through some type of clinic, which dispenses the drug with counseling as to its possible effects and suggestions for getting off the drug. The point is that objectified studies have to provide the basis for constructing the frameworks, not hysteria. It may be that such studies show that the direct of effect of a particular drug is violence, in which case the “illegalization” approach would have to be used and could be effective since it may cause such users to switch to a “legal” drug. But even if it didn’t, the size and power of the supporting criminal syndicates would be much reduced.
So it seems apparent that this type of rational approach in constructing a drug policy produces the following benefits:
- Most critically, the elimination of the drug syndicates would have a major impact on reducing organized violence and the corruption of civil processes.
- The random “street crime” level of violence arising from an addict’s need to support a drug habit would be eliminated.
- The need for addicts to induce others into the drug life as a means to gain income to support their habit would also be eliminated.
- A legalized framework could insure the use of sterile drug utensils and thus reduce the incidence of disease, and the consequent impact on health costs.
Of course, once the destructive social effects of the current drug policy have been eliminated, we are still left with the personal tragedy aspect of the problem. But we have that problem with the current policy. So the only issue is - would the “legal framework” approach increase drug use? It probably would, as was the case with alcohol use after the lifting of Prohibition. But as was the case with alcohol, that would have to be endured in order to achieve the elimination of the catastrophic social consequences of the current policy.
Segmenting the “drug problem” into its constituent elements of a “social problem” and a “personal problem” allowed us to make a rational assessment of the effects of each element. And that assessment has shown that the social effects of the current policy are so dire that they overwhelm any immediate concern for dealing with the effects of the “personal problem” element. But it also allows us, as a secondary consideration, to analyze the human dynamics creating the personal problem.
Our understanding of those dynamics reveals that if casual drug use passes over into the tragedy of addiction, social policy is powerless to affect a remedy. The remedy for addiction rests solely with the addict. The most social policy can do is to provide the facilities necessary to support the addict through the remedy process, once the addicts has decided that they want to be free of the addiction. But absent that decision, the tragedy cannot be remedied, and may even result in the eventual destruction of the addict. Obviously, as was the case with alcohol policy, this is not a “perfect” solution. But we understand that pursuit of the “perfect” solution (“illegalization”) produces the unintended consequence of criminal syndicates, which has catastrophic effects on social stability. So in totality, “Plan B” would seem to produce the best results practically attainable, and we deal with the downside effects (the tragedy of addiction) as best we can.
In summary, it’s apparent that the employment of the term “evil” to characterize drug use has resulted in a policy that produced consequences more horrific than the consequences produce by the condition it sought to remedy. Real solutions to problems require rational analysis based on the “facts on the ground”. Reliance on a “fantasy” analysis based on un-vetted assumptions not only produce no solution but may exponentially intensify the problem, as is the case with the drug problem. Of course, our objection to “evil” has a broader application then to that specific term. Our objection applies to any term that has the tendency to foreclose the use of rational analysis in dealing with problems.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution