What is the Nature and Source of Evil?

Introduction

A friend of mine posed this question to me some time ago, so I thought I'd run it through the current framework of how I see the world and see what comes out.

The question of evil is traditionally a religious one, for religions have the reputation of being the bastions of moral truth. So we'll first look at the source of evil to set us up for understanding what evil is, then we'll relate it all back to the religious approach to evil.

The Source of Evil

Free to Choose

Even if the devil existed he would not be the source of evil. In all the major theologies the devil can't ultimately make you do it. He is seen as a tempter, he can only entice. Therefore in the religious understanding evil is a choice. 

What about in the non-religious understanding? Here more questions seem to arise to fog the issue. There are, after all, psychopaths, brain abnormalities, tumors, sociopaths and politicians (but I repeat myself). However none of these disorders change the fact that evil is a choice. 

Evil must be a choice to be evil. A car cannot be evil, even it if its breaks fail and it kills someone. The car didn't have intent or knowledge, it didn't make that choice, it was physics. 

Morality and Evil

Ok, so evil is a choice; a specific kind of choice. Some decisions we make such as what kind of music to listen to are simply personal preference and cannot be evil. Other choices are either evil or not evil - these are moral decisions.

So to understand evil in its entirety, to define it correctly we must understand firstly that evil is one category of "moral" activity. Morality wouldn't exist without the concept of free will. So from the highest view, the source of evil is free will, but not all freely chosen options can be classified as evil or good. Sometimes our choices are neutral or they just fall outside of the moral dichotomy. 

The Source of Morality

The most basic morality is the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. We have the cognitive ability to realize that feelings, sensations and experience (pain and pleasure) can be felt by others as well. I don't want to feel pain, so others probably wouldn't like that either.

In other words morality is derived from our ability as cognizant beings to feel pain or pleasure and to recognize that others do too. 

The Source of Evil

To sum up, only choices can be classified as evil which is a type of moral classification. Evil is not a thing in and of itself, it only 'exists' in relation to how we classify choices. 

The internet isn't a thing, its just a set of interactions between computers on a network. Just as the internet doesn't exist without computers interacting, so does morality not exist without people interacting.

The Nature of Evil

The Nature of Morality

Since evil is a moral classification perhaps we ought to define morality for a minute.

With our understanding of how others must feel (empathy) we try to make moral rules to live by, a protocol. A good example of this is the Golden Rule. Any moral rule must be universal to be a valid moral rule.

Lets prove this by taking an example of a moral code that isn't universal: lets say I believe it is "good" for me to kill anyone I wish, But it is "evil" for every other person to kill me. 

This moral code "isn't fair," as the children say. I'm a human, everyone I wish to kill are humans, we're not so different that their desires are to die and mine are to live. We have a universal experience; pain for me is pain for most people. Such an asymmetric rule doesn't make any logical sense.

So for a moral rule to be valid it must be universal since we're mostly the same.

What is Evil? 

As stated above moral laws are built upon our ability to 1. make conscious decisions (free will) 2. feel pain and pleasure (feelings and knowledge) 3. have the sense to desire pleasure and avoid pain (desires) 4. understand the implications of those decisions on others (empathy).

If morality is built atop all of that then a category of moral decisions (evil) must also be built on top of all that. Evil must be a choice, evil must understand what causes pain and pleasure and evil must desire pain for others. In other words; evil requires a knowledge of virtue. 

Evil as Perverted Virtue

Lets take a quick example; Sadism.

sa·dism

ˈsāˌdizəm/

noun

1. the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.

   • (in general use) deliberate cruelty.

To have sadistic tendencies you must first understand that others can suffer like you and you must desire their suffering. To actually be a sadist you must act on your desires and actually inflict pain, suffering or humiliation on others. 

Here we see that sadism requires empathy. If you didn't actually believe others could feel pain or pleasure you would be indifferent to them. You would torture them as much as you torture any inanimate object.

In order to hate someone you must grant them the dignity of being conscious, indifference requires no such knowledge or concern. 

Evil as Dysfunction

In healthy individuals empathy tends towards sympathy. Understanding how others feel makes the healthy person less likely to harm others. It engenders a sense of union, a shared humanity, even love; not sadism. Sadism is dysfunctional, a sign of mental or emotional illness.

It is accurate to say that evil people are unhealthy or have not developed emotionally or mentally in a healthy way. Sadism is an example of how the helpful knowledge of empathy is perverted to cause suffering instead of increase unity in a community. Its a disease, however we cannot put all the blame on a lack of health. 

If we could assign ill-health the full causation then we would strip away an evil doer's humanity and turn him or her into an automaton, a robot who is programmed, an animal acting on instinct. The moment we assign cause wholly to their lack of emotional health we strip them of all freewill and therefore all capacity to act morally. 

Freewill and Evil

Now, perhaps someone is literally insane, totally disconnected from reality, automatically acting out the whims of a broken mind. There is no freewill in this situation and his or her actions cannot be classified as evil. Perhaps they've killed someone in broad daylight and showed no remorse. Animals do that. He might be harmful and dangerous, but not evil.

As long as there is control there is free will and people are morally responsible for their actions.

For instance there are abusive parents in this world. These parents usually somehow find it within their souls to refrain from abusing their children when a cop is around or when child services stop by or probably even around friends.

In other words they can refrain from being immoral, unethical or abusive when it's convenient for them. In the same way that a hitman hides a body to avoid being caught. An animal or insane person doesn't have that control.

I've heard grown people say that their mother or father was abusive to some degree or another but that it was only because they were bipolar or had some other disorder and "couldn't control it." However, if the parent could avoid the abuse in public then we have evidence that they could indeed control it. They may very well have been bipolar but that is no excuse to strip their freewill, moral agency and human dignity away.

The act of avoiding being caught in evil is proof that someone has enough freewill to be responsible for evil choices.

Candidate Sources of Evil

With all that we've discussed so far we can turn our attention to what is commonly said about the source of evil. 

Some people say "the love of money is the root of all evil."

Can the love of money entice someone to do immoral things? Absolutely. Can it do more than entice? Can someone's love of money actually be the whole cause of someone's evil actions? No, as we've just discussed if evil isn't a choice it isn't evil. If greed could overtake all of one's control of mind and body then that mind and body would no longer have free will. Any actions undertaken by such an individual consumed by greed (were that even possible) would not have been chosen and therefore cannot be evil. Harmful, perhaps, but not evil. 

Additionally, love of money can cause people to do great things - create great businesses, produce awesome products or even just go to work and contribute to society. 

One need only to find one person making an evil decision who is not motivated by his love of money to disprove this claim.

Furthermore there are many other candidate sources of evil if that is our definition for the 'source of evil'; something that entices you to behave immorally. 

One such candidate is religion itself; suicide bombers, crusades and witch hunts are all great examples of evils done in the name of religion. However religion certainly is not the source of all evil. 

Its been said that religion is the cause of all wars in history. This is provably false and holds about as much water as the claim that money is the root of all evil.

A few mental health professionals or neurologists probably believe that evil is nothing more than unhealthy dysfunction but as we've discussed previously that can't fully account for evil choices because evil choices are choices.

Certainly people choose to act abusively or even cruelly because of psychological problems but those psychological problems can't account for all evil. Though perhaps emotional issues is the best candidate for a source of evil; perhaps this is the biggest enticement to the largest number of people to commit evil acts. 

Keep in mind, though, if someone is so far gone that he's lost all control you can't even call his actions evil because he isn't making any choices. Calling a legitimate lunatic's killing act "murder" is like calling terminally ill cancer patient's death "suicide." It may cause suffering, but its not moral.

Without choice there is not morality, and therefore no evil. 

The Nature of Evil

Okay, so lets take a step back and define the nature of evil in greater detail. We've learned that one form of evil, sadism is a perversion of empathy towards suffering rather than empathy's most healthy conclusion: a sense of union and shared humanity.

Lets take another example of this: a mugger.  

The mugger, like the sadist knows that you prefer to live to the alternative so he says, "your money or your life." He uses your healthy desires against you just as the villain will use the hero's desires against him by taking the hero's love interest hostage and force the far more powerful hero to do his bidding. 

Not only does he use your desires against you, he uses your peaceful nature to his benefit. Muggers take money from people that seem peaceful not from people that seem violent.

By his actions and words he's communicating a moral code he lives by, "My desires should be satisfied and yours should not. My property rights should be respected but your property rights should not be respected. I get to use force against you but you do not get to use force against me." 

In this example it is perfectly obvious that evil is hypocritical. The mugger asserts 2 opposing, asymmetrical moral rules for people who feel the same pains, pleasures and largely have the same desires for property and life. Evil is always hypocritical, requiring directly opposite moral laws for both similar individuals.

Evil is an acceptance of a general moral rule (property rights for example) followed by an direct violation of that moral rule. 

Evil is an acceptance of the general virtue of people followed by an exploitation of that virtue.

The Religious take on Evil

God Creates Good?

Growing up extremely religious I was taught certain things about morality that I feel need to be addressed.

I haven't given this an extensive amount of dedicated thought so this is in no way an exhaustive analysis.

All that is Good comes from God

As a religious person I was taught to thank God for all good things and I still try to be grateful but not to a deity, just in general.

I learned a lot about my church before I learned about others. In college I took a philosophy of religions class and I noticed that the Catholics and Protestants believe some pretty strange stuff. For instance in The Book of Mormon it says that if God was false or behaved immorally he would cease to be God. To the classical theist view this is heresy because God defines what is good, he does not conform to what is good. 

Having as I did, the natural inclination to the belief that God conforms to what is right, I also had the natural inclination to believe that I knew or could know through logic and deduction what was right or wrong.  

So when I got older it started to confuse me when I thought about how God did things that seemed to violate that morality. It really confused me when God murdered whole nations in the old testament, when he commands certain leaders in the church to practice polygamy, and on a more personal note, why doesn't God answer my prayers when he seems to talk to others? These were just a few of the moral exemptions God seemed to allow himself that bothered me.

The classical theists (Catholics and Protestants) are insulated from this cognitive dissonance because whatsoever God does is right, end of story. 

The Purpose and Virtue of Faith

The Mormons try to explain it away but when their explanations produce more and more questions they fall back on the default religious position of "you should have faith." 

Perhaps we don't understand all the intergalactic, eternal purposes of God but shouldn't an apparent hypocritical action on God's part be met with some concern? Searching? Answers? If it is just a matter of us not understanding morality like God does, that's a pretty big problem considering that we're here to be tested and prove how moral we are.

What is the point of a church that can't fully teach its members about what is right and what is wrong and why?

Perhaps I'm expecting too much. When I was younger I fully expected all my questions to be answered eventually. I expected no less of an infinite and omnipotent Deity; a Deity that claims to love me personally.

This might sound a hostile, but it is not, its logical. When I was religious death did not bother me because I truly believed there was an afterlife. I was logical. So now too it follows that a perfectly moral God would always behave perfectly morally and if he does not then one of two things is true: we do not understand what moral behavior is which should cause deep anxiety within us as a church or God is immoral. I'm still just logical.

A Word On Sin

The government uses the term 'crime' to indicate any activity it will punish. We can know what the government thinks is immoral by what it labels a crime. 

The church uses the term 'sin' to indicate any activity it deems immoral. There is however very little physical force that a church can subject a sinner to. It can only take steps to expel a member from its community which is entirely their prerogative and involves no force whatsoever.

This does not mean, however, that the church doesn't have an extremely strong mental and emotional affect on its devotees. Its truly harmful punishments come in the form of self-attack on the part of the member. This effect is magnified in children. In order for the term 'sin' to have any effect on the individual guilt or fear must be generated by the individual himself.

Children from devout families take their church very seriously. If you tell them they'll go to hell for sinning they will believe you. I, myself, confessed in the 6th grade to a friend that my biggest fear was not going to heaven.

For the teenage believers guilt is often the undertone of their development. The church demonizes the flesh and in doing so turns one's own body against them.

But as we have seen above morals have everything to do with how we treat one another and have nothing to do with anything done in isolation. Even in the simplest form of morals, (treat others as you would like to be treated) morals says nothing about things you do alone that have no effect on other people. Morals only apply to our interaction in the world. 

Because moral terms or categories only apply to interactions with others and "crimes" and "sins" encompass some actions done in isolation we can deduce something about the nature of these concepts. We can see that the concept of "sin" has very little to do with morals, whats right and wrong, or good and evil. Either the concept of "sin" has more to do with what is deemed to be healthy or beneficial behavior or some other thing but the religious term "sinning" does not necessarily mean "doing evil."

Lets take a minute to look at this concept in a little more detail.

Adultery in your Heart 

Growing up I was taught some very important truth about the power of my mind - that my thoughts can lead to action. I was also taught something else that began to bother me at one point - that thoughts can be sins. 

I read 1984 in high school and learned about totalitarian societies. I especially remember learning about thought crimes.

In 1984 its perfectly obvious that thought crimes are the epitome of control. All the major religions of the earth however assert that "bad thoughts" are a sin. Jesus made the distinction between actually committing adultery and lust then equated the two to some degree:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matt. 5:27-28)

Lusting to commit adultery probably isn't a sign of a health in a monogamous relationship, however is the symptom of a possible problem a sin? Apparently it is, does that mean its immoral? Can having any thought whatsoever actually be immoral? My thoughts do not put guns in people's ribs, they can't rape someone, or murder, assault them or even defraud them. These are behaviors, these require action. 

If my thoughts startle me, or disturb me, if they seem abnormal, violent or perverse perhaps that's the time to get help, not suppress them.

Victimless Crimes

The church, especially the LDS church, teaches it's members that they have total free will. They do not joke around about free will, according to Mormon theology mortal man has such an abundance of free will that if he uses it correctly he can become like God. 

At the same time they regulate the inner thoughts and personal activities (in areas such as what they ingest, the words they speak and their sexual activities to name a few) of its members.

In this way the church absolutely asserts freedom of will but denies self ownership. That is a contradiction. Where does freedom of will come from other than self ownership? In the LDS theology mans' freewill is innate to his nature, specifically because he is co-eternal with God. This is outlined in the 93rd section of the D&C.

If one does not have enough self ownership to do whatever he or she likes as long as it doesn't hurt others then what does it even mean to have self ownership?

Every crime needs a victim. A thought crime is also known simply as a thought.

Abuse to Children

There is nothing wrong with an organization that broadcasts messages on how to live morally and or well. Its odd but not evil if this organization believes in a hell or a super reality such as an entire theology. 

However the trouble arises when children are involved. Children do not have the mental capacity to evaluate the claims made by their church, children do not have the emotional maturity nor the economic wherewithal to defy their parents. They are not independent. 

If this effect does not seem that harmful to you take a real world example to compare it to. If I ran a hospital for mentally handicap adults and I told them if they did something wrong that didn't even hurt anyone else, such as get out of bed in the middle of the night that they were bad that when they died they'd be sent to hell with other bad people bad people (a claim an cannot prove, by the way, which is intellectually dishonest) I'd be guilty of emotional abuse. Yet this is the norm for children and no one thinks anything of it.

God and Morality

As I have mentioned on this blog before I was not pulled away from my religion by transgression or anti-mormon material. I learned what was right and what was wrong and why - logically.

I realized then that my church, the institution that asserts its perfect authority on the topic of what is right and what is wrong is a fraud.

This was a terrible pill to swallow. I didn't want to believe it, I wanted to stay on my current trajectory and keep the God of my youth. It took several months of fear and unanswered prayer to actually accept what I had learned and it took several more months of confusion to reorient myself to a life without God. I would wish such a journey for everyone who desires to take it but I would not wish to inflict it upon any happy and content or otherwise unwilling soul. 

The nature and source of evil isn't a mystical or elusive thing. It isn't a deity or supernatural being. It's not enough to explain it away with greed or lust, bad habits or superstition. Evil is one part choice and one part some enticement to behave immorally. Such enticements might come from a dysfunctional childhood or the opportunity to acquire power or the belief of getting forty virgins in heaven or anything else.

Conclusion

The important thing is not to know where evil comes from for its enticements are legion and we ultimately have the choice to behave that way or not. What's far more valuable to understand is the nature of evil; its nothing more than immoral actions. Morality is nothing more than a protocol we use when interacting with each other to avoid unnecessary harm. Therefore for anything to be classified as evil there must be at least two parties involve.

This question, "What is the Nature and Source of Evil?" cannot be answered without defining a consistent moral theory. I personally feel the definition of morality I've given here meets that requirement. Furthermore I've compared this moral theory to the other moral theories I've been taught in my life and found it to be the only logically consistent moral theory there is. I compared the theory of morality I accept to the one religion has given (obey and have faith) and found mine more logically consistent. I also compared it to the morality of the state (violence is power) and found mine to be more logically consistent.

If I'm Wrong

I could be mistaken about the logic of morality. I might not have it right. But regardless, the concerns that the church has no rational answer behind their moral assertions are legitimate. The issue of "just have faith" still stands. If my moral thinking isn't correct, the reader is charged with finding or determining what shall suit his own moral requirements.

But what if I'm wrong about all my concerns here? If I am wrong about everything, God will doubtless be gentle with me in the hereafter if he is a fair, empathetic and moral heavenly parent. But If I'm wrong about that too (his moral nature) then I'll be cast out of his presence which would be my preference in that case; I don't keep company with immoral people.

The Purpose of Life

Thinkers, philosophers, theologians even scientists have struggled with this question for tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. 

Having been religious I thought I had it all figured out. If I may quote the intro to The Used's song, 'take it away':

"Life's greatest questions have always been: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? You are about to see and hear one of the most significant messages given to us from God."

Those are the questions that religions promise to answer. And I believed mine had the answers until I questioned my religion and found it lacking. It wasn't until after that experience that I found myself reborn, a wanderer in a strange land, again in my infant state, knowing nothing of my existence. It was then that I realized, "My God! I'm going to have to think for myself."

I realized after I left my religion that there was no one purpose to life. There were infinite purposes to life. "The Purpose of Life" is an incomplete sentence, it should be "The Purpose of Life for Me." This is because everyone is different, everyone has different desires.

That middle question, "Why am I here?" is the most important of the bunch. "Who am I?" and "Where did I come from?" helped to answer that question for me. But here I don't want to talk much about the journey; I just want to talk about the conclusion that I've come to so far. 

Instead of living this life for the next I ought to start living this life for this life.

I think children know this. When children are asked, "If you could give adults one piece of advice what would it be?" They respond most often with something along these lines, "have more fun." 

I remember growing up and the need to have fun everyday was very important. During our family prayer at night the kids would usually say something like this, "and help us have a good day tomorrow and to have fun."

A few weeks ago I went through a Stanford course online in philosophy. The topic was the purpose of life. In the course the professor discussed the hedonistic viewpoint in particular to his other musings: that the point of life is to just have the most pleasure possible.

I think this point of view might superficially resemble the child's point of view because at their maturity level they most often express desires to have fun and they express the most delight at pleasures such as candy. But I believe even children have other budding desires that go beyond the hedonistic point of view. 

Even as a 3rd or 4th grader I remember being disappointed in my schooling and it wasn't just because I wasn't having enough fun. I wished they taught more science, I wished I was doing useful stuff there. It felt like a waste of time. In other words I had a desire to learn and be fulfilled in my school work. 

So the hedonistic point of view is not really my point of view, but much like the child's point of view on this topic I think it has a superficial resemblance.

The most efficient way to happiness for children is having fun. And I think that is the purpose to life - to be happy. To me that means to be fulfilled, content, peaceful, at times excited, curious, and the whole range of emotions that constitute lifelong happiness. I know that's partly tautological but we'll start exploring it now. 

Nothing has meaning except the meaning you give it.

Contrary to the religious belief everything only has the meaning you give it. If life has any meaning at all for you it is you that has given life that meaning. You are the one that has assigned the value to life. Money means nothing to swine. Spectator sports mean nothing to me. Even the words on this screen are just symbols and only have meaning in your mind. Your whole world is in your mind.

So, exploring the meaning of life either consciously or subconsciously is very important. Children do this naturally (subconsciously) and often come to the conclusion that having fun everyday is the most successful way to be happy. Ultimately we all do what we want. Therefore you could define the meaning of life simply as what you want, then start defining that. 

I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm rambling, these are all the important thoughts I've had on the matter and I really just want to get them recorded. 

What are the different aspects to being happy? Or in other words, what are the different things I want in my life?  The answer to that question is the answer to the purpose of life for me.

I definitely want the aspect of fun.

I want to have fun with friends and to have play in my world. This can take the form of sports, video games, even (I am tempted to say) spirited debates for these all include cooperation and/or competition and entertainment.

Fun is an interesting thing because it has some ineffable quality about it. (Ineffable because I don't understand why its fun but I know when I'm having it). I suppose this "fun aspect of life" is a more general thing than just play. You can enjoy yourself and "have fun" in my different activities in life. I mean being cheerful, making jokes, being entertained, experiencing pleasure, being joyful, having a good time. I'm gonna lump all these into one word for now: fun. 

I think like the children do, I want to be sustained on a steady diet of fun every day. 

I also want to feel fulfilled in my work.

This has been a hard one for me to figure out. I used to believe that I couldn't be happy in my work as long as I was working for someone else, or perhaps even as long as I was indeed working at all. I equated working to drudgery and I still do to a much lesser extent. This is of course because it was all I had experienced.

However, my study of economics, management and entrepreneurship has lead me to a partial paradigm shift. Without going into details here I now can and do see value in belonging to a group and doing something with and for the larger society.

I realized that employment vs entrepreneurship is really a false dichotomy in many minds. Every employee is in business for himself and his business is to provide his labor or specialized services to his employer. Every employer is nothing more than an employee of sorts to his customers and a consumer of his employee's goods. In many ways (not all) its a distinction without a difference.

This understanding has caused me to take more pride in my work because it allows me to view myself as an acting agent, a dignified individual on par in the free will department with my bosses, managers, supervisors and employers. Danial Pink got it right in my case when he deduced that many employees want more autonomy, purpose and mastery over their work. I would also add progression.

I was going to make a different heading to talk about success in life but I think I can fit it in here. I've set for myself certain career goals that constitute what looks like long-term financial and entrepreneurial success for me. So setting myself goals that will progress my life and lead to future happiness, then achieving those goals is success to me. And as far as my work is concerned I have a few goals set:

I want to move up and out of my current position at work into a different type of labor as a programmer. I would like to make as much or more money on my own entrepreneurial projects as I do at my career.

Besides those two goals I have a more long-term goal of doing or being a part of something that makes a difference in the world. What I mean by that is breaking the status quo; doing it better or asking if it needs to be done at all. Instead of working for a company that does something the same way its always done it I want to (at some point) head into the fray and do something new, be on the cutting edge, create a new innovation that will ripple it's influence throughout time and improve the future of not only my life but many others as well.


I want to be fulfilled in my intimate relationships.

This is also something that I feel I've consciously known for a short time, but subconsciously understood forever: what an intimate relationship is. 

I think a lot of people including myself at times are most comfortable with a "working relationship" with most of the people in their lives. But an intimate relationship with someone requires that you understand each other from the ground up and love what you see.

Take any evil person as an example, any person without morals, a sense of right and wrong without empathy for others, take any sadist. Lets take the most iconic of all.

Hitler was an evil man, and if I knew him, or even now if I study him I could know him from the ground up. By that I mean I could understand him and his values, the reasons he behaves the way he does. But I couldn't love him. I really don't think I could because our values are so different. Christians have this idea that you should love everyone even if they're evil. but I think that's rewarding sadism.

Love is not empathy. I could have empathy for Hitler I could explore his past and feel some of his pain perhaps but that does not mean I could love him. I'm still working all this out but I think love is something more innate. The real question is could Hitler love me? I don't think that is possible. Anything he would call love is not my definition of love. I think if we used the same word to mean different things, that would be an insult to the people I claim to love.

That's why I agree with Stefan Molyneux when he said that "Love is our involuntary response to virtue." More specifically I think that definition only applies to virtuous people: love is a virtuous person's involuntary or emotional response to virtue in others. I don't think a Hitler has the capacity to love.

So to have a loving and emotionally intimate relationship I think you need two people that are both virtuous that can take delight and joy out of knowing and experiencing the other person. I'm striving for excellence in this area and I want more of these kinds of people in my life.


I've always wanted to know the truth about every goddamn thing. 

I'm very curious and I take a tremendous amount of satisfaction out of learning about the world I live in. My favorite is when I learn something that changes the way I see every other thing - a paradigm shift. Those moments are awesome. I'm not going to say anything more about this, but if you're more curious about how I feel go watch "the Joy of Discovery" on youtube by melodysheep. It is sufficient to say that the quest for truth is a massive part of my purpose of life.

I want to know myself.

The above answer to my purpose of life is not a finished product. It's a beta version, maybe an alpha version. But it rests upon a foundation of something that I don't see changing for a long time: using my emotions as a guide in this quest for happiness.

Its good to feel anger when you know why you feel anger and you're comfortable with the reason. Same goes for sadness, I think its generally unhealthy to feel happy at a funeral. And I think its generally unhealthy if you don't feel anger in an abusive environment. 

So one tool we have to understand ourselves as humans is our emotional state. I'm in the process of making a new habit: if I find myself feeling an emotion that is unpleasant or that I feel is inappropriate I try to question why I'm feeling that way. And I don't try to artificially control those feelings. My limbic system doesn't care if these emotions are inconvenient or "wrong" it only tells me the truth about how I feel. 

So far I've learned about myself using this method. I've also learned about myself by studying science. A very broad understanding of artificial intelligence, neurology, sociology, psychology, genetics, evolution, and most recently child development all help me understand who, or rather, what I am.

In my quest for happiness I think its of paramount importance to know myself.

To me the purpose of life is to be happy.

The Buddhist (and other eastern philosophies) do this by giving up their personal desires for this life in preference for an indifferent and apathetic existence. 

The Theist (Muslims, Christians, and in my previous case Mormons) do this by giving up their personal desires in this life in preference for the hope of a happy, fulfilling paradise hereafter. 

I've rejected these ideas. To me the purpose of this life is to be happy and that can't be done by denying your personal desires. Tempering them, negotiating with them surely will lead to sustained happiness but denying them, being a dictator over your own self fragments the self and isn't fun.

Having realized that there is no one purpose to life, that there is no meaning in anything except the meaning I give it, I now believe that my purpose in life is to be happy because this is the only life I get.

The Ultimate Value in Political Philosophy

Due to this post's title I expect that nobody will ever endeavor to read it. 

Regardless, I want to summarize the process by which I came to my current political philosophy. 

During recent evaluations of the "Climate Change" proposal (and I call it a proposal rather than theory because it implies action is required) I've realized what the measuring tool is that I use when confronted with new ideas.

By "measuring tool" I mean my ultimate value, the thing I care about most when trying to make sense of a new idea. 

Moral philosophy is my natural and first concern when evaluating new ideas related to how we organize ourselves as a society. This has not always been the case.

I studied economics studiously a few years ago and economic efficiency became my measuring stick. I realized that so many things the government tries to control would be better handled by the free market. Mixed with a natural inclination to be free I embraced the ideology of libertarianism.

After seeing a trend of bad economic policy in government and improved quality with lower costs in the free market I concluded that government's place was not in any affairs the free market could handle on its own.

Where did this push government? I wouldn't want my food being grown by the government, that's just a given. Neither would I want my cell phone or car created by the government, so it has to be pushed out of technology as much as possible. 

Government's place got pushed out of the post office, obviously, then out of education, and certainly out of the medical industry. They're pretty shitty when it comes to monetary policy, they shouldn't do trade wars and actually all regulations are commercial regulations so they all need to go.

Government became for me for a short while the "Government of the Gaps." Every time I would look into 'who does better at x; government or free market?' It always turned up free market and government got pushed out of everything, one industry at a time. That is, it got pushed out of nearly everything.

All it was to do in my "minarchist" view was national defense, police, and maybe handling of the law and courts because these are the things government does best: issue verdicts and kill people. 

Like I said, economics was my measuring tool and it managed to take me that far. But just as vacuum tubes were replaced by a new paradigm so was my thinking about to make a quantum leap forward. While wrestling with the question of whether or not the court system could be run with greater economic efficiency by the free market (which I now believe it could) I realized my measuring stick was inadequate. 

I had been asking the wrong question.

National defense, police, law and courts - all these things cost money. And where does government get its' money? From the people. Put more accurately government steals the people's money. This is called taxation.

Stealing is immoral and immorality trumps economic efficiency. I knew this was true by looking at my own life: it would be very economically efficient for me to steal the income I need to live if I had the opportunity, but I wouldn't do it because it would be immoral.

I realized this: morality trumps economic efficiency. Therefore if government must steal in order to pay its policemen, soldiers and judges I could not support such a minimalist government regardless of economic efficiency.

And that's where I stand today. Everyone seems to have a 'measuring stick' or 'ultimate value' they use to evaluate new ideas (especially when the realization of those ideas have implications on how we organize ourselves as a society).

Some people care mostly about what is fair. Equality is the word for them. If some people are rich, and others are poor, well that just wont do. Everyone deserves to be happy and no one should have less than anyone else. I believe having this as an ultimate value presupposes that someone is dishing out the goodies, that someone is in charge of all the wealth. And if that was the case then yes, equality is only fair; all the kids should have the same number of toys.

Other people are quick to defer the question to a higher authority. I get this a lot from those that are religious in my parents' generation. Its almost as if they believe they shouldn't think about these issues because God is judge, its not their place, their just children.

If equality is your ultimate value then equality trumps morality. Jack has more than Jane so take from Jack and give to Jane. Problem solved! 

If religious doctrine is your ultimate value (which it may have been for me as a teenager, so I get it) then religious doctrine trumps morality. Oh, Jack is a homosexual so he's bad. Problem solved!

I really cannot think of any other method or measuring tool or ultimate value that is more important to me than asking, "is this moral?" Of course that statement is totally tautological because of course I feel that way - its my ultimate value. But anyway, I have to reject any other ultimate value because they all seem to have childish-like, unempowering, and illogical premises inherent in them. 

Maybe equality is morality to you - whatever make everyone equal makes everyone have the same amount of happiness so that's what is right. Or maybe whatever God says is your definition of morality; if God says this is bad, then it must be bad even if it doesn't make logical sense. 

Well neither of those are morality to me. My definition of what's wrong is very simple. Whatever is the initiation of aggression is wrong. You can kind of approximate that idea by living by the golden rule, but basically aggression isn't necessarily bad because that could be self defense, but the initiation of aggression is bad because there is no excuse, its just unprovoked attack. Stealing, rape, assault, murder, even fraud is under that umbrella of initiation of aggression so all those things are bad. 

If that's not your definition of morality then give it some thought and really pin down what you think is right and wrong. Its possible you could have a definition I've never thought of before. That would be cool to hear about.  

I think any ultimate value that can trump moral considerations (and can therefore lead to aggression) should really be given a lot of thought. Its a heavy issue and deserves a lot of seriousness. Besides that it really feels good to be consistent. 

Extra Credit for my Econ Class

My Experience at the Republican caucus at Quail Elementary School

Assignment for my Economics Class

Jordan Miller

March 20th 2014

I went to the republican caucus with my dad and my girl friend and it was pretty awful. I was in high spirits as we parked a block away (because it was so packed) and walked to the school. There was a line out the entrance because people were stationed there pointing attendees to the rooms associated with their respective precincts. Once we squeezed our way though we made our way to the cafeteria room to sit at low to the ground, hard uncomfortable tables for the next 3 hours. My spirits began to fall.

Before we sat down we stood in another line to register. When it was my turn I politely informed the nice old lady that I was already a registered republican but that I preferred not to be and asked her how to unregister as such. I could tell by the way she stared at me that she was offended and wondered if this was a joke in bad taste. It was not a joke. The lady next to her told me to call the “county office.” I thanked her and didn't hold up the line by requesting clarification.

It wasn't long before the festivities began but in the interim I overheard a conversation about the Crimean issue between Russia and Ukraine. The speaker seemed to have the opinion that the entire issue didn't concern the USA in principal or practicality and I was inclined to agree with his point of view finding it logically consistent with universal moral values. Unfortunately, that was the most bit of reason I was to hear all night.

The lady running the whole shindig was named Lori Zinoni, she was an abrasive, avid patriot with a voice that could carry throughout the entire room unassisted. She introduced herself as “the chair,” explained lied that this would be 2 hour event and called on someone to pray.

I found my mind wandering as it often does during prayer. What would have happened if the prayer was said in Arabic? Or the God addressed was Yahweh? Then the speaker said something, “...we are gathered in the spirit of patriotism...” Patriotism, what does that mean? Love for one’s country? Why should one love his country? Would the country need to be worthy of that love? How could it prove it was? Who would be doing the proving? Is a country the same as its government?

Then another word caught my attention, “...help us carry out our responsibilities…” What responsibilities? To whom am I responsible? Should my allegiance and responsibility to my country enticed by what my country does for me or is it simply my duty, no questions asked? Is he talking about government or society? The prayer was over before I knew it.

But the questions were not. The very next thing Chair-lady-Zinoni did was to inform us that we will now pledge allegiance to the flag. But with such heavy questions in my heart how could I pledge my allegiance? And why to a flag? A flag doesn't give orders, people do. The more I thought about it the more questions I had and the more every word anyone said sounded like war obsessed death-cult propaganda. Well maybe that's a little too harsh...maybe not.

Next was the reading of the Salt Lake County Republican platform. I don’t think I could find a more wishy washy, self-contradictory and terrifying document if I tried. Let me just give you a few examples of what I’m talking about.

Exhibit A. “We...declare our support for government based upon a moral and spiritual foundation.” That's in the first sentence. Alright. First of all, what is a spiritual foundation? An incorporeal foundation? An ethereal foundation? Aren't those contradictions in terms? I don’t know what to make of it so lets move on to moral.

Government by its very nature is the initiation of force against its own citizens. If there is no initiation of force (ie taxation, drafting to war, arbitrary laws etc.) there is no government. The initiation of force (ie violence, theft, etc.) is immoral. By using the logic a=b=c, a=c we can fundamentally prove that Government is itself an immoral institution. Here let me spell it out: violence=evil, government=violence, government=evil.

So it makes no sense to “declare our support for government based on a moral” anything. The differences in immorality of government from one state to another is one of degree rather than kind, they’re all intrinsically immoral because the concept of government is an immoral concept. This is the first example of self-contradiction in the document, there were many more.

Can I just say, apart from being terrified about the logical inconsistency and replete statements of contradictory principles in this document, it also housed many specific beliefs I found to be disturbing. For instance, it referenced securing our borders at least twice, vast military might at least twice and reference God several times. I found these assertions particularly disturbing because none of them are born from reason and they’re all born from prejudice. And with repetition red flags were waving.

It was also uncanny that the writers of the document obviously understood that the “power to tax is the power to control” If I remember correctly. I say this is uncanny because they’re not able to comprehend that controlling others is wrong (otherwise they would be for the elimination of all taxes). Understanding the power of taxation so completely but not comprehending the immorality of using that power utterly proves the writers (and adopters) of this document are in every practical respect amoral.

That is a terrifying thing to realize when you find yourself surrounded by neighbors, nodding their heads to such dogmatic propaganda. Oh, its freakishly chilling to realize these people you interact with everyday, people you grew up with don’t have any fundamental moral principles and will do whatever suits their needs.

After the document was read in its infinite entirety we had a blessing or a curse depending on your point of view. Apparently in my dad’s district there lives a senator, Wayne Niederhauser, or something. Great, an actual professional politician. This night just keeps getting better and better. Well he stood up and said a few words which felt like a few hundred thousand.

He would not shut up! He talked about his career, about how great the caucus system is because he gets more face time with voters, oh and hes up for re-election next year by the way. He talked about how he has to be in session for a full 45 days out of the year! Wow, that's rough. I almost walked out.

You know these politicians do nothing for society, he even admitted it, he said, “you don’t want us to be in session longer because then we’d pass more bills which is not a good thing, you don’t want us passing more bills.” And he said it with a smile on his face as if the fact that he is aware of how he makes life harder on people and leeches off the public was a joke. I didn't laugh. What a douche.

When asked about the common core he gave a few basics but then said, “I’m not qualified to assess that” when it came to the details. Well if he’s not qualified to assess that then who is? Is it not his job to be qualified to assess that? He is the one voting after all. Besides how hard can it be? What, he can’t assess elementary math?

But when it came time to explain voting rights and procedures he knew all about that. He was able to tell us in precise detail what counties were able to vote on what, did you know counties that are on city lines can do this or that blah blah blah I stopped listening. Enough about Senator good-for-nothing.

On to elections! Elections are a silly thing. An interesting thing too. My father will send back a meal if it isn't what he wanted. He doesn't buy one-size-fits all shoes he buys his exact size. But when it comes to voting if he doesn't get exactly what he wants, meh, no biggy.

And why does he let it slide? Why does he settle for one-size-fits-all when it comes to government? Because he knows they are capable of nothing greater. He knows they are not as robust as the free market, he knows they don’t have to entice him or persuade him, they are the ones with all the guns after all. No, voting for a one size-fits-all (something he wouldn't stand for in freedom) seems like a privilege in captivity.

The fact that nobody can see this, or the fact that everybody will ignore this kinda freaks me out a bit. Honestly it does. And that is why after the votes were cast (which I did not take part in) and the chairs and delegates chosen I got the hell out of there, never to return again.

I’ll give you a bottom line of my experience - it was a total and complete waste of time.