[Buddha-l] Evil

[Jayarava]

-- On Thu, 30/7/09, Mike Austin <mike at lamrim.org.uk> wrote:

> Me too. The 'evil' in the world is the result of folly.  

Uhuh. But why is stupid the default setting? Why are we stupid at all? Is there some advantage in being stupid? Or are we set to self-destruct?

> The big mistake is to consider that the happiness of one may be achieved 
> at the expense of others. 

Is it? We're social animals and therefore well adapted to cooperation and empathy. Our genetics predispose us to concern for the welfare of the troop, to awareness of others in social dynamics, and to helping each other within a social hierarchy. 

It is actually quite a bizarre thing for a social animal to make such a big mistake. By rights we would simply die as a result of pursuing this strategy over a lifetime, let alone successive generations. So again the question arises: why are we stupid? Not just a little stupid, but really incredibly stupid!

> So I feel there is no enduring force of evil, because it is not
> in accordance with reality. Rather, it waxes and wanes in dependence on
> conditions. On the other hand, a 'force' of good is in accordance with
> reality and thus has no limitations.

But this is just religious cant. You presuppose that you know what so called "reality" is. How does something which is not in accordance with reality exist at all? What definition of reality allows for that?

If there is evil at all, and we seem to agree that there is evil, then it must accord with reality at some level. Reality is everything that is real. Evil is real. Reality must be evil (at least to some extent). So where does that leave us?

You are repeating one of the arguments for the existence of a benevolent God despite the fact of evil. Interesting isn't it? In fact your "force for good" is one of the definitions of God used by Christian theologians in this kind of debate. 

Later you say: 

> As we have not the slightest idea of the conditions of
> beings throughout the universe, we should not draw conclusions from a 
> limited view of what happens on one planet. 

So your view of reality is universal, but your view of space is limited? Is space not real then? Is the overwhelming stupidity of humans as a species no cause for concern? Rhetorical question, because I am actually quite concerned about this.

> Rather, the reasoning that I proposed above shows 
> that evil lacks any coherent power  because it is not
> in accordance with reality. 

You have reasoned from a presupposition. If we assume that you know reality, then your argument is reasonable. However if we can reasonably doubt that you have knowledge of reality - and sorry but I do - then your argument is not reasonable.

> Good may have coherence and sustainability and is in accordance 
> with reality - the next best thing to a 'force'. So it seems like a good 
> prognosis to me.

Unfortunately all of history argues against any movement towards the Good as far as I can see. The utopia of development and progress is now turning into the nightmare of climate change and environmental degradation. Disease control leads to over-population; better food production to obesity etc etc. 

Where is there any evidence of a coherent good, let alone a sustainable good, in the world? 

> Good luck with your presentation!

Yes. It will be interesting to see if I can get middle-class suburbanite working family people interested in this question, before they drift off to sleep at about 9.30pm...

Regards
Jayarava

BTW Who the hell is Sam Harris?