Why Goodness Is Evil

Introduction, and what will this NOT be about

This phrase "Goodness Is Evil" looks crazy, I know. A google search on this phrase gives, in the first 8 results pages (80 first results) no significant result except this one (the idea that the success in "being good" actually consists in a success in the work mistaking others as evil, so as to feel oneself better by contrast : I also mentioned it, but I only see it as part of the picture : while I see the problem he points out as often occurring indeed, especially with religions, I do not see it as universal, and I will have much more to say on the topic).
Most others come either by grammatical accident, or from Christians either proudly accusing the rest of the world of having negative values, or blaming the natural human goodness (yes, the positive goodness !) as evil in God's eyes (notice the contradiction ! if God does not like human goodness, then God must be the one seeing morality upside down, hating goodness and praising evil, or what ?).

My goal here will be to refute the last leg of argument how Spirituality defends itself :
When they pretend to be just all about goodness and nothing else, and especially no other indoctrination, we may observe, and I have argued elsewhere, that it is always damn lies to pretend that this is really what they are about

(This is actually never the case: the truth is that they are all about indoctrination and little about goodness, since anyway, what else than indoctrination could they be about ? What the heck might they really mean by "being all about goodness" ? Are they pretending to be "teaching goodness" ? Does it mean repeating 100 times "Good is good, good is good, bad is bad, good is good ?" or what else might it mean, except of course... developing a system of mutually contradictory teachings about it, like those mentioned above, in order to have then great fun struggling with the mutually conflicting consequences ? for me, the very idea of teaching goodness does not make any sense: to be authentic, goodness is natural or is not. It must come from nature, with no need of teaching, and even when nature is not enough to produce goodness, I cannot see the realistic sense of a plan B for how else goodness may be fabricated, any more than a sense of trying to teach science to those who don't have the natural ability to learn it by themselves).

But, since they fail to understand this and will keep believing that they are on the side of goodness in a way or another, now comes that last argument : so what ? Where is the value of goodness? I will explain : this goodness so much valued by spirituality, is in fact (often) evil.
They may say, if I reject the value of goodness, then I reject all values, I am immoral. But no. I do have values, however I do not consider goodness as one of them. At least not in average (it depends on context). Not that my values are not moral: I do put morality as paramount. But precisely because I put moral values as paramount, I must reject goodness as a negative value, because I found it to be immoral (at least sometimes, and not exceptionally).

But then, what the heck may I be talking about : which is the goodness that I can reject as evil ?
In the face of this question, religious people will react with their traditional guess, their explanation: of course we should reject the fake goodness, that which appears like goodness but is not really so.
But what is "fake goodness", in their opinion ?
Fake goodness, they say, according to the Gospel, is the goodness done by people in public, when they are really looking not for the good but for making positive impression on others. So the problem is that their intention is not pure.
To this I will reply : so fucking what ? Why invent a problem of the fact that some people might keep an "impure heart" while they are doing the good, just because they would be doing it "in public" (in a way or another) and we may argue that, in doing so, they are actually not purely looking for the good as a goal in itself but for an advantage, either a material or a moral one (being praised, making more friends) ? By the way, when Christians (or other religious people) are doing some good "in secret", aren't they committing the exact same sin they are criticizing there, since all good actions they do are essentially like they were done "in public" and in order to make good impression for earning either friendship or some advantage from this public, with the only futile difference that the role of the public is now played by God himself (which they consider to be monitoring all their actions) ?

So, since by its very nature, Christian morality fails to fulfill its own special standards of what it calls "authentic goodness", I hardly see which lesson of authenticity of goodness they might be teaching to explain the problem of what I might see wrong with the goodness of... non-christians (of course they will always automatically presume the lack of authenticity to only concern the goodness of others, not of themselves, needless for this to even bother reading the below descriptions of what is it exactly that I see wrong with usual goodness). And the effective fact is that what I see wrong with usual goodness has nothing to do with its being "fake" according to this criterion.
Why would this "impurity" of goodness make it wrong at all, anyway ? More precisely, if we look at the phrase "Goodness done in public with the intention of getting praise or whatever, is wrong", my question would be, what means "wrong" in this phrase ? It reminds me a video I once saw on youtube (I forgot the reference), the question was : if way A would lead you to hell while way B would lead you to heaven, but God wants you to follow way A anyway (which will lead you to hell), then which meaning may the word "wants" actually have in this phrase ? So, if practicing goodness in public is "wrong", is it only because it leads you to hell or what ?
An argument may be: purity of intentions would not matter IF people doing good things in public are actually also doing good in average, rather than publicly giving by one hand what they secretly take by the other ; but the care for "purity" or "authenticity" becomes morally legitimate in the opposite assumption, when a fault in this authenticity would actually result in concrete acts of corruptions, the world going wrong due to wrong things done in secret by the same people doing the good in public. This indeed may happen, but is not always the case. Anyway I consider it a quite twisted and superstitious criticism of a form of goodness, to see it as bad, not that it would be harmful in itself, but in the fact that it only applies to parts of the issues (those publicly visible), and that some sort of malediction over it (and over the souls of its practitioners) would mysteriously lead its practice to be automatically paid for by counterparts where this particular form of goodness is not applicable (i.e. for things done in secret).

Indeed, while it may happen that those doing good things in public do bad ones in private, this is no way automatic. Moreover, considering that so many people are very lazy-thinking by nature and totally unable or exhausted by any mental effort, I doubt many people would be ready to develop all the mental effort needed for maintaining a discrepancy between their public and private actions : for most of them, the mere mental effort to consciously do so would be so exhausting that it will be their best self-interest to be coherent. And for many people, no matter if it would be exhausting or not, such a discrepancy would just simply be too unnatural.

But my point here will be that, according to my moral values, I neither care if the good is done in public or secret, nor the motivation of the person doing it (might it be the search for popularity for material advantages or friendship, or the search for "popularity" in God's eyes for going to heaven or for the simple value of "loving God", or might it be the laziness of fleeing the burden to think about doing wrong when any such thoughts would be bothering and unpractical, or just the fact that it may be simply natural to do good without the question "why" making any sense to the person). I neither care if either method would actually lead to heaven or hell, nor if God "wants" you to follow one way rather than the other (nobody can tell anyway, and I think that, for God to be decent, it's up to any God to adapt his judgment on actions to how they really work in practice, not up to us to adapt our "morality" to any God's whimsical judgment). And it does not even matter to me whether the good or bad things done, are done by humans or by robots.
I dismiss all these distinctions as vain and senseless, having nothing to do with genuinely moral issues ; nothing of this has anything to do with what I see wrong with goodness.
The only thing that morally matters to me is that the right actions are effectively done, with effective results to the fate of the world and the progress of livability of this planet.
But this is precisely the reason why I see goodness as evil.

So, what will it be about

Of course, the phrase "goodness is evil" would make no sense if the words "evil" and "good" were simply interpreted as the opposite of each other. Of course they are the opposite of each other, except that each one is ambiguous, so that they are no more opposite when interpreted differently.
The ambiguity, things to be distinguished, is between:

My position is the exact opposite of that of religious people (who value internal goodness as the authentic one and dismiss the external one as fake and superficial):

So, goodness is evil, in the sense that internal goodness is externally evil. Goodness is something fake and superficial, not because it is not something deep inside the person, but because it is. Being internal means being superficial, because what a person sees and understands in his deepest self and own consciousness, about his own actions and his own motivations, is only the surface of the world, the surface of the role that his actions actually play in the real world.

How is it possible ?

The question is, does internal goodness contribute positively or negatively to external goodness ?
Many people would see it trivial, as, they can easily find many simple, obvious times when it contributes positively : that good intentions can bring people to do good things. But my point is that there are other times when its contribution is negative, and they are no less important in average than the positive ones.

And despite the importance of these negative contributions, people usually ignore them, precisely because of their nature: that these events are, by nature, hidden and hard to figure out. They are hidden by nature precisely because, due the nature of their process, as soon as people would find ways to easily figure them out, they would not occur anymore. So, they occur precisely because they remain unnoticed.

Here is the problem : when someone has "good motivations", can it lead him to correctly discern and take decisions that will effectively make him more helpful to the rest of the world, than if he didn't ?
It would be the case if he was correctly able to measure and compare the consequences on others of his diverse options, at least enough correctly for being more helpful in average when trying than not.
But is he ? Note that this issue is a matter of knowledge, not a matter of internal goodness anymore.

So, you can see why the problem is hidden: if it was clear that goodness leads someone to take a wrong decision, and if it was clear enough that he noticed it by himself, then he would immediately stop taking this wrong decision and the problem would be solved. But it isn't.

First example

How big may this problem be ? I see it huge, while others don't. Who is right, and who is wrong ?

In fact, this reflective question: the question to qualify which is the "right" or "wrong" answer on this question of how big the problem is, is the first illustration of this problem itself.

Indeed, when trying to "morally" qualify such beliefs as being by themselves expressions of internal goodness or badness, then of course the belief that it is small (that goodness is good) is an expression of internal goodness, while the belief that it is a big problem (that goodness is evil), is an expression of internal badness, because they are measures of how sane or insane you judge other people to be: believing them to be sane enough to succeed behaving better when they care (i.e. they are good) than when they don't care, is a positive attitude to people, an expression of goodness ; on the contrary, believing them to be so insane that they will behave worse if they care than if they don't, is an awful insult to them, an expression of internal badness.

On the other hand, the issue of qualifying such beliefs in externally moral terms (as forms of external goodness or external badness), is a completely different issue : it is the issue of how such beliefs fit with reality. Because you can better succeed to manage the world for the good if you have the correct belief of how it actually works, than if you don't.

Finally, the question whether this example is actually an example of the discrepancy between internal and external goodness (so that goodness here is evil) is determined by how it goes for the average of the rest of issues. And to find out how it actually is, is a matter of reality check : taking examples of experiences of the effects of goodness in the real world, and seeing how it goes there. Reasoning in the abstract (as religions usually do) with purely theoretical ideas on human behavior, to assess how such or such theoretical expectation about it may feel, cannot suffice; the true answer needs to come from the reality of experience.
So if I concluded that goodness is evil, it is not because any abstract logic determined this, but because, contrary to my initial positive expectations, this is what I experienced in real life. I only developed logical descriptions afterwards, as those found to best account for the independent reality of experience.
So I will give more concrete examples, but later. Let us develop more generalities first.

What makes it so bad

Bad actions done out of goodness, are made intrinsically worse by nature than those done out of badness, for the following reason:

If your problem was "only" to deal with bad people around, possible cases may be:
However, how can you cope in the face of people trying to come and harm your life, not because they are bad people, but because they are good people, motivated to destroy your life by their good intention of trying to help you, with the "only" problem that their good intention actually pushes them to harm you because they heavily misunderstand the reality of your needs ? By its very nature, the goodness of these people can be very dangerous to you, by the devastating power it has to annihilate your natural defense system, at least if you do not have yourself the necessary expertise to know for sure that they are wrong, that not only you really do not need what they believe you need, but also, that it would really badly harm you (so that you really should not take the risk to try their help just to be polite).
So, compared to the previous case, their deeply internal goodness is itself evil, by its way of making it much harder for you to cope with their presence by sending them to hell before it is too late and your life is spoiled.
And this evil of goodness does not only apply before it is too late, but also after this : once the internal goodness of people succeeded, thus more powerfully than what any internal badness could have done, to actually spoil your life, it also kills the chance for you to find peace in your heart after this by praying God to send them to hell in the afterlife for the bad things they did to you.
Or at least, it would take you a lot of courage to still dare doing so.
Because, so, what is exactly this fault they were guilty of, which was actually the most devastating factor causing the destruction of your life, if not this very thing which had the power to annihilate your natural defense system and thus leave you defenseless under the power of their devastating mistakes : the fault of having really been "deeply", "authentically" good in themselves (in their sense of "authentic", not mine), and having practiced their goodness by caring for you and trying to do the best they could for you ?
So, having to pray God to send them to hell precisely for this fault, is quite a heavy burden indeed. And who could best cope with such a task without too much trouble, do you think ?
Here is the fact : when a world is plagued by the domination of the evil power of goodness, it still gives one kind of people the privilege of the best opportunity (ability) to cope with this burden by managing, without too much trouble, to send the good people to hell, as well before or after it is too late : this privilege is naturally that of the bastards.
From these considerations, we can deduce a likeliness for the world to go through cycles : a reign of goodness naturally leads to a reign of badness, and vice versa.

If I am rude by these words, what about them ?

Some people reading the above may feel outraged at the idea of sending people to hell for their goodness. However, should I point out that if I dare using those words, it is only because these "good people" started this game themselves, even though they are in denial about it (I mean, they did not intend to) : they insisted that if I wanted to be good, wise, open-minded and so on, then I should accept their "help" and "kind advice"... which actually turned out to be the path to hell for me.

And effectively it is indeed at their request (and because I am naturally shy, trusting people, not daring to contradict them and so on, in clear : that I am good in the way they insisted I should be good), that I followed the path to hell.
So the real fact is that they first did send me to hell, by precisely requesting me to go there, in a way which was precisely effective due to my goodness. In these conditions, that they found it good to first effectively send me to hell for my goodness, while I was innocent and did not harm anyone (yet) with my own goodness, what should be the problem if I wish them the same in return, while they are guilty of doing it first ? Maybe, an important difference that makes it look more shocking and may be considered as a reason to see me more "guilty" of it, is that my way of sending them to hell for their goodness is explicit, consciously done, while their way of sending me to hell for my goodness is unconscious, done without willing nor noticing it, namely hidden from their own conscience. But, if the lesson of spirituality is that the good done in secret should be seen more valuable (as it may be more efficient) than the one done in the open, why should not we also consider that an act usually seen as "bad", such as the act of sending someone to hell for his goodness, is made worse by being done in the shadow and less serious when done explicitly in the open ? And indeed, the fact is that their way of sending me to hell for my goodness is precisely made more effective by being done in the shadow, while mine is made less effective by being explict. So, why should not the difference of moral qualifications for these acts follow as well ? But to better understand this phenomenon, let us analyze it in details.

A more detailed analysis

We shall see that each one of us has deeply moral reasons for the need of sending the other to hell for his goodness, though the exact reason differs from step to step (with 4 steps in total : Step 1 and Step 3 = my moral needs/reasons to send them to hell for their goodness ; Step 2 and Step 4 = their moral needs/reasons to send me to hell for my goodness).

To be precise, we should distinguish two steps, and thus two scenarii I would order by preference : Plan A and Plan B.

Plan A, would have been to avoid in the first place the event that they spoiled my life by their "help". This could have happened in 2 ways: Let us comment further about Plan A2, because its role as Step 1 of ones need to send the other to hell for his goodness, is in fact only a misunderstanding. If, in the face of people coming to try helping me (and before they actually succeeded to harm my life by their help), I told them to go to hell, it would not really mean, either that I really wished them to go to hell, nor that there would be (either in reality or in any reasonable expectation, at least in my humble conception of "reasonable"), anything effective in this call, to make them actually go there at my request. Instead, my idea (my only real purpose and basic expectation by these words) would have only been to invite them to accept Plan A1, even if they still remain free to go to hell if they really want to. I admit that this point may be hard to understand, however it is crucial. Two factors may explain the misunderstanding. One factor could be the tone of the request, that indeed needed to be harsh in order to have a chance to be clear and effective. The other may be their fear of Plan A1, because of their conviction of the necessity for them to practice their goodness in the way they are doing because they may be going to hell if they don't.
Either way, many of these good people would usually interpret A2 as if I was really sending them to hell, as their hearing of such words from my part is already a hell for them ; which leads them to see me as an evil bastard if I dared that.
As for their own plan, that of their dream, it may have been one of : Though, depending on the exact philosophy of these good helping people, the distinction between A3 and A4 is not always clear (as the very purpose of some of the good people's help may be to kindly advise me to succeed in A4, which in their opinion should not be a problem if only I accepted their kind invitation to do so). The problem is, in spite of their good wishes and faith for the possibility for me to succeed A3/A4, this success may actually depend on circumstances escaping anyone's control (either social circumstances, such as the event of there being a good match, or genetic circumstances such as personal tastes, needs or abilities which may wildly differ between people) ; how to cope with failure will be the object of Plan B.
An interesting thing here is to observe the contrast between two aspects of the usual teachings of spiritual people: they consider that, at the same time: Such a contrast may be considered strange indeed, something like "do what I say, not what I do": why do they think I should force myself to bear hell as something okay no matter how hard it concretely is, if they refuse to make themselves any effort to bear and be okay with something that is only hard words that did not even intend to actually harm them in any way ? This discrepancy can be explained as due to the nature of their particular philosophy, the specific list of values they believe should be admitted, as opposed to those they believe should be rejected.
Namely, as it occurred to them, seemingly by the mere force of cultural accidents and what teachings happened to "work" best in making their preachers feel good (or more precisely, comfort themselves on their positions) and spread to others (rather than any well-examined reason, since it is usually not much in the culture or abilities of spiritual people to closely examine things in any rational manner), the very core of their spiritual values is to consider any attitude of anger and resentment, which I was trying to express there, as the most evil thing on earth, the nature and source of all evil, over the role of any concrete circumstancial factor. So, they think I should be okay with concrete hellish circumstances because it is in their list of spiritual values to force oneself to be okay with concrete hellish circumstances, while they make it a virtue to not tolerate my disagreements, criticim or expressions of anger and resentment (report of the effective troubles I suffered in life), to see me as an evil bastard for daring to express them, and be oversensitive to these expressions while blaming me for the pain they feel in their ears when I dare to express these things, just because expressions of criticism, anger or resentment do not happen to be in the list of things they consider morally valuable to be okay with, but on the contrary, on the list of things to be most horrified with, where those who dare uttering these things should be considered most guilty for.

Then, since these particular attitudes come from the particular features of the spiritual doctrines that they found right to follow, we might be tempted to question the relevance of these doctrines, and whether they really are the right ones to follow. On this issue, their line of defense is clear : their teaching must be right because it explicitly, formally calls to develop compassion and assistance to the miserables and the victims of destiny, and to blame all authors of acts of abuse, selfishness and hypocrisy. Who can be against this ? Thus, anyone trying to criticize or depart from these doctrines must surely be greedy, selfish and heartless.
A little problem here, we might be tempted to wonder, would be : how can we correctly identify who are the poor victims of destiny or of the wrong actions of others, and who are the hypocritical profiteers causing the harm in the world, if the effective method to quickly assess people we don't know much yet (as we so often need to do) is by the degree of anger or resentment they express : are the hypocritical profiteers who mindlessly destroyed the life of innocent others for their profit, naturally going to be identified by their harder degree of anger, resentment and eagerness to criticize, while the miserable victims of these actions will be identified by the peace of their heart and the sweetness of their words ? Fortunately, we can forget about this detail because, asking ourself too many technical questions of this sort is something that spirituality warns us against, as millenia of experience by so many spiritual masters can testify that such questionings would be mere expression of our impure, egoistic human rationalizations, and dangerous for our health, as it may make us lose the proper direction to find and keep peace and serenity in our hearts; as this is shown by due experience, we just need to trust and admit this fact as verified by experience, even if we don't rationally understand what makes it work, leaving it as a spiritual mystery above human intelligence.
Let us continue. When Plan A fails, I find myself in need to try: Some people might consider this objectionable by the fact that, at this step, I do really wish them to go to hell for their goodness, which is no more a mere misunderstanding, unlike the case of Plan A2. However, this observation still needs to be balanced by the following facts: We can understand how hard it would be for people who are not themselves victims of a given trouble (result of their own kind advice), and who naturally feel confident, from their personal experience, of the benefits of the advice they are giving, to figure out the need to offer an after sales service and carry out in this way a genuine scientific investigation on the real consequences of their advice, which may differ from their own experience and prior assumptions. They might try to excuse their lack of such an after sales service in the following ways : And they may deny responsibilty by the following arguments : However, the point is that they did claim competence and responsibility in their advice, and such claims ought not to be done in vain; denying responsibility after this, is incoherent with previous claims of competence which, if it meant to be fair, would have needed being backed up by scientific studies to genuinely mean the serious knowledge they claimed to mean, and which they insisted I should trust if I wanted to behave as a good person.
Moreover in the long term, this lack of an after sales service is the very thing which feeds the perpetual repetition of the same mistakes generation after generation, by making them unfalsifiable; and thus this is finally what caused this trouble, in the sense that previous generations failed to detect and cure that mistake on time to apply the lesson in their management of my case. Indeed, those who commit this mistake (failure to accept Plan A1) not having a chance to suffer or even hear the news of the effect of this mistake, never happen to learn from it (the reasons of the need to accept Plan A1, at least in a number of cases), which is what makes them all the more confident to repeat it. That could have helped them figure out the reasons to look at A1 as a possible first choice as I meant it had to be seen (I mean retrospectively, through the needed scientific investigations needed to fairly back up the higher competence over me they claimed to have while forcefully shying me from following my own natural knowledge of my own need, while by lack of solid experience I was not in a position to clearly resist them to their satisfaction by backing my natural intuition with the required scientific references to stand verbal confrontation with them in their authoritative mission of messing with my life), instead of their stupid way of complaining against Plan B as if it had been my own natural choice, while incorrectly denying their responsibility in it.

So we just observed how my way of being clear and explicit in sending them to hell for their goodness, makes it naturally less effective, in addition to making it harder for me to undertake ; on the other hand, their more hidden ways (hidden from their own conscience) of sending me to hell for my goodness, contribute to make them more effective. They hide this in 2 ways:

The mistakes that these reasons are based on

We can see that each of the 4 cases of "need/reason to send the other to hell for his goodness" is actually based on mistake, but all in different ways from a case to the other:
  1. I failed to send them to hell in the first place because I was too good; if I did, however, it would not have been meant litterally; seeing it litterally would have been their misinterpretation;
  2. They kindly invite me on the way to hell as they mistake which way goes where;
  3. I think they deserve hell not just for their goodness but for having committed the previous mistake on the way (while they might like to see their intention as more important than the effective result in how I should judge them, so that it looks as if it was just for their goodness);
  4. They think (and would almost manage to persuade me that) I deserve hell as they mistake the appearing effects of my goodness as if they were expressions of badness.
But of all these mistakes, only one could be mine (of my weakness, my faulty lack of distrust against them), in Step 1, but it was the mistake of NOT sending them to hell for their goodness, while I'd have better done it for the benefit of all. (It may be even unclear whose mistake is it that I failed to send them to hell in the first place, since it is technically mine but I was not in a position to confirm my intuition with the sufficient amount of scientific data while they claimed and seemed to have competence and they really seemed to not want me to send them to hell then)

Possible matters of dispute

One question may be : who is committing the worst fault of misinterpreting the other: is it their fault if they tell me the wrong advice by not interpreting my needs correctly ? Of is it my fault if I did not correctly adapt my needs to the help these nice people were willing to bring, so I am misinterpreting their help by my way of having the circumstances of my life so different from their expectations that I would happen to find hell at the end of the path I tried to follow at their request, while it wasn't their intention to send me there ?
Then: are these fault things one should be considered guilty of ? A trouble would no be a guilt when if these accidents indeed happened at random, with no meaningful way to trace responsibilities, or they were exceptional or soon corrected after happening by "taking lesson" from them.
Then : does it morally matter or not, whose mistakes are these ? After all, whatever is a mistake can be seen as sheer accident that nobody is morally responsible for.
In a sense, people can't be held guilty for circumstances beyond their control or awareness. However, the question whether something is indeed under someone's control or not, can itself be a matter of dispute. And a tricky one since people are often eager to take for granted their own view on the issue and reluctant to consider a different view as a candidate worth consideration for which we may need a debate and a sort of objective method to resolve it and prove who is right.
In particular, we may face an unsolvable disagreement on whether I could succeed to feel okay in the hell where I went following their invitation if I really wanted to: it seems none of us can have any way of convincing the other. Or, under whose control were the effects after I try to follow some advice, since people are not naturally eager to take responsibility for what they don't expect to happen in someone else's life.
Am I the evil person, guilty of trying to disturb their conscience by my way of challenging the perfection and serenity of their kind advice by my testimony of their bad consequences over my life (either the concrete consequences or what I felt about them) which shouldn't happen in their view) ?

Another possible matter of dispute (or wonder, as this one is not really 2 views with supporters but rather 2 aspects of a common picture) is the following:
The problem with the fault of giving bad advice is that it actually occurs in a systematic manner, as the elaborate results of specific ideologies where members do not directly intend to commit such mistakes but are systematically led by these ideologies to do so; and they are never corrected, because the victims, who get "the lesson" in the face, are not the same as those who commit the mistakes, and the latter are not interested to listen. Then the questions are: who is actively spreading and promoting these ideologies ? is anyone taking profit from these ideologies (may it be because of the specific property of these ideologies to systematically lead to such mistakes, or for other reasons) ? and is there any systematic correlation or causality relation between benefiting from these ideologies or their side effect, and actively promoting them, such as, people are motivated to promote them by the very fact that they take profit from this and even from the specific property of these ideologies to systematically produce such mistakes ?
Actually, the answer will often turn out to be yes : people find themselves motivated to propagate ideologies which systematically leads them to commit such mistakes, due to the very fact that through these very mistakes that it leads them to commit, they are making a profit. Even if they have no conscious understanderstanding of this chain of causalities, so that it all occurs "behind their back", to the point that they would very sincerely immediately dismiss as utterly ridiculous any attempt to report such mechanisms.
In these conditions, should they be seen guilty or innocent ? Very tricky moral issue, isn't it ?

Comparison with drunk driving

The situation in this world is comparable to that of a world where it would be legal and commonplace to drive drunk. The main defect in the comparison is that, in our world, drivers usually suffer their own accidents as well. For the sake of a more valid comparison, let us imagine a world where they don't: many accidents would happen where drunk drivers would bump pedestrians causing them serious injuries, or other cars would have accidents as a consequence of their behavior, but these drivers would not be worried for doing so nor would be injured themselves when they injure someone else. Now the point is that such a world is possible where the right to drive while drunk would not be questioned. The analogy may seem ridiculous to us based on our widespread cultural awareness that drunk driving is obviously wrong. Actually the analogy is much deeper and more valid than one could naively guess, as a deeper analysis can reveal that this cultural awareness is a mere accident compared to similar cases where such awareness does not occur. Namely, many of the same arguments usually involved to justify lots of dangerous behaviors in our world could serve to justify drunk driving in such an hypothetical world as well, such as:

(to be continued)


To be developed later, but in very brief.
In global issues : goodness is what led to religion and religious wars ; what has put a selective pressure against the intelligence level of mankind (section "The means to change man") and many other collateral damages that are grounds of legitimate anger. Goodness is what produced the Soviet Union. It is also what leads to overpopulation (by making more miserable people survive), which may be the main cause of the destruction of the planet.

In my own life : I will never forgive to : all people who found it good to politically oblige me to go to school (especially secondary school) in the same classes as stupid children whose pleasure was to tease and persecute me so often because of their jealousy and my difference ; who found it good to oblige me to follow all school duties up to PhD in the name of my "ambition to become scientist", because, adding this to the fact that it made me desperate to dedicate my little free time to my real discovery of science, it did not let me also the time or energy to run after girls (which I was too shy to do anyway); all the Christians who found it good to preach me the Gospel, pretended that there would be anything good in being Christian, and who let me think that the priority of my life should be to search for God and follow their teaching instead of running after girls, which effectively condemned me to long-life loneliness. I will never forgive all the people who pretend to have any meaningful understanding / organization of morality and charity concerns but, despite of this, found it good to passively let the world the hell it is (while it would have been so cheap to change it if only anyone cared) in this way : they failed to provide a home to persecuted geniuses; they refused to understand and help the nice worthy desperate singles to find their love, as if there were not millions of good lives absurdly destroyed by the current law of the jungle in this field, so as to make it look as if the world was not as crual as it really is, thus putting the naive serious people in danger of failing to defend their own life with all their natural energy. I will never forgive anyone who said anything good about psychiatry and that I should try it in case it would help me out of depression, as this is how I was tricked by these hypocrites into poisoning my brain with life-long damage. I would be shocked to find any of these bastards in heaven. Not because they are not good, but because they are deeply, authentically good, and their deeply authentic goodness is precisely what is evil in them.
Now you are welcome to call me a "bad person" however you like: anyway I will take it as a compliment. That will change nothing of what I know about myself : that my current anger and misanthropy actually results from both having been naturally very good (shy and unable to suspect anything wrong in others) and having cared to be good in the way the world requested me to be good, as they foolishly insisted that this was what I absolutely needed for earning their respect. That I tried it much more seriously than they can imagine, but this is precisely what brought me to the exactly opposite effect to the one promised. Now I wish so much there were more such "bad people" around : this is what could have made the world a more decent place to live in.
Antispirituality site table of contents