The Dialectic of Evil

Loki's Disciple

 

About Good and Evil people tend to write rather than to speak, and to think even less than to speak. These concepts are so fragile that they immediately fall apart when exposet to the power of thought.

Almost nothing can be concluded from any discussions on Good and Evil. For examples, Christians use to say that Evil is a mere absence of Good. But the opposites cannot exist without one another; they are like Yin and Yang (which has nothing in common with Good and Evil, by the way). If only Good or only Evil exist, this means that whatever happens, everything is for the best (or for the worst). Why don't they talk about pinions in their clock in terms of Good and Evil? Ask the liars who claim to known the truth! Their pseudo-logic serves only the purpose of maintaining the illogical social order and their privileges in it.

No religion can give an answer to the question, what Evil is. The believers interprete their commandments as the situation requires. The commandment says: "Thou shalt not kill", but what about execution of a condemned criminal? what about killing for self-defense? at war? "Thou shalt not kill" only those who believe in this commandment? or any people? any living creature at all? You have to make a choice anyway. If you cannot make it, you can ask your priest for advice and say that it is his choice after all, but somebody has to make this choice. Therefore, the very definition of Good and Evil is a result of somebody's choice.

Those who deny the existence of Good and Evil are more honest in this regard. But refusing to make a choice is a choice by itself. This is a common viewpoint of sophists; from the fact that the definitions of Good and Evil are so different and so subjective, they conclude that neither of this exists. However, we can address them with the same cheat trick: if people treat contradicting ideas as the truth, therefore, no truth exists and everything is a lie. Also, sophists often say that, if one can act in the benefit of others as an altruist, he is an egoist anyway, since this is his pleasure to act so; therefore, neither egoism nor altruism exists. However, we can draw the border between Good and Evil, as well as between egoism and altruism.

This distinction does not go between benefit and harm. We disagree with the utilitarian concept of morality. Everybody can remember many examples of people's ingratitude. A person can be indifferent to your action in his benefit,or even feel insulted, which is inexplicable from the utilitarian viewpoint.

Anton LaVey proposed a more reasonable approach: "Good is what you like and Evil is what you don't like." This definition is better in the regard that it places your right over other's one, but why use the word "Good" for the concept that already has a more clear name – "Happiness"? We need these words, "Good" and "Evil", when thinking about the reaction of society on our actions. Also, it feels strange for Satanism to view the concept of "Good" positively. Even for the religions of "Light" that declare egoism to be the root of Evil, this sounds strange.

Therefore, we should rather reformulate LaVey's definition the following way: Evil is what you like and others don't like, and Good is what others like and you don't like. Evil is what satisfies your will, while Good satisfies someone else's will. This is why the idea of Good keeps on being propagandized at all times among all peoples. Every ruling power tries to strengthen itself by weakening its subjects; therefore, Satanism always opposes any dominating ideas in its eternal fight. Disproving any "ultimate solutions", any "almighty gods", any "Absolute" – this is what distinguish Satanism from the religions of "Light".

Only with the dialectical approach the problems of metaphysics can be solved. We have already discussed the fallacies of the one-sided approach of the monotheistic religions; however, dualism often makes similar mistakes. If, according to the dualistic views, we define Good and Evil as independent entities, there comes a question that cannot be answered: why Evil is Evil and Good is Good. Why cannot we just exchange them? If "Darkness" and "Light" are equal, why to we hold to these names?

However, the border between Good and Evil, as well as between "Light" and "Darkness" do exist. With the dialectical approach, the problem of moral relativism can be solved. Any action is both Good and Evil, depending on your viewpoint. As in quantum mechanics, the very fact of measurement determines the state of the object. Submission to someone else's will changes your ideas on what is egoism or altruism. Why do good intentions pave the road to hell? Why people view natural disasters as punishment from the gods?

This all is because one perceive any humiliation of one's will negatively. A help from others makes one think of oneself as puny. If even the Universe as a whole is a source of Evil, because it does not follow our ideas on a perfect world order; what can we say about people arond us? It's not accidental that egoism is viewed as Evil, because caring for yourself often conflicts with the interests of others, but you need to care for youself just to survive; Live = Evil as LaVey pointed it. This is you who undestands your needs the best, and a society consisting purely of altruists would be non-viable. Denying the existence of Evil is just empty words. Although there has never been such a stupidity that philosophers would be unable to prove, but the wind of change blows away all the castles in the air that religious pseudo-intellectuals like to build, and the Devil triumphs once again!

As for Good, it's rarely compatible with happiness, since submission to the will of others conflicts with your own will. Some people believe that altruism is their way, but rarely feel they happy about the success of others, since most of the time they are jealous about them.

Powerless jealousy is the fate os pseudo-altruists.

Evil is the choice of the strong.

Our concept does not declare doing Evil or Good to be anybody's duty. We are tired of "divine revelations"; aren't you too? The goal of writing this text is not to proclaim any "true values", but show where they are coming from, i.e. why all ideologists keep on talking on your duties to society, your country, etc. but are silent on what is really important – the choice.

Whatever you decide, this is your choice. If you give even a slightest clue on your lack of respect to moralists, they will declare any your choice to be Evil, even if you don't really intend to fight the tyranny of yet another "new world order". A tyrant want to see only slaves around himself. When an ideologist is talking about the benefit of others, he aims actually to benefit his own interests. No matter what you choose, any choice of yours will be declared Evil.

Evil is the choice of the free.

 

Translated from Russian by Milchar