The Butterfly's Sin

Post Reply New Topic

One of my life goals is to be good. Looked at another way, it is to do as little evil as possible, where evil is more or less defined as harm.

Sometimes, this appears to be a simple feat: I am directly confronted with an opportunity to do harm, prevent harm, or repair harm, and I choose what to do accordingly. I can evaluate the immediate effects of an action to the best of my ability, but for much of my life, I have come to focus on the indirect effects of an action.

This makes things obviously much harder, as there are many more unknown unknowns. If I prevent harm to an evil person, did I do good?

For a long time, this was liberating. I was spurred to inaction as I knew I was unable to judge whether a potential action was good or evil. I went about my life selfishly, as I could only evaluate actions with respect to myself.

Then I began to learn about the global economy. It became clear that actions that were completely benign to all of our (western) society were actually harmful to many. First it was the obvious: clothing and electronics produced by near-slaves and children.

Then, the indirect: people enriched by selling these products influence government policy to further harm. Alternately, the enriched use their money to do harmful things, like fly around the world or drive inefficient cars.

At that point I became paralyzed: how could I ever have enough information to know if any benign action I took, even buying sustenance, was a net harm?

Furthermore, if the country that I lived caused a net harm to the world, wouldn't the sum of my economic activity be evil? Wouldn't my consumption, the requisite employment, even my continued existence be evil?

I am reminded of the idea of the Butterfly Effect: that a very small action can have large, distant consequences. Surely, we can't fault the butterfly for the hurricane. This analogy fails because the butterfly is not aware of this effect, but what if he were?

What if the butterfly knew that each flap of his wings ultimately caused harm? How could it be possible for this butterfly to live his life and ultimately be a net good to the world?

I despair that the conclusion is that it's not possible. Ultimately, the revolution required to change the system would harm a great deal of people in the conflict.

Does anyone have any insight that could liberate me from a life of evil? Aside from acknowledging that one day, the sun will explode and humanity will cease to exist, bringing the concept of morality with it.

I understand this conflict well, or am at least well familiar with my own version of it. One thing that helped was reading a textbook/taking a class in formal ethics, which (as it was taught) explained that the only time you are ethically responsible for something is when you initiate an action. And when you do initiate an action, you can never be sure of the repercussions of the outcome. Save a crowd from a runaway train by shunting it to a side track? Depending on who is in that crowd and how their future unfolds you may have just "saved" the next Hitler/Pinochet/Pope Gregory IX. Same with saving a drowning child; it's ethically okay to stand by even though the water may only be a foot deep, you an excellent swimmer and a flotation device nearby. Because of this, I hate formal ethics at the extremes, and because of this I had to form my own sense of *moral* behavior. Basically, it's as complex as I can live with without me becoming overwhelmed & inert, as I feel that is no longer living. So - for me - the right choice is based on what I know, what I can learn soon enough to matter and the net good as I can predict it. Keep in mind that last can be quite subjective. For me good/evil determinations must be based on actual harm and intent, which means the butterfly does not actually commit a "sin" (it also means sins as rigid rules set long ago don't exist, only good and bad decisions & actions). I'm aware I make mistakes. I just try really hard not to repeat them. In my worldview, that's the best we can do.

What if you absolutely knew for certain that, "my positive contribution to this economy causes harm"? Take, for example, a citizen of Nazi Germany. He knows that by continuing to support the German economy through his day-to-day economic activity, it perpetuates evil. Knowing this, can he possibly be a good person when he goes to his job, buys food, etc.?

(Also, I use 'sin' as a shorthand for 'action known to cause harm')

He might assume that he knows it will cause harm, but even in WWII Germany there were plenty of people who did not favor the war or the atrocities yet did not simply stop being part of the economy. I wonder just how much harm/good they did in the end by continuing to say, bake bread in their local village bakery, when just six years later the war was over and there were many mouths to feed. Including innocent children.

My point being, rarely is anything having to do with the future, "simple" enough for us to assume we know the long term outcome of our actions. We can only work with probability, and even then it's rare that we can know enough of the intersecting influences and effects to make a truly correct decision. Some of the time we just get lucky.

Instead of allowing yourself to b e too overwhelmed by the greater scheme of things, simply do what you are able to do yourself to make the world a better place.
"Be the change you want to see in the world" - Mahatma Gandhi.

My sister, for instance, always picks up litter when she can, and rescues stray animals when she sees the need, and thus by her small contributions to do what she can, embodies change for the better. In addition she is always careful to buy products which haven't been tested on animals or produced unethically in a factory using child labour.

We can't change the world ourselves but we can do what we can to inspire others and start a ripple effect.

As to being careful when buying products, this is my dilemma: I have concluded that any economic activity which perpetuates our way of life is harmful. I can't buy any products without causing harm.

Take, for instance: Israel. We can see that it is an unjust apartheid state, and we can stop buying products from Israel. But our government gives Israel direct support. Anything I do to support my government (all positive economic activity does this) supports Israel.

Taken to a greater extent: capitalism. Capitalism creates profit from externality. Externality is by nature harmful to something, often humans or the environment. All of my economic activity supports capitalism.

As long as I have this understanding, I cannot do anything to limit harm besides limiting my economic activity. I could do less work and buy fewer things, but still doing these things at all causes harm.

If I am to be the change I wish to see in the world, I would be fomenting violent revolution or committing suicide. I know that Ghandi would have supported the former, and of the latter, he said:
"If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide."

Gandhi supported peaceful resistance, not violent revolution.

Suicide doesn't benefit anyone and even that has economic consequences come to think of it, as even cremation pollutes the atmosphere! Burial = expensive and space consuming!

Your frankness of opinion is refreshing, but if we have to over-analyze everything then we won't get anywhere.

People in both capitalist and socialist economies all have to survive somehow and even if they soundly disagree with their particular government they have to buy things.

You could consider growing as much of your own stuff as you can (vegetables and fruit etc) if this is practical for your situation, or maybe being part of a communal system of like minded people.

Idealism is good but all those who promoted a change in basic thinking had to begin somewhere within the existing systems they wished to fight or reform.

I think you misunderstand Gandhi. He says:

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,"

"...He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully ..."

These quotes come from his work The Doctrine of the Sword. When he advocates non-violence, he refers to the highest method of resistance: allowing yourself to be killed by violence. He does not advocate inaction. He advocates standing in front of the gun.

From Between Cowardice and Violence:

"I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger."

Would you say that of Hitler in 1935?



An appeal to ignorance in a forum for the Autistic? You surprise me! On the contrary I would argue that if we don't over-analyze everything, then the conclusion that we reach will be false. Surely correctness has a place.



You draw a false dichotomy: there are more systems than two, and socialism (the workers owning the means of production) has never been practiced.



This sort of incrementalism is purely placative. Whatever I do to assuage my guilt will deter me from finding the true solution!



This is tautological: of course they started from the place they started from! This does not say anything about the existing system other than it exists. I don't advocate soliciting the solution of an outsider: I seek to develop my own understanding.

At some point you have to say f**k it, I can't prevent every bit of harm that comes from being a human living a modern lifestyle, and just live your life.

I would argue that no, you don't have to, as I have presented 2 other options.

I would also say that this does not address whether complacency is evil, the premise of this thread.

Because you are also an individual in the grand play, and to feel guilt when you cannot change things, or to impoverish yourself because the way you obtain goods because you hurt someone else in an indirect way, means you are hurting yourself.

Of course to me, morality to me is having the most amount of happiness in the world as possible, among all living beings and things. I find this a good view of morality for lots of reasons. First there is recognition in this that 1) things die, suffer, etc. and we cannot always change that, no matter what we do. Second, happiness is a state of mind that is best held by the individual themselves. This means that your own happiness is allowed to the be the most important of things that you have, because ultimately, and we all know this, material goods and such don't bring about happiness. Lastly, it allows for selfishness because it allows us to actively place our own selves first even in the grand scheme of things, because no one else can actually create happiness within us.

But, by still wanting to create the most happiness for as many people as possible in the world around us, it allows you to yes, not buy certain brands of clothes or buy food from certain areas, etc. It creates a balance by saying 'I matter more than anyone else -to me-, but that does not give me a right to hurt someone else for little benefit to myself'

I didn't make any appeal to ignorance. It's good to analyze everything and do as much research into life as possible, but you can't accept guilt for the way the world operates. I believe it would certainly be a better world if we who are on the spectrum were in the majority and ran things the way they should be, but even then we could not achieve anything approaching perfection or be able to save every sick person, every animal or stop everyone from hurting in some way. Yes, we could solve most of the poverty problems and would make many changes, but ultimately could not control everyone by force as then we would become just like Hitler, or Emperor Palpatine if you prefer.

We all wish we could do more to make the world better, but what do you expect the average German to have done in 1935-1939 when things became increasingly worse for the Jews and other minorities? There was resistance for sure, and there were three unfortunately unsuccessful attempts on Hitler's life by people who sacrificed themselves for the greater good, but not everyone can do that.

I would agree that true socialism doesn't seem to have succeeded much anywhere due to corruption of the system by greedy politicians. The President of Uruguay set a good example of true socialism by driving a basic car and taking a nominal salary, and continuing to live on a small farm. He is one of the exceptions!

Yes, I'm not guilty for the way the world operates, but I can be guilty for being complacent, for submitting to inertia. I can be guilty for turning a blind eye. The Nuremburg defense was defeated, so even being ordered to turn a blind eye is not defense enough.



All power derives from force, even the power to do good. We should not decry Hitler for using force any more than we should Churchill (their aims on the other hand...) Violence is the natural result where ideologies clash, and is necessary to implement one over the other. Everyone is controlled by force, and that is a neutral fact. We should not shy away from using force because someone once used force for evil.

We must acknowledge that even a pure and good ideology must be implemented violently, because the existing ideology will resist violently.



They could have resisted. Some did, as you point out, and died for it. Those people did Good. If more people had done Good in this regard, Nazism could have been defeated in its nascency. "The people, united, will never be defeated." Even in death, they did Good by at very least removing their support for the German economy.



Socialism has never existed because the workers have never been given control of the means of production, full stop. Stalinism is not socialism. Uruguay was never socialist. Even in Cuba, at its height, 8.1% of employment was to private employers.

Also, it's unfair to heap all the blame on greedy politicians: greed is a virtue of capitalism, and the politicians enjoy broad support of capital.

We should not shy away from using force because someone once used force for evil.


Not just once - it has happened too many times to mention, throughout history! Do humans ever learn?

Remember, in LOTR Galadriel, Gandalf and other good folk refused the Ring of Power because they knew it would twist them into dictators, however benevolent and well meaning, since it was an intrinsically evil artefact.

How can the system best be changed in your opinion? Equitable wealth distribution to all? This too is difficult. What would the criteria be. Age 18 or above get fair distribution of all wealth? Or everyone - i.e. children's share to be held in trust and used as needed. Free education and medical services? Enforced protection of all human and animal rights? Both government and private funds as well as duties to be in the hands of the people?

We agree here!



It is an interesting question, but it's a bit off-topic. In reality, we produce enough food for none to starve, so if all of humanity can agree that none should starve, then it is a mere logistical question of how to get the food from where it is to where it needs to be. Dissolve private property (including currency) and provide equal opportunity for all. There is much to be discussed, but there is the interesting problem that not all humans need to work in order for all humans to be clothed, housed, and fed, and that technology increases this gap daily. We need to acknowledge that everyone deserves to live (by default), and get over this idea that everyone needs to work to earn their survival. (Ironically, a capitalist does NOT need to work to earn his survival, but this is somehow noble and good.)

Like I said, it's a lot to talk about. It could be said that by exploring these options and planning for their implementation, we do Good, but only if we follow through to some degree. In our analogy, the butterfly that learns to walk does Good.