Radical Evil, A Free-Fall to Existentialism and the Solution Found in Rick and Morty
I'm not a big fan of cartoons and if I'm completely honest, I don't really believe in sitting and watching a movie or a show. It doesn't come from some elitist sentiment, that I'll only willing to read books in my free time and so on but something in the passiveness of sitting in front of a screen and watching events unfold in front of my, mostly in a visual medium can simply drive me mad.
Despite this sentiment, the twenty or so minutes of an episode from a completely absurd cartoon managed to gather my attention in such a complete way that I wasn't aware of anything around me for that duration, especially in a time when the mind doesn't stop skipping from obsessive thoughts about friends dead and murdered, worry for my family and country and cosmic level anxiety.
I sat with a close friend from the army in an apartment that a wonderful woman agreed to host us in. After long talks about all the thoughts in my head that I mentioned above and way too many cigarettes we went inside and sat on the couch in front of the TV, I, my comrade and a perfect little kitten named "Sunny".
As I sat on the couch, my friend alerted me to the fact that there's a new episode of 'Rick and Morty', a show I watched a few years ago and lost interest in after the first two seasons.
After a short debate, the episode started playing on the screen.
I won't tire you with the details but suffice to say that in bright colors and a variety of profanities for twenty odd minutes a bizarre, extremely violent (in a way only a cartoon can get away with) and absurd story that has no way or right to happen in real life, unfolded in front of tired eyes.
As of late, after far too many horror stories (That's after I've avoided as many videos as I could) I almost couldn't watch any violent content, even if it meant imaginary characters who simulate violence for entertainment.
I guess the extreme dissonance between reality and the cartoonish style of the animation helped me watch through the episode.
And so, I was sucked into a story I couldn't really make sense of and undoubtedly walked into it in the middle but was utterly facinated by it and by a possible vague messege hiding between the rivers of blood and utter hate presented on the screen.
The show made me think in broader terms how we humans deal with radical evil, the temptation of escapism and how diving head first into absurdity might be the key to handling ourselves in world of pain.
The Dark Abyss - Radical Evil
Before we can talk about Radical Evil we should consider the opposite.
For that, we'll take a glance Immanuel Kant, a thought provoking philosopher in the realm of ethics and morality.
Kant, constructed an elaborate framework that aimed to navigate the labyrinth of human ethics. At the core of his moral philosophy lies The Categorical Imperative, a beacon guiding moral agents toward universality and duty.
Basically, The Categorical Imperative is a command that transcends personal desires, whims, and inclinations. Unlike hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional and contingent on personal goals, the Categorical Imperative is an absolute, non-negotiable moral law.
Kant uses several thought experiments to try and determine whether our actions adhere to the Categorical Imperative.
Firstly, if everyone were to follow the same moral principle, could society still function?
For example, if everyone in society were lying to each other, could we still function as global species organized into a hierarchical structure or would the world tip over?
If I think about losing faith of anything the business I work with say and sell to me and scale it on a global scale, I tend to lean towards the tipping over thought.
Secondly, the inherent value of every individual. It instructs us to treat others with respect and dignity, recognizing their autonomy and not exploiting them as mere tools for our personal gain.
Thus, underscoring our moral obligation to safeguard the well-being and autonomy of every person.
So this is the basics of Kant's moral philosophy and why we ought to not abuse and use others and how we should filter our actions.
In stark contrast, here comes Radical Evil.
To understand what he meant about Radical Evil, we have to imagine Kant's notion of radical freedom. Kant postulates that humans possess an intrinsic freedom, an autonomy that grants us the power to shape our moral future. However, this autonomy becomes a double-edged sword when wielded in defiance of the moral law.
Radical Evil emerges when individuals, driven by their free will, choose to reject moral principles for the pursuit of personal gain or malevolent satisfaction.
Kant claims we have an innate propensity towards evil. Unlike ordinary acts of wrongdoing that can be explained through circumstance, cultural norms or ignorance, Radical Evil is the intentional and unyielding commitment to defy the moral law. It's the deliberate rebellion against the very principles that govern human morality.
Kant's radical evil is an internal struggle within ourselves that completely throws out the window the notion that humans are more than tools for one's own goals and agenda and the thought that if we were to perform these acts on mass scale our society would collapse.
You could argue that some acts that might be considered immoral might not completely crumble our society. Lying might be a wrong thing to do on most occasions, and if every single person on this planet will constantly lie to one another society as we know it will change entirely but I don't think it will crumble completely.
We might see highly distrusting small groups, the only thing keeping them together is the possibility of survival. The only thing creating human bonds (families for examples) is the biological urge to survive and reproduce.
I think, Radical Evil will not only change completely the structure of our societies but will completely annihilate it.
As I write these words I think of the horrible crimes of Nanjing massacre, the Holocaust and recent war-crimes in too many countries.
If we were to scale these to a global scale, I think we would abuse, torture and kill the human species out of existence.
This is Radical Evil.
Navigating in the Darkness - Nothing Matters and Why Maybe That's a Good Thing
Existentialism, a philosophical movement that blossomed in the 20th century, claims that in a universe devoid of meaning, humans must create their own significance through personal choices and actions.
Existentialism challenges individuals not to flee from the anguish provoked by Radical Evil but to face it head-on. Albert Camus introduced the concept of the absurd, the inherent conflict between the human desire for meaning and the apparent meaninglessness of the universe.
He calls to rebellion.
When faced with the absurd, the reality which humanity cannot reconcile, our search for meaning and our inability to find meaning in the universe, we nevertheless must fight on and act as if the meaning of our own making is our meaning to live by.
In a meaningless universe, we are the only creatures so eager to have meaning and that has to be enough.
A reasonable counter question to ask might be; 'but if the universe has no meaning, why not commit horrible acts of violence and inflict pain on as many people as possible? After all, it doesn't really matter does it? Just laugh at the absurdity as you create suffering, that might feel better than sitting alone in a dark room or just hanging one-self, right?"
It is at this point that I think the Existential angle and Kant's Categorical Imperative compliment each other rather nicely.
Sure, if you accept Camus's thought that life has no meaning you might go down a rabbit hole of inflicting pain and spreading hate since life might as well be a video game.
But I think I agree with his later point as well, we might be the only thing in the entire universe so bent on having meaning. We long to feel we have something greater than ourselves.
This might be an evolutionary residue to our life in a tribe, where self sacrifice was sometimes needed for the benefit of the tribe or close family, but the truth of the matter is that we still FEEL that way and that FEELING can carry us even further than it has before.
Kant's Categorical Imperative relied on a few assumptions, one of which was that if everyone were to follow the same moral principle, society couldn't function.
If we were all to exhibit behaviors of Radical Evil, we wouldn't be just inflicting the pain as a way to cope with the meaninglessness of the universe, we would also be receiving it and without truly Radical beliefs, I believe, the vast majority of us would rather to cease to exist rather than live in this kind of hellish land.
That leads me to the existential call to arms. We all have the capacity for unspeakable darkness but I don't think all of us have the ability to live with the consequences.
Whether it's a biological mechanism designed to keep us friendly and cooperative, a psychological barrier most of us can't pass or simply the societies most of us live in that neglected extreme acts of gruesome violence as part of their daily lives.
The beautiful part is that even without meaning, the Existentialists call us to take responsibility for our actions. This means actively choosing to resist malevolence, uphold moral principles, and contribute to the creation of a meaningful existence, because if it won't be us, it won't be anyone else.
There Are Still Monsters In The Darkness - The Stoic Duty
We might not all be willing to deal with the personal, emotional and societal consequences of Radical Evil but there fanatics out there who are more than willing to prove us there are still monsters walking in the night, searching for their next victim.
I think we ought to ask ourselves how do we go about hearing the Existentialist call to arms. How do we uphold Kant's moral philosophy and contribute to the creation of a meaningful existence without succumbing to acts that might qualify for Kant's definition of Radical Evil by themselves?
Perhaps, Stoicism can shed a light on a possible path forward.
Duty, in stoic terms, is grounded in reason and aligns with the cosmic order. Rather than succumbing to the urge for revenge, the stoic confronts evil with a solemn commitment to doing what is right, irrespective of personal desires or emotions.
If we accepted Kant's Categorical Imperative, that means this is the "reason", as the stoics referred to it, that guides us. I'll argue that we must not fall to the trappings of revenge and should instead adhere to the Stoics on the matter.
One should strive to achieve his rational goal against Radical Evil, it might be to completely exterminate a terrorist organization, it might be incarcerating a person for horrible acts of violence, but it shouldn't pass the line between what is necessary and what will make us feel "good" for inflicting more pain which is solely based on our emotions.
That doesn't mean justice won't be harsh or decisive. But it will be based in our definitions of reason and duty.
At this point, I think to myself, you'll be able to rationalize the killing of thousands of humans in the pursuit of duty. Wouldn't that be violating our moral scaffolding of "What'll happen if everyone does it?"
I tend to lean towards the notion that context is important. We can't disassociate philosophy from our situation and from the factors that got us where we are now.
In addition, perhaps there is more to it than defining our rationality and pursuing our duty.
Fighting Fire With Fire
It's a tangled problem for sure.
You could argue that your rational actions of duty constitute as Radical Evil by themselves. The Allied forces committed acts of violence against centers of populations in tremendous scale.
They did it in Dresden, where roughly 25,000 people died from bombings and where descriptions of the hell that ensued contain the words; "fire tornados that sucked people in from the streets into burning buildings" (a free translation).
They did it again in Tokyo, burning the whole city to the ground with fire bombs.
And most famously they did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the atomic bombs.
Were those acts immoral? Were those acts of Radical Evil?
I'm not sure of either of the answers to the these questions. Without delving too much into the history of the situation (although context is important), you might argue that the Americans had other alternatives to the atomic bombs. There was a plan for a full blown land invasion (who had casualty estimates far surpassing those of the bombs) and there was also a plan for a naval siege on Japan that might've lasted years of suffering and nationwide hunger.
Are those acts of questionable moral better than "playing nice" with the Nazis? Or the Japanese Imperial Army?
I'd argue that it is
Perhaps it is the ultimate goal you are fighting for the counts. Not every goal justifies it's means but perhaps the right goal is what makes the difference.
Perhaps acts of extreme violence shouldn't be considered Radical Evil if they were acted for the right goal, a goal that supports Kant's moral philosophy and might I add, goals that support freedom.
Closing Thoughts - Open Questions
There's a whole lot I didn't touch on, including some holes you might be able to poke in this article and I definitely end with more questions than answers.
I don't think you'll be able to find a straightforward answer in my words but I think the concepts we've touched are important so as to direct ourselves slightly better as to how to handle ourselves in a meaningless world.
A meaningless world shouldn't mean a world where nothing matters and acts of darkness are morally acceptable. I liked what Camus said about humans being the only meaning-making machines in the universe. It might not be handed down to us by some higher entity, but it shouldn't mean that we don't need to act according to a moral law of our making and I don't think it makes it any less meaningful.
留言