Description of the Problem

In Classical Philosophy there is a topic known as the Problem of Evil. Namely, if one accepts either a benevolent Deity, or the essential benevolence of human beings and/or their inherent rationality, how can Evil exist? The problem is somewhat different depending on the theological basis of the argument: if one argues from the position of an omnibenevolent Deity such as the Christian Trinity, the question is, "Why does the benevolent Deity allow Evil and the suffering that Evil causes?" If one argues from a humanistic standpoint, the question becomes, "Why do people choose to act in Evil ways?"

To a Discordian (1), the question is not "Why is there Evil?" because there are no "Why Is’s" to a Discordian. Discordianism is a religion which religiously avoids absolutes. While other religions may argue to the unknowable "Divine Plan," to explain seeming contradictions, Eris Discordia by Her very nature needs no reason to do anything other than "She felt like it."

The question is, "Why should a Discordian avoid Evil behavior?" More succinctly, and with less inherent bias, the question is "Should a Discordian avoid Evil behavior?" Even more succinctly, the question might be posed as "Is there Evil under Discordianism?"

In the above discussion, the word "evil" has been used colloquially. However, if the Problem of Evil is to be addressed, a more rigorous definition of what constitutes "Evil" is required. Furthermore, the definition must be consistent with Discordian philosophy: as will be shown, part of what many people consider Evil is actively Good to a Discordian. The first step, therefore, is to form a consistent definition of Evil.

A Definition of Evil

The Principia Discordia (2) teaches us that there are two possible division systems by which we may classify actions:

Order versus Disorder

- and -

Creation versus Destruction

These systems can be concatenated to create the following matrix of classifications:

Modern industrial society puts a huge emphasis on Order, typically Creative Order (1,1), to the point where it is considered "Good," or beneficial, as do most major modern religions. The other three are all considered "Evil," or detrimental, to some degree, although Destructive Order (2,1), such as chopping down a forest to build a factory, is more likely to be viewed as a "necessary evil," which is another way of saying "indirect good." Creative Disorder (1,2) is likely to be tolerated at best, such as commercially viable countercultural activity, which of course transforms it back into Orderly activity. True Creative Disorder is looked on as suspect at the very least.

Where most "orthodox" Discordians disagree with this emphasis is that they find Creative Disorder (1,2) to be a "Good," or beneficial thing to the same degree as Creative Order (1,1). This is the position of the Principia, implied by its distinction between the all-Order and all-Disorder trips, which it refers to as the Aneristic and Eristic Illusions, and its preference for the all-Creative trip, which succumbs to neither Illusion, or rather recognizes that they are both illusions and that both order and disorder are useable for "Good" creation, or "Evil" destruction. While Discordians tend to foment Disorder, they do this not from a belief that Disorder is superior, but rather that the balance is uneven and the system requires additional Disorder to regain that balance.

The Principia also acknowledges that all conceptual frameworks are subjective views of reality: it refers to them as "reality grids." Concepts are grids on the "window" we see reality through: change the grid, and you change the concept, but the reality remains. The old homily teaches us that "one man’s meat is another man’s poison." One man’s cowardice is another’s wisdom. And so forth. Just as the enlightened Discordian knows that Order and Disorder are illusory, or two aspects of reality which complement each other, so it could be argued that Creation and Destruction are illusory. (3) Burning something is Destructive: however, you get energy and residues that can be used for Creative ends. One can Create weapons which then Destroy millions. Everything that lives does so at the expense of another living thing: Life itself is Creation and Destruction in never-ending cycle. Therefore, "Destruction," in and of itself, is an unsuitable definition of Evil. Some Creation is detrimental: some Destruction is beneficial. We must look elsewhere for our candidate for Evil.

Toward this end, we may seek a definition of Right Action. We may then define Evil by exclusion: that which is not Right Action is Evil. (4) We have not changed the problem, only our vector of attack. What, then, is Right Action? This was an old problem when Socrates took his shot at it, and even that greatest of not-knowers at one point defined Right Action (also called Virtue) in two contradictory ways. (5) Therefore, it should be understood that our definition is not necessarily an Absolute Truth, but only a working position.

One of the few definitions of Right Action which is not a prima facie or de facto argument to Divine Authority is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which can be stated as follows:

"Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

The reader will immediately recognize the Golden Rule of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.(6) Kant’s objective was, in fact, to arrive at what he felt was an objective definition of Right Action which was in accord with his own beliefs, which were basically Judeo-Christian. The Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do as ye will.") can also be analogized to this, although it is less specific. These similarities are noted only to indicate that while they exist, they are not cited as authority or evidence that the Categorical Imperative is correct. Either its logic stands or it falls on its own.

This definition fits in nicely with Discordian philosophy as set forth in the Principia Discordia, which while it rarely speaks on Evil, defines the "Curse of Greyface" as an evil thing. The Orders of Discordia (7) seek to impose order blindly upon the world, without a care for the consequences – among them, an escalation of Disorder and needless suffering and repression. Acting blindly is not something which a rational person does if they have an alternative, nor is it something they would wish others to do.

However, our analysis is not complete. The question now becomes, "What maxim are you acting on?" It can be observed that people frequently don’t know why they do what they do. They do it either because it is what they’ve always done (which is no reason at all, save inertia) or because society tells them to do it. It could be said of such people that their active maxim is "Do what society tells you to do." This is defining Right Action by appeal to Social Authority.

This will not serve, because it is inconsistent. Appeals to Social Authority can be devolved either to individual human beings, or back to Divine Authority. (8) Furthermore, social leaders of whatever type (religious, military, political, etc.) are frequently observed doing things they do not want other people to do. They are not observing the Categorical Imperative. Using the definitions of Right Action imposed by those who do not observe Right Action and do not feel that they are obliged to observe Right Action will produce an inconsistent system, because what is Right will depend on who is Acting and will not always be the same even for identical situations.

If what is Right depends on who is Acting, then the individual must either find a person who themselves observes what the individual considers to be Right Action, and follow their example, or decide for themselves what Right Action is. In either event, the individual is making the final decision: the only difference is when they make the decision.

At this point, the author can find no objective general statement of a specific maxim that applies to all persons and situations. This does not mean that there is not one to be found, only that it is not now known to the author. Having stipulated this point, the author wishes to propose a candidate for a general maxim which is not specific, but while subjective to the individual, can be objectively observed in any given situation.

"Individuals should be honest with themselves and act accordingly."

This maxim acknowledges that individuals are just that - individual. The action that is theft to one person is liberation, protest, or some other action to another. To the person for whom the action is theft, the action should not be taken even if it could be objectively justified as a Right Action to another individual or in another situation. (9) Once an individual allows themselves to rationalize actions in such a way, there can be no consistent definition of Right Action on an individual basis, and the Categorical Imperative fails.

At this point, the argument for total Anarchy could be raised by attempting to claim that the individual could honestly believe that everyone should do whatever they want. However, this is a flawed argument, because such individuals almost certainly would not wish others to do whatever they wanted at the expense of their own desires. The application is not truly universal and therefore fails. (10)

The Imperative can now be restated as follows:

"Individuals should take actions only if they honestly believe that others should act similarly."

Evil, the opposite of Right Action, can then be defined as acting in ways you do not think others should act. We have not removed the subjective element: for instance, if a person honestly believed that they had superior abilities, they might very well feel that they were right in using those abilities and that others who did not possess such abilities should not act in a similar fashion. But we have at least made the process of defining evil objective.

The Problem of Evil

Now that we have a consistent definition of Evil, (11) the Problem of Evil, "Should a Discordian avoid Evil behavior?" can be examined. At first, this would seem to be circular: if one accepts the Categorical Imperative as an accurate definition of Right Action, then one should avoid Evil. However, the dilemma is false: the true question is, what is the meaning of "should" in the preceding sentence? If one wants to avoid Evil, then one should pursue Right Action. Should one want to avoid Evil?

The advantages of Evil behavior are obvious. It tends to maximize short-term advantage. If you do things to others which they do not want you to do to them, and which you would not want done to you, you may achieve gratification of desires which you otherwise could not, be they material goods (robbery or theft,) sexual gratification (rape or more insidious nonconsensual forms of sexual domination) or even such extremes as killing people who are blocking your desires. If others work for the common weal, it relieves you of any burden of doing so.

The disadvantages of Evil behavior are less obvious. Punishment is a real, if uncertain, threat, if your Evil behavior violates the laws of your society or outrages others to the point where they will take action against you. Many belief systems state that Evil behavior will be punished in less material ways through damnation, karmic retribution, or other supernatural form of return. However, such retribution is likewise uncertain and has never been conclusively demonstrated. (12)

As for Our Lady of Chaos, Eris Discordia, She seems to be rather haphazard both in encouraging Right Action, and in punishing Evil. Her reaction in the face of the Original Snub, which allegedly caused the Trojan War, would at first seem rather extreme. However, when one recalls the general temperaments of the Olympians, such an extreme reaction falls into context, both on Goddess’ part and as what was necessary to impart the lesson that She wished to teach the other Olympians. Recall that She does not claim Omniscience, and, while She seems to be kindly inclined towards us on the whole (things could be better, but things could be a lot worse, too) neither does She claim Omnibenevolence. (13) She does not seem to be the Mater in Absentia, (14) but rather the Mater Distringo. (15)

It is interesting to attempt a sort of meta-application of the Categorical Imperative to Evil action, which might be phrased:

"People should commit Evil actions only if they honestly believe that everyone may commit such Evil actions."

The qualifier may is required because the qualifier should returns us to the totally anarcho-Darwinistic statement previously described. A person may honestly believe, for instance, that everyone should drive fifty-five miles per hour on the highway, but that it really won't hurt anything if everybody drives sixty-five if the weather's good, etc., etc. and we'll all get where we're going that much faster. Again, we have a subjective evaluation of an objective statement. However, this fails due to the logic previously applied: once the exterior justifications exceed a certain point, the analysis becomes pure rationalization of the momentary desire. If we limit the justifications to any degree, we arrive back at the previous statement.

Failing the attempted meta-application, we return to the Problem of Evil. Should a Discordian, on an individual basis, avoid Evil acts?

The author's opinion is yes. There is a very pragmatic reason for this: extremes of action tend to rebound, in a way which is statistically certain and verifiable. (As the Principia tells us, "Imposition of order -> Escalation of Chaos.") If Evil acts are pursued on a large scale, society will respond by becoming more rigorous in its pursuit of evildoers. Eventually, society will become so restrictive that even the cleverest and most ruthless evildoer will be punished for his Evil actions. If those who would do Evil do not exercise restraint, they only hasten the day when punishment becomes statistically inevitable. Moderation of Evil actions allows the status quo (uncertain punishment) to be maintained.

This argument speaks only to the general pursuit of Evil actions. It is not helpful for determining whether an individual act of Evil is reasonable.

If one believes in the general statement of the Categorical Imperative, one sees that Evil actions are detrimental to society, and therefore should be avoided for the greater good. Likewise, if one expects the social contract to be upheld, they must maintain their end of the bargain. But there is no more compelling reason than those listed above to refrain from Evil actions. Absent a fear of supernatural retribution, and with insufficient fear of temporal retribution, no appeal other than that of the common good compels Right Action.

History suggests that those who commit Evil actions seldom die of happy old age. However, many counterexamples can be found, and many of those who strive to commit Right Actions find themselves unhappy due to no apparent fault of their own. The wages of sin are death, but the salary of virtue is the same, and the wicked get Sundays off. The Universe does not appear to encourage either approach with a clear advantage. Goddess may have a surprise party waiting for us, but who gets to sit at the good table is open to question.

Man is a social animal. The author, and most people he has spoken to regarding the issue, finds a satisfaction in Right Action, and in avoiding Evil. This does not mean that this approach is correct. But given the nature of Man, and the situation in which we find ourselves, if it could be adhered to, the general level of satisfaction with life would seem likely to increase. Such increase, in turn, would make it more likely that the average person would be happy. (Call this the Argument to Probable Happiness.) But a given individual, for whatever reason, may not like these odds, or find that their own happiness is better served by selfish (Evil) actions. Right Action seems the better bet, but it is not a "sure thing." As the old saying goes, "You pays your money, and you takes your chances."

Conclusion (16)

Like so many things in Discordianism, the choice of how to act is an individual one. With freedom comes responsibility. Discordians are free to act as they see fit, unrestrained by blind worship for social mores and customs or the rigid strictures of an authoritarian and detail-oriented Deity. It therefore behooves them to think, to consider why they do what they do, and whether their actions are reasonable and beneficial to themselves and to the greater community.

If a person chooses evil, they must be aware of the consequences of their acts. A person who chooses good may also suffer consequences. The only concrete lesson that can be drawn from this is that actions have consequences. With that in mind, an informed Discordian can make an informed choice. (17)

Notes:

1. It should be noted that the author is exquisitely aware that other Discordians are almost by definition obliged to disagree with him. Everything in this essay should be read as including the implied statement, “In the author’s opinion…” Discordians are forbidden to believe anything in this essay in any event, as it’s written down. The reducto ad absurdium is both temptingly simple and disappointingly unpersuasive to a Discordian. Return

2. While the Principia is the wholly holy Book of Discordianism, it is not held to be infallible or direct “Vox Dei” the way the Bible, Koran, and other holy books are. All Discordians are free to completely rearrange the entire structure of the religion at will, which obviously allows for “Left Hand Discordianism.” But if you don’t start someplace, you will never start at all. The author welcomes other approaches to the discussion. Return

3. The objective-as-is-reasonably-possible laws of Physics tell us that in a very real sense neither Destruction nor Creation is possible at all. One can convert matter to energy, or vice versa, or one form of either into another, but nothing can be truly destroyed or created. Under some theories, eventually, the “arrow of time,” Entropy, will even everything out, to the point where no coherent matter exists at all, but it will still not have been destroyed. Return

4. The author stipulates that this approach disregards the possibility that there are actions which are neither Right nor Evil. While all actions have consequences, decisions on actions such as which shoe to put on first in the morning probably have little bearing on the discussion at hand. Such actions are therefore simply not addressed by this essay. Return

5. For example, at one point, Socrates says that Virtue (or Right Action) is something that cannot be taught. At another, he says that it is. These statements mean that Virtue is two mutually contradictory things and hence cannot exist. Return

6. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Return

7. One of which is The Party for War on Evil. The reader will recall that the Orders of Discordia are not, as the name might imply, direct allies of Discordians, but rather serve by being the other end of the Order-Disorder equation. By imposing order, they escalate chaos. The “evil” in the name of this Order is not the Evil we are attempting to define. Return

8. “Orthodox” Discordians, if there can be such a thing, might also try to appeal to Divine Authority. However, since their Divinity is, to say the least, both unpredictable and enigmatic, they would seem to be on their own in this arena. Goddess also has a habit of making up whatever suits Her at the moment. Consistency is not Her concern. Return

9. There is a school of ethical thought known as “situational ethics,” which holds that there are no absolute ethics, but that all ethical problems are dependant on the situation. The distinction here is that while the ethical act is dependent on the situation, the situation does not define the ethical act, but rather the individual’s understanding of the situation in light of the Categorical Imperative. Return

10. It is possible that an individual might honestly hold such an ultimate application of Darwinism desirable. If this is the case such an individual will not be overmuch concerned with problems of Right Action, having defined it as “any action you wish to take,” and they can therefore safely be ignored for purposes of this discussion. Return

11. Note that the author is not claiming that the definition is correct, only that it is consistent. Return

12. “It’s hard to be religious when certain people are never struck by lightning.” – Bill Watterson Return

13. Her Omnipotence is unquestionable when you recall that all the butterflies in the world work for Her. Return

14. “Absent Mother.” This is a reference to a school of thought which posits that while God the Father may have created the Universe, He does not currently interfere in its day to day operations. Such a Deity is referred to as the “Pater in Absentia,” or Absent Father. Return

15. “Busy Mother.” (Redundant, yes, but thorough.) Omnipotence or no, being the Big Boss of All Creation probably offers more interesting diversions than checking up on individual mortals every few time-infinitesimals to make sure they’re behaving according to a lot of boring static rules. Return

16. Actually nothing of the kind. This note exists only so that there will be 17 footnotes. Return

17. “Life as the Art of Playing Games.” The very notion that such a formal essay could be written about the Problem of Evil in a religion dedicated to the worship of the Goddess of Chaos is ludicrous. That’s the joke. Do you get it? Just because it’s a joke doesn’t mean you can’t take it seriously: refusal to acknowledge that is the same as refusing to joke about serious things. And then what’s the point, really? Return

Return to the Home Page - Contact the Temple of Eris - View/Sign Guestbook

Ever wish more people would come up to you and say, "What the heck is that on your t-shirt/sweatshirt/mug/mousepad?" Ever wonder what was really in the Principia/Illuminatus! books? And ever wonder how "/" is actually pronounced? Then visit our online store! Books and other neat stuff galore!