absolute vs. nihilism

Mon Nov 11, 2002 11:10 pm

I remember once Sxxx asked if I know of any absolutes, which illustrates Jxxx’s observation about the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals – that he would ask this question, and I was asked of this question.

Extremism as we understand it is to be condemned, but striving to the extreme is not in of itself evil. God (as most people define it) is extremely good; and as one endeavors to that end it is in a sense similar to Jxx’s description as a yearning to return to the root (for a religious conservative); a secular liberal has similar longing to return to the basic human goodness they feel as intrinsic in each of us.

The defining of a concept is perfect and therefore extreme; the term “goodness” is the polar opposite of the term “evil.” In the spectrum of human values, these two represent the two extremes. The conventional application of those who fear extremism and advocate moderation on all issues tend to view the conceptual idea of moral values in the same way, which frequently lead to a fear of those who express desires to attain the firmament of goodness and, instead, rather settle in the realms of a centrist and the neo-ideal of neutrality. But by taking such a view on morality, one may find himself paradoxically favoring the “not so bad” and “pretty good” over high aspiration for goodness.

These are two distinct though related dynamics that deserve careful analysis. “Goodness” as a motive should be as distant away from evil as possible, and the recognition of goodness is by necessity a discriminatory act (which should not be equated in a pejorative sense). In contrast, the act of goodness should be broad and inclusive (and indeed without more than the self, a discussion of good and evil is useless and it is in the multitude that one needs to modulate, compromise and seek consensus lest chaos rules;) to the utilitarian mind, “goodness” is thusly defined in the passive that a community of likeness is “good” without need to measure against a universal standard. The desire to render all distinctions obsolete, and finding root of evil in the polarization of values engenders this desire and solution for a “single class” society, which at its culmination replaces the “extremes” it seeks to destroy.

It is also when an aggressive seeker of goodness who is not temperate in the act of “his goodness” that a degradation of the values upheld so highly occurs. If one values freedom as a high moral and that each individual has certain inalienable rights (as all true seekers of goodness should), then an intolerant application of his ideals risks a betrayal of its very values and good intent. At its worst, the consequences of the extreme application of a desire for goodness becomes the very extreme (evil) he tries to distant himself from in the conceptual.

It can be said then that, conceptually, conservatives define good and evil as directions from the center (extremist!), whereas liberals define it as distance (hence the often-heard label of “broken moral compass.”)

In the abstract world of concepts, the difference is merely rhetorical. But in the real world where battles against evil are a constant, those who distinguish good from evil in terms of character (behavior, i.e. tyrant, murderer and thief) see a different archenemy from ones who differentiate in terms of appearance (expression, i.e. devoutly religious, racist or anti-choice). That is why conservatives often view liberals as misguided impediment to the eradication of evil, but liberals mostly see conservatives as personification (or instigator of) evil. And the high ideal a conservative seeks is often called “hypocritical” (which I don’t think should be the top evil…I think level of atrocity should be the proper measure of that ) whereas the neutrality of liberals is perceived as “amoral.”

In conclusion, I would like to propose that a possible method of validating goodness is not by a search in the extreme, act in the extreme, nor search in the neutral, act in the neutral, but is best found in the search in the extreme, act in the neutral.

(The worst case of course is as in the dictator of Iraq who didn’t even bother to search but made up for it by acting in the very extreme.)