On an Internet forum recently, an individual made the statement, "I'm really uncomfortable with this idea of calling bad ideas, as such, evil."

Another individual responded by saying, "So am I. Decidedly uncomfortable. The concept that ideas can be good or evil is a great way to make people afraid to think, and belongs with ARI [Ayn Rand Institute]. Ideas are not moral agents! Only people are. What people do can be good or evil; not what they think."

I call your attention to this amazing statement:

What people do can be good or evil; not what they think.

Evil Ideas?

Can there be ideas that are so bad, that if only thought, and not practiced, they are still evil? If there ever were such an evil idea, the one expressed in that subtly ambiguous amazing statement is it.

I admit this statement only appeared on an Internet forum, and people are sometimes careless in how they express things on such forums. But this particular writer happens to regarded as an expert in her field. Such people have a responsibility to ensure they do not say things publicly which are wrong to which their authority might lend credence. This particular authority has provided us with the well known course, Principles of Efficient Thinking. Certainly such a person would understand the ambiguity of the words they use, certainly such a person would not make such a statement without careful and efficient thinking about it.

Still, one has to wonder just what she was thinking, because the whole thing is obviously a contradiction. If ideas cannot be, "good or evil," why would the "idea" that they can be good or evil cause such discomfort. It's just another idea that is neither good or evil. People are not usually "decidedly uncomfortable," about that which has no value, one way or the other. If we did not know she was such an efficient thinker we might mistake this for an excellent example of the stolen concept fallacy. "The idea that some ideas are evil is an evil idea."

Even without thinking about what the amazing statement is supposed to mean, it is not exactly certain what it is supposed to say; if only what we do can be good or evil, but not what they think, apparently thinking is not something people do—such an efficient thinker would obviously know that's not true, so it must be an attempt to say something else. But what?

In spite of this difficulty I must try to discover what the statement actually means because I suppose such an efficient thinker would not say something that means nothing. (Of course, that's only my personal opinion.)

Simple Apprehension

In logic (which for some of us is related to efficient thinking) there is very good idea called, "simple apprehension." It refers to our consciousness of concepts or ideas themselves, as we think them, but not as we think anything about them. For example if I think, "dog," or, "electricity," but do not think anything about dogs or electricity, those thoughts are called simple apprehensions. The interesting thing about simple apprehensions is they are neither true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. Such values or "jdugments" pertain only to assertions or propositions.

A proposition is a statement that asserts something about something, such as a simple apprehension. For example, "The dog is in the back yard," is a proposition because it asserts something, "in the back yard," about the simple apprhension, "dog." Only propositions can be true or false, as in this case, if the dog really is in the backyard, the proposition is true, if the dog is really in the neighbor's rubbish, the proposition is false.

If the amazing statement had said, What people do can be good or evil; not their simple apprehensions, it would have been fine (though pointless). But it clearly says "thinking" which involves assertions and propositions.

Hypothetical Thoughts and Thoughts as Parts of Judgments

In the process of thinking, we frequently have thoughts which are only tentative, thoughts we are, "trying out," so-to-speak. We might have the thought, "taking a gun and robbing people as a way to make a living," adding, "now, is that right?" Such thoughts are hypothetical and have no good, bad, right, or wrong value in themselves, because we have not yet come to a conclusion about them.

Even when we have come to a conclusion, for example, "taking a gun and robbing people as a way to make a living is wrong," we still must think the thought, "taking a gun and robbing people as a way to make a living." As part of a jdugment, such thoughts also have no good, bad, right, or wrong value in themselves.

The jdugment, however, does have a value. It might only be right or wrong, but jdugments concerning moral issues are also good or bad. If the jdugment is, "taking a gun and robbing people as a way to make a living is right," that jdugment is both a wrong and a morally bad one. The idea is an evil one.

But If It Is Only In My Head

What harm can it possibly do if I only think something if I do not actually do it? What difference does it make what I think, so long as what I do is not wrong? After all, it is only, "what people do" that, "can be good or evil; not what they think," is it not?

Even if we ignore the fact thinking is something we do; because we are volitional beings, whatever we do, we must first think it to be able to choose to do it. Choosing, itself, is also thinking.

We cannot choose to do something morally wrong until we have first thought of the thing and have it, "in our head," that it is something we want or choose to do, and in our "in our head" choose to do it. The worst evil ever committed could never have been committed if the idea of that evil act was not first in the thinking of the individual who committed the evil. No one does evil who does not first think evil.

But the harm and danger of evil ideas is much more profound than that obvious one. Ayn Rand describes that evil perfectly.

"Man's consciousness is his least known and most abused vital organ. Most people believe that consciousness as such is some sort of indeterminate faculty which has no nature, no specific identity and, therefore, no requirements, no needs, no rules for being properly or improperly used. The simplest example of this belief is people's willingness to lie or cheat, to fake reality on the premise that "I'm the only one who'll know" or "It's only in my mind"—without any concern for what this does to one's mind, what complex, untraceable, disastrous impairments it produces, what crippling damage may result.

"The loss of control over one's consciousness is the most terrifying of human experiences: a consciousness that doubts its own efficacy is in a monstrously intolerable state. Yet men abuse, subvert and starve their consciousness in a manner they would not dream of applying to their hair, toenails or stomachs. They know that these things have a specific identity and specific requirements, and, if one wishes to preserve them, one must comb one's hair, trim one's toenails and refrain from swallowing rat poison. But one's mind? Aw, it needs nothing and can swallow anything. Or so most people believe. And they go on believing it while they toss in agony on a psychologist's couch, screaming that their mind keeps them in a state of chronic terror for no reason whatever." [The Objectivist, April 1966,"Our Cultural Value-Deprivation"]

Afraid to Think

The final question that must be considered is the other statement made by our efficient thinking expert. Is, "the concept that ideas can be good or evil," really, "a great way to make people afraid to think."

I am sure that believing one may just have anything in their head without consequence will convince people to be unafraid to think anything, with just the disastrous results Ayn Rand describes. I do not understand, however, how knowing that some ideas are bad ones would, in itself, make anyone afraid to think. Why, for example, would knowing the idea of flying a fully loaded plane into a skyscraper to kill thousands of people is a very evil idea make someone afraid to think, even to think that. I just thought it and wrote it without any fear at all, and I know it is a terribly evil idea.

Many people are afraid to think. The reason is never because they think some ideas are evil. Most people who are afraid to think are afraid to face reality, which thinking would force them to do. One of the realities many people are afraid to face is the evil of their own thinking, they are afraid to face the fact the cause of their own failures and the feelings that torment them are the result of their own evil thoughts and ideas.

Efficient Thinking

If the amazing statement is an example of efficient thinking, efficient thinking is obviously very dangerous. If your objective is to save time, or to avoid being bothered very much by what you think, efficient thinking might be the way to go.

If your objective is discovering the truth you need to live successfully in this world, efficient thinking can only lead to disaster. If you want to know the truth, if you want to live happily and successfully, you must take the much more tedious, difficult, and demanding route, correct thinking.