理想主义假定“善”与“恶”是对立的，那么，对“善”的追求又怎么会常常导致“恶”的表现呢？对于这点，我们必须看得更远一些。
在实践中，有一条最重要的戒律——一条可以作为准绳的基督教戒律。这戒律很好，因为它是你能实际理解的事：“勿杀人。”这样说够清楚了。在大多数情形下，你知道自己什么时候杀了人。它要比“爱邻如己”这类戒律更容易遵循多了，因为你们许多人本来就不爱自己，也就很难去同样爱你的邻人了。这种观念是说，如果你爱你的邻人，你就不会对他不好，更不会杀他了——但“勿杀人”这条戒律说，你不可杀你的邻人，无论你对他的感觉如何。所以让我们说一条新的戒律：“你不可杀人，即使在追求你的理想时。”
那是什么意思呢？在实践中，它是指你不会为了和平而发动战争。它是指你不在实验中杀害动物，为了保护人类生命的神圣而夺取它们的生命。这将成为一个基本指令：“你不可杀人，即使在追求你的理想时。”——因为人类曾为理想而杀人，就与他为了贪婪、欲望，甚或追求权力本身而杀人一样多。
如果你为了追求理想，考虑有可能去杀人的话，你就是个狂热分子。举例来说，因为理想各不相同，你的理想也许是生产无尽的能量为人类所用，而你也许如此热切地相信那个理想——那增进了生活的便利——以至于你考虑冒着一路上有人会丧命的危险，来达成那个便利的设想，这就是狂热主义。
它是指你不愿在物质实相里采取可以达成那个理想的实际步骤，却相信为了正当目的可以不择手段：“当然，一路上会有人失去生命，但整体而言，人类会受益。”这就是通常的辩解。生命的神圣性不能为生活的便利而牺牲，不然的话，生命本身的品质会受损。同样地，好比说，你的理想是去保护人类的生命，而在追求那个理想时，你给一代又一代的各种动物致命的疾病，牺牲了它们的生命。你的借口也许是人有灵魂而动物没有，或动物的生命品质较差，但不管那些辩解是什么，这就是狂热主义——而人类生命本身的品质也会因而受损，因为那些牺牲任何一种生命的人，也失去了对所有生命的尊重，包括人的生命。目的并不能使手段合理化。
狂热分子是反转的理想主义者。通常他们是含糊而浮夸的梦想家，其计划几乎全然忽略了正常生活的各个面向。他们是未得到满足的理想主义者，不满足于一步一个脚印地表达理想主义，甚至也不满足于等待积极表达的实际运作。他们要求即刻行动，要以他们自己的想象来重造世界。他们无法容忍宽容的言行或相反的观点。他们是那些自以为是的人之中最自以为是的，几乎会牺牲一切——自己或他人的生命。为达目的，他们几乎会为任何罪恶辩护。
Idealism presupposes "the good" as opposed to "the bad," so how can the pursuit of "the good" often lead to the expression of "the bad?" For that, we will have to look further.
There is one commandment above all, in practical terms?a Christian commandment that can be used as a yardstick. It is good because it is something you can understand practically: "Thou shalt not kill." That is clear enough. Under most conditions you know when you have killed. That [commandment] is a much better road to follow, for example than: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," for many of you do not love yourselves to begin with, and can scarcely love your neighbor as well. The idea is that if you love your neighbor you will not treat him poorly, much less kill him ? but the commandment: "Thou shalt not kill," says you shall not kill your neighbor no matter how you feel about him. So let us say in a new commandment: "Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals."
What does that mean? In practical terms it would mean that you would not wage war for the sake of peace. It would mean that you did not kill animals in experiments, taking their lives in order to protect the sacredness of human life. That would be a prime directive: "Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of your ideals" ? for man has killed for the sake of his ideals as much as he has ever killed for greed, or lust, or even the pursuit of power on its own merits.
You are a fanatic if you consider possible killing for the pursuit of your ideal. For example, your ideal may be ? for ideals differ ? the production of endless energy for the uses of mankind, and you may believe so fervently in that ideal ? this added convenience to life ? that you considered the hypothetical possibility of that convenience being achieved at the risk of losing some lives along the way. That is fanaticism.
It means that you are not willing to take the actual steps in physical reality to achieve the ideal, but that you believe that the end justifies the means: "Certainly some lives may be lost along the way, but overall, mankind will benefit." That is the usual argument. The sacredness of life cannot be sacrificed for life's convenience, or the quality of life itself will suffer. In the same manner, say, the ideal is to protect human life, and in the pursuit of that ideal you give generations of various animals deadly diseases, and sacrifice their lives. Your justification may be that people have souls and animals do not, or that the quality of life is less in the animals, but regardless of those arguments this is fanaticism ? and the quality of human life itself suffers as a result, for those who sacrifice any kind of life along the way lose some respect for all life, human life included. The ends do not justify the means.
Fanatics are inverted idealists. Usually they are vague grandiose dreamers, whose plans almost completely ignore the full dimensions of normal living. They are unfulfilled idealists who are not content to express idealism in steps, one at a time, or indeed to wait for the practical workings of active expression. They demand immediate action. They want to make the world over in their own images. They cannot bear the expression of tolerance or opposing ideas. They are the most self-righteous of the self-righteous, and they will sacrifice almost anything ? their own lives or the lives of others. They will justify almost any crime for the pursuit of those ends.
——摘自《个人与群体事件的本质》（The individual and nature of mass events）
校译/美编：Laujenny
《赛斯说●第102期》
? “赛斯说” （ ）
? “ ”
? ( ) ，群共享里有免费赛斯资料中英文版下载。
延伸资源下载（东西方哲学经典古籍汇总、杨公风水经典古籍、玄空风水古籍、八宅古籍、生基秘法、道藏、道家经典古籍、太乙神数、七政四余、大六壬、奇门遁甲、梅花易数、皇极经世、四柱八字、六爻、铁板神数、六壬史上最全版古今秘籍汇总|儒释道古本及民间术数大全超强版持续更新中......）
版权声明：本站部分内容由互联网用户自发贡献，文章观点仅代表作者本人。本站仅提供信息存储空间服务，不拥有所有权，不承担相关法律责任。如发现本站有涉嫌抄袭侵权/违法违规的内容， 请拨打网站电话或发送邮件至1330763388@qq.com 反馈举报，一经查实，本站将立刻删除。
文章标题：从“善”到“恶”有多远？发布于2022-05-10 10:50:58
