Inefficiency is the root of all evil.

For those who disagree, I'd like to see an example of something that is evil, where the inefficiency isn't what makes it evil.

I usually word it as waste. But they are linked. So, an example of evil where it is not wasteful.

Efficiency
No wasteful

That's massively inefficient. The waste of human brainpower is huge. People being used for gold or fat or whatnot is a massive waste of potential.

Human brainpower ?
People's potential ?
For the perpetrators it was waste disposal and recycling.
And at that both evil and very efficient.

Wasteful is just as subjective as evil. To mimic your argument, Auschwitz wasn't evil because the people running it didn't think it was evil. I assume/hope that's not what you're saying.
The only other explanation for your comment is that you believe that human beings are without potential and worth. Perhaps you would care to explain how the death you linked to fails to strike you, personally, as a senseless waste.

You can't be just generally 'efficient' or 'inefficient', efficiency is all about the way you acheive your goals. If your goals are the extermination of a people group, you can do that efficiently or inefficiently.

If you have assumed goals that have embedded into them some sort of moral code, then we can use the word that way, but it's just hiding the true reason something is evil. It's evil because it contradicts your 'goals'.

So, if I understand you correctly, it is impossible to have inefficient goals?

Yes, or efficient ones.

Unless you have some higher goals that require these subgoals before they can be achieved.

(except in sports, where efficent goals are possible)

I usually term it as "all evil is waste" that waste is what evil is.

I suspected that this claim being based on a less clear variant of my basic ideas might run into problems. I suspect a lot of the discussion is going to be more about wording of some things than the core idea that I have, which isn't bad, but a little less interesting to me.

I think waste still (although less strongly) implies a purpose.

If my intention is to further the heat death of the universe, there is no waste except opportunities to burn energy that aren't taken.

If my intention is to warm myself, the light generated by a fire is waste. If my intention is to get light, the heat generated by a fire is waste. If I need both heat, and light, the sound generated by the fire is waste. If I'm recording fire sounds for radio, the light and heat is wasteful, etc.

It all comes down to purpose. So, "all evil is waste", assuming you define evil as a bad thing, but it isn't evil because it's waste.

People always get this quote wrong. It is "The love of inefficiency is the root of all evil."

Kybernetikos, if your goal is to speed up the heat death of the universe, then you are evil.

That's part of my point.

But you can only say I'm wasteful if you have a different goal.

Kybernetikos, you say this as if it is a problem for me. To me, all things that I classify as evil fall into the category of wasteful.

So, wasteful is evil to me - that is what evil is, it is waste.

I'm not arguing with the evil = waste, I'm just saying that you can't evaluate wastefulness without reference to some purpose or intention, and that purpose or intention is the underlying reason that the thing is evil.

To say that evil = waste is just disguising the moral code that underlies your definitions of both evil and waste.

Actually, no - it is a statement of my moral code.

You just seem to be trying to interpret it as something else. I'm not hiding my moral code - I'm telling you right there what my moral code is - evil is waste and waste is evil. Anything I say is evil is, to me, a form of waste, and you can ask me what is being wasted.

If you want more detail, I can tell you that I believe that life and happiness should be maximized.

I would say that that is the underlying principle that for you defines both evil and waste then.

I think that whatever your moral code, you can make that equality evil = waste, but you will disagree with people with different moral codes about what constitues waste, just as much as you will disagree with them about what constitues evil. This is why 'waste' doesn't really help much - it requires an understanding of the underlying principle to know what it means, exactly the same as evil.

That's possible. But I still find it a much more useful concept than "evil". I find it is easier to find out why something is "evil" if I think about "where is the waste". And if I can't find it, it probably isn't really evil.

It may not be helpful or useful to you, but it is for me.

I feel this thread went in different directions from the start.
Inefficiency is waste by definition. Once evil is defined as waste then the claim must be true.
I agree with kybernetikos though, and it was obvious to me, that efficiency of an action is measured in the context of what that action is aiming to achieve. And therefore the extreme example: efficient execution of an Evil goal.
In practical terms, I think inefficiency is not necessarily bad and efficiency is not necessarily good. For example, in the name of economic efficiency people are measured in terms of productivity, or are made redundant, without regard to their welfare. On the other hand, in some countries, the public sector is used as means of providing employment without regard to efficiency.

I think this claim works better within the network of related claims that grew around it, including the bit about the problems with pithiness and such.

I can see why it would be useful to think about evil like this, but the root of the evil being perpetrated is not usually inefficiency in the mind of the perpetrator(s), but twisted goals.

Yeah, yeah... all the people disagreeing have fair points - but I'm not going to disagree with my own words. Especially not my own words on my most fundamental beliefs.

Are they true? Not exactly. Are they meant to be shared? Not really... not normally. Are they meant to be interpreted as normal English? Not exactly. To me, they are mental shorthands for huge mental constructs. Do I expect that to work for anyone else: No.

Did I possibly misplay my communication by not sufficiently translating what I thought into what I said: quite likely. But at least the result was interesting.

but evil is rarely evil by its own definition -- in order to determine evil, you must have a point fo reference. if their goal includes waste when measured by rachel's definitions and goals, then they are evil by rachel's standards.

so the question is, does your judgement of wha tis evil map well to your judgement of what is wasteful by your goals? if so, then you too could say that waste was the root of evil.

i agreen with the heuristic, though rachel and I disagree about which things are waste.

I think that whatever your definition of evil, you probably can agree with the waste thing.

If you believe that evil is against your goal then at the very least an evil act was a wasted opportunity to do good, let alone a waste of energy to do the evil thing, and a waste of the resources it used.

I think a more interesting question than whether or not you agree with this claim is whether you find thinking about evil in these terms helps you to better understand what you object to when faced with evil.

If it does, then I am glad this conversation happened. If it doesn't, then my feelings are more neutral.

Maybe, but I wouldn't say that. The problem is that the words are a mental shorthand, as I said. And that that phrasing is not useful. As it doesn't work; it's not efficient.

It's not efficient if it doesn't work."

Dammit, sorry about my messed up HTML.

Extermination of the Jews was efficient.

That was already covered in the second comment DW, although you might not have spotted it, since lala makes the point through links.

I'll come in with a late counter example.

Joe is in a persistent vegetative state. His Living Will expresses his belief that he should be maintained in such a state as long as possible and that all extraordinary measurse should be taken. His family agree. There is no chance for recovery -- say most of his brain mass has been destroyed, leaving only his brain stem and enough matter for providing some measure of basic functions, but is unsustainable without life support.

Now, it is arguable that his living will and is family's beliefs are evil. We're ignoring that.

Terminating Joe's existence is inarguably against his wishes, as he best expressed them, and his guardians. It is wasting immense resources, by preserving his life. it is inefficient to maintain this existence.

Yet, terminating it is a homicide, and since it is against his wishes, it is by most ethical and moral measures an 'evil'.

i think it is inconsistent to designate that expenditure as "waste" if you arguing that the living will isn't evil.

you can also look at it as a choice between evils, in that case, in whioch case it may be useful to look at it also a choice between wastes. what do you waste in each case? energy & human effort to keep him alive... potentially his life, if you let him die? i dunno, i have a hard time seeing how letting his body die at that point is really evil. He said he wanted it to go on doing hte basic-life-process thing, but if i said i wanted my body preserved and hung in front of the whitehouse, i wouldn't get my wish.

uh, meta? some people would, in fact, consider it evil to pull the plug on someone whose living will expressly asked that this not happen.

You also aren't adding in all of the waste. A waste of human happiness must be counted in if one is to end the person's functions (not life, in the description the person is already dead).

And the harm caused by the emotional damage will trickle out into yet more waste.

You must add in all factors. What makes this problem so annoying is that people have bizarre emotional needs that there is no efficient way to satisfy. But those are still their needs, and so it must still be factored in.

I find modernist rationalisasion to be a greater threat to morality than inefficiency.

*rationalisation

Easier read:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/53573/consumerism_and_rationalization_in.html

shimown wrote: People always get this quote wrong. It is "The love of inefficiency is the root of all evil."

You put it well enough: Inefficiency itself is neither good or evil. The idealisation of inefficiency produces results that can be evaluated on a moral scale.

(That same applies for efficiency)