# The Most Villainous Philosophy



## Mindfire (Dec 24, 2012)

How do you go about thinking up your villains? Obviously they need goals and whatnot, but I'm thinking more along the lines of personality and beliefs. How do they think? How do they rationalize their actions? That sort of thing. When it comes to shaping the villain's mind and motivations, what's your favored method? What philosophy best lends itself to villainous behavior?

Personally, I favor objectivism for this purpose, with a dash of materialism/naturalism. In my opinion, this is the ultimate one-two punch of philosophical villainy. Once you believe there is no power greater than yourself and that all other men are nothing but meat, all bets are off morally speaking.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Dec 24, 2012)

I just create characters who have a different point of view. Some may lack scruples and morals, but their goals must make sense from their point of view. They are the hero in their own mind.


----------



## Ireth (Dec 24, 2012)

Fae villains tend to be easy to write -- they never feel the need to justify anything they do. XD Any action they take freely is rationalized by one of two notions: a) "I'm bored and this looks fun/interesting." b) "This will work to my benefit and/or that of my Court." Or both. Needless to say, my human protagonists get pretty ticked off at them for their lack of justification. It's their sheer unpredictability that makes them so dangerous. To most of the Fae, especially the Unseelie, the majority of humans are little more than playthings to be toyed with and then abandoned.


----------



## Graylorne (Dec 24, 2012)

My _Scarfar_ villain is in fact no more than an ordinary Northern jarl under a foolish king, who thinks he can do it better and starts a rebellion. Very historical. He has a bad eye for choosing his personnel, though, and hires a bunch of war shaman who are truly bad and work with their own agendas. They ruin his reputation and turn the land against him.

My _Revenaunt_ villains are the truly depraved 'crazed priest' kind. Vessels full of human vice. They are corrupted by a Goddess who wants the universe destroyed to build her own one instead. She made the villains mad, powerhungry, jealous etc. With the main antagonists I show how they got this way. None of them were nice people to begin with, but I describe their fall.
They rationalize their actions with the thought that everybody is going to be wiped out anyhow (our universe was a terrible mistake), so what does it matter if some die a bit earlier. Ofc every one of them believes the Goddess will save them (singular, not plural), because they're better than all the other fools in their Order.


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 24, 2012)

I've always enjoyed villains who do bad things because they truly believe they are right, just and good.  A difference in matter of perspective if you will. Villains who think they are the good guy are often times the best bad guy!


----------



## Amanita (Dec 24, 2012)

I don't really have a "villainous philosophy" because as far as I'm aware of, most philosophical appraoches can be used to justify both Good and Evil depending on the interpretation. Jeremy Bentham's writings have put me off most, but I have to admit that "Objectivism" doesn't really play a role as a philosophical position on German universities. Therefore my knowledge about it is limited to things I've gathered from the internet which probably aren't too reliable. 
For me, one of the most evil things is considering an entire group of people worthless because of race, poverty, gender etc. Therefore that's why I tend to have my villains do this. I'm avoidung sexist villains though because I'm too emotionally involved in this subject and therefore I don't think I can portray it properly without forcing my opinions on readers. I have societies with different gender roles but I prefer to have good and bad people of both genders coming from all of them. 

My main villainess wants both power and revenge and most importantly doesn't value human life at all. She's not a sadist or anything but she doesn't really have a conscience and doesn't mind killing. 
She especiall hates the main character's people because they tended to persecute magic users and give women little respect. According to her beliefs the men there deserve to die because they're evil anyway and the women are better of dead. Besides that, many of them are very poor and living under bad conditions which leads to "better of dead" as well in her opinion. Therefore she tends to test her weapons and terror plans on them first telling herself that dying for her goals was the best thing that could have happend to them becaus it's given their lifes a purpose. 
She wants revenge against her own nation as well though because she's been treated badly by their security or so she thinks. (Actually because she wasn't obeying orders during a war she was involved with and caused severe trouble for her people through this behavior. She still doesn't grasp that though.)
She manages to seize power in a corrupt country and doesn't mind ordering terrorist attacks against another nation either though because the people she's in charge of now want revenge against them for past wrongs. 
She does not kill her own supporters for small mistakes and she's also making a serious effort to improve the living conditions of the people she's in charge of. That's mainly for selfish reasons but I hope to show that way that people do have a reason to support her. Something which is missing in case of many fantasy villains.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 24, 2012)

Well I usually make my villains at least in part right. I try to make it if the reader were put into the same circumstances the path the villain takes would be a legitimate and honest choice. This makes rationalizing a lot easier. I make my villains conscious what they're doing may be considered evil but they do it anyway, because they believe they're right. Each evil deed is weighed and chosen, but understandable. They don't do anything cruel, but only what's necessary in their eyes to achieve their goals.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Dec 24, 2012)

I tend to approach villains as a combination of ambition, narcissism and lack of empathy for others. I like my villains to have standards, so they are often honorable to some degree, rarely cruel for no reason (though they may be cruel for specific reasons) and usually rather proud. I tend to strive to make them entertaining and in some way respectable.

I wouldn't go as far as say they consider themselves heroes, but they will have some grand ambition that they want to achieve and do not particularly care about anything or anyone else else. 



Xaysai said:


> I've always enjoyed villains who do bad things because they truly believe they are right, just and good.  A difference in matter of perspective if you will. Villains who think they are the good guy are often times the best bad guy!



One of my all-time favourite bad guys is Tai-Lung from Kung Fu Panda, because he _literally _considers himself the hero of the story. Not just the hero of _his own_ story, but the hero of the story _period_. And the great thing is that you can look at his backstory and character arc in a three act narrative structure - the first act was him growing up an learning how to fight, the second act was his years in prison, and the movie is the third and final act where he makes is great comeback.  So from his perspective, he is literally living through this epic tale about himself.

Note that he doesn't necessarily consider himself a _good guy_, because he doesn't consider being "good" to have anything to do with it. He's simply the protagonist, and anyone standing in his way are antagonists. He believes the world already owes him a great destiny, so naturally he doesn't feel he needs to be a better person.

I don't think a villain needs to consider his actions to be _good_, as long as he can justify them in some way: "I _deserve_ to succeed in my ambitions. My enemies _deserve _to be destroyed."


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 24, 2012)

I'm a hardcore Utilitarian, so naturally I loved _Bioshock_. Evil Objectivists? Makes sense! Then along came _Bioshock 2_, a game about evil Utilitarians, and even if it wasn't quite as well-written, its villains made just as much sense.

I think everyone has something to gain from, at least as an experiment, writing one story in which their own philosophy forms the basis for the villain's ideas. But from there, branch out to write about whatever sort of villains you want. Fanaticism comes in infinite varieties.

(Just please don't write an entire society of people who're evil for no other reason than to be evil, and who can therefore be slaughtered en masse without guilt. Please.)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Dec 24, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Well I usually make my villains at least in part right. I try to make it if the reader were put into the same circumstances the path the villain takes would be a legitimate and honest choice.



I personally don't like my villains actions being determined by their immidiate circumstances, because usually my villains are the ones forcing the circumstances in the first place. I don't think I could write my villains reacting like normal people in extreme circumstances, because the fact that they are not at all "normal" is what makes them villains in the first place.

Rather, my approach is to ask myself: "If I was immensely powerful, had a goal I prioritized higher than anything, and didn't consider other people to be important... how would I act?"

I had this one villain who's entire motivation was that he couldn't experience human emotion. This was not, I should stress, what made him evil - he could still be a good person in a purely intellectual sense. Rather, his desire to understand what an "emotion" is was the reason he became a villain, and being "evil" by normal person standards was just more beneficial for that endevour.


----------



## Rullenzar (Dec 24, 2012)

When I create my villains I start by making what happened to them. Most heroes are shaped by the lives they have led and experienced and so, the same concept can be applied to villains. The questions that need to be asked when making villains IMO are; What type of life did they lead? 
Who/What did they lose? 
How would they intersect with your MC? 
Do they have pshycological trauma? 
Do they have a powerful standing?
Has their standing in society corrupted them?
Do they have morals? Have these morals been twisted? Why have these morals been twisted?
Why do they believe their way is more sound?

The list goes on but, answering just a couple of these and putting them together can start to shape personality and beliefs.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 25, 2012)

I agree with those who say you can make a convincing villain, or good guy, using any philosophy. Utilitarianism can be used to justify great evil. I think it is in some ways easiest to use Utilitarianism as a root for an evil philosophy because it ultimately disregards the autonomy of the individual and uses human beings as a means to an end. Objectivism isn't inherently evil, in fact I don't think it lends itself to evil very well unless you mischaracterize it. Objectivism doesn't allow for the subjugation or mistreatment of individuals because it is meant to elevate ideals of justice, integrity, honesty and so on. In other words, if you want to make a truly villainous objectivist character, he won't be really be an objectivist any more, at least not as Rand would have defined once, and since she created the philosophy I'll go with her statements of the philosophy as a guide. The evils she left behind in Russia were justified along utilitarian lines.

To present a hypothetical, suppose a villain had arranged for 1000 people to die and would only stop the killing if the MC executed an innocent child. For purposes of the hypothetical, assume that if the child dies the 1000 people will be saved, and if the child does not die the 1000 people will not. The objectivist MC cannot execute the child. Under a utilitarian approach, the answer, arguably, is to execute 1 to save 1000.

Regardless of which philosophy you subscribe to, if you approach it with a ham-fisted attempt to villainize an opposing philosophy with a broad brush I think readers are likely to see through it. The villainous characters in such stories quickly become caricatures, and that's not good for the story.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 25, 2012)

Actually, I think the objectivist response would be, "Kill the lot of them. Why should I care?"


----------



## Wanara009 (Dec 25, 2012)

My stories don't have true 'villains' because I don't believe "Good vs. Evil" (I personally believe in the philosophy of "Knowledge vs Ignorance" and "Balance between Order and Chaos"). Rather, the antagonists in my stories are people who had the goal that interferes/work against the goal of the protagonist. When I do create villains, I want them to always have sympathetic  side ala Genghis Khan (Genghis genuinely cared for his people and wanted them to live in the best condition, but he looked down on anyone else with utter disdain).

Example: The main antagonist of my current story "The Warrior and The Healer" is the king of a nation facing a social turmoil that might lead to a revolution that will certainly end in a bloody regicide. The protagonist is working to actually make the revolution happens so the country will be weakened and more susceptible to outside interference from the protagonist's home kingdom. The protagonist doesn't see that he's doing anything wrong because he is blindly loyal his country while the antagonist is simply defending the stability of his nation (and also his and his family's life).


----------



## Shockley (Dec 25, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Actually, I think the objectivist response would be, "Kill the lot of them. Why should I care?"



 Not that I have any drive to defend the Objectivists, but by-the-book (that book being anything Ayn Rand wrote, naturally) Objectivists tend to define themselves as pacifists. Rand could relish in killing off a character in a book, but she was very strictly non-violent in real world situations and even opposed American entry into World War II after Pearl Harbor. 

 That said, in my honest opinion, I don't think sincere contemplation on morals, ethics, etc. can result in someone becoming truly evil. I really buy into the idea that evil is fundamentally an error, really nothing more than an absence of the good and knowledge of the good. In much the same way I don't buy that evil, with a strict definition, can exist in humanity. We do bad things - very bad things - but I'm not willing to condemn anyone as evil - just in a state of error.

 There are some people (Hitler, por ejemplo) who are so bad that we could define it as a human evil, but I still think it boils down to an error (a racial theory common for the time mixed with industrialized killing techniques) that could have been corrected. I think had even someone like Hitler devoted time to studying ethics, morals (in essence, philosophy) he would have had no trouble coming to many of the same conclusions about morality and ethics that 99% of people do when they ask these questions in a serious, thoughtful manner.

 So in my mind, the most villainous ideology is a non-philosophical or anti-philosophical movement. Rabble rousing, appeal to the basest instincts of humanity, etc. Or, to use a simpler term, politics.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 25, 2012)

Shockley said:


> Not that I have any drive to defend the Objectivists, but by-the-book (that book being anything Ayn Rand wrote, naturally) Objectivists tend to define themselves as pacifists.



Right, so passively allowing people to die from, say, starvation is okay, but killing them is a no-no. Please. This is just primeval barbarism with a thin veneer or dishonesty to make it palatable.

And that's what makes objectivism, or rather objectivism's ultimate logical implications if we must be technical, such a great villain-creator. Once someone is willing to sell out the world for their own selfish whims, while simultaneously viewing others as weaklings and moochers, the stage has been set for some spectacular feats of villainy. And while Rand may not have _intended_ her philosophy to be used this way, in reality, that's how it _would_ be used if anyone actually tried to practice it consistently. (Or as consistent as humans have the capacity to be.) I have lurked on objectivist boards and seen some astounding comments. I know this to be true.


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 25, 2012)

I believe most, possibly all, evil in the world stems either from selfishness or an inflated sense of personal superiority over certain others. Actually the former could be considered an outgrowth of the latter, since selfish people consider their own wants and needs "superior" to those of everyone else. Anyway, a lot of evil behavior would never come to pass without dehumanizing the victims as less worthy individuals who don't deserve the same rights as their oppressors. Dehumanization provides rationalization for evil actions. I don't mean to say that _any_ sense of self-worth is inherently evil, but too much of it explains a lot of evil.

The main villain I am writing right now is the sort of rich and powerful individual who resents having to share some of his wealth with the more destitute, working-class members of society in a time of economic crisis. He accuses the heroine (the ruler of the country) of tyranny when he is in fact the less compassionate and altruistic character in the equation and fails to see that he owes his own privilege to the working class's economic support in the first place.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 25, 2012)

Mindfire:

You don't understand Objectivism. There's probably not a single villain in fantasy literature that would be an Objectivist, because it would be extremely difficult to do. If you called your villain an Objectivist the educated reader would realize quickly that you failed to do your homework.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be used to justify a great deal of evil because the justification comes down to how you frame the cost versus benefit. In the hypothetical I posted above, a Utilitarian might go either way and have a Utilitarian justification for it. For an Objectivist, there is only one answer - they can't execute the child.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 25, 2012)

Shockley said:


> Not that I have any drive to defend the Objectivists, but by-the-book (that book being anything Ayn Rand wrote, naturally) Objectivists tend to define themselves as pacifists. Rand could relish in killing off a character in a book, but she was very strictly non-violent in real world situations and even opposed American entry into World War II after Pearl Harbor.



The only guy I know personally who is essentially a practicing pacifist is an Objectivist. And a good guy, I might add. He contributes more time and money to charity than just about anyone else I know. I believe he adheres to Rand's own view regarding the use of force, which is (in her own words about Objectivism):

" It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. "


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 25, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> And while Rand may not have _intended_ her philosophy to be used this way, in reality, that's how it _would_ be used if anyone actually tried to practice it consistently.



This is nonsense. As I said above, I know someone personally who practices the philosophy, and since he doesn't approach it that way at all, your statement is demonstrably false. If you're taken in by comments on an internet message board, then I say again that you haven't done your homework and an educated reader would see that. If you are going to utilize a philosophy as a source of evil in your writing you ought to at least understand it first. I've seen comments by self-proclaimed Christians that are pretty hateful and/or "astounding," but I have enough knowledge not to confuse their sentiment with the actual teachings of Christianity.


----------



## Ankari (Dec 25, 2012)

I think the definition of *evil* can be boiled down to _the denial of survival._  Survival is intentionally broad because it encompasses everything by which one identifies itself at a certain point in time, including their life.  With that being said, every philosophy can be considered _evil_ if you are on the other side of the fence.  Take any world organization, which includes governments, and you'll have someone proclaiming it to be evil.

That is why I never bought into the champion of good vanquishing the avatar of evil.  The champion ends up slaying the avatar, which is a denial to the avatar's survival.  If that avatar belonged to a group or a society of people, they may consider the champion's act a threat, a source of potential evil that must be crushed to survive.

What I try to do in my writings, is create people with opposing motives and goals.  Look at the conflict through one lens, the _other_ is considered evil.  Look at it through the other lens, and the understanding is flipped.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 25, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Mindfire:
> 
> You don't understand Objectivism. There's probably not a single villain in fantasy literature that would be an Objectivist, because it would be extremely difficult to do. If you called your villain an Objectivist the educated reader would realize quickly that you failed to do your homework.
> 
> Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be used to justify a great deal of evil because the justification comes down to how you frame the cost versus benefit. In the hypothetical I posted above, a Utilitarian might go either way and have a Utilitarian justification for it. For an Objectivist, there is only one answer - they can't execute the child.



Pretty much any philosophy can be used to back up evil actions if you twist it hard enough. Objectivism just so happens to be my "unfavorite" because a philosophy that praises selfishness and rejects the notion of honorable sacrifice, or that there can be anything greater than the self is abhorrent from my perspective. Mind you, I'm not on a soapbox for utilitarianism, collectivism, or whatever you might consider to be objectivism's opposite. I just have a deep-seated dislike for Rand's work.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 25, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> This is nonsense. As I said above, I know someone personally who practices the philosophy, and since he doesn't approach it that way at all, your statement is demonstrably false. If you're taken in by comments on an internet message board, then I say again that you haven't done your homework and an educated reader would see that. If you are going to utilize a philosophy as a source of evil in your writing you ought to at least understand it first. I've seen comments by self-proclaimed Christians that are pretty hateful and/or "astounding," but I have enough knowledge not to confuse their sentiment with the actual teachings of Christianity.



Alright, this is a fair point I grant you. Discarding the internet forum comments, objectivism still doesn't look exactly saintly. Take Rand's flagship work: Atlas Shrugged. Now, I must say upfront I haven't read it. So tell me if I misunderstand the premise: some guy resents that a portion of the proceeds from his marvelous invention should go to charity, so he throws a petty tantrum, destroys his invention, and then convinces all the world's geniuses to go on strike so that society will collapse and realize how much it needs them. When said societal collapse happens, he puts out a radio broadcast to gloat to all the people whose lives he's wrecked and tell them how much they all deserve to die.

Yeah, that's not villainous at all. Or is there something REALLY big that I'm missing here?

Also, I read some of Rand's comments on C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man. They weren't so much commentary as bitter, snarky remarks and I had to stop after a page or two because I couldn't take the unrelenting nastiness.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 25, 2012)

I'm not a particular fan of Objectivism either, or of any of Rand's work (excepting Anthem, which is solid), but that's really not the plot line of Atlas Shrugged. 

 Spoiler City: Taggert Rail has the fastest train in the world, the Taggert Comet. Hank Rearden invents a new kind of metal that is cheaper and easier to produce, threatening steel and iron industries around the United States. Also, there's a pirate. At roughly this time, the government begins to organize along vaguely Marxist lines, so a number of companies begin to self-implode, their CEOs go missing, etc. Turns out they are living secretly in Colorado under the leadership of John Galt, who is basically Super-Capitalist. 

 That's it, really.

 The issue with Objectivism is that it's fundamental principle is basically correct - society is more efficient if every man looks out for himself and has no violent inclinations to oppress others. That said, Rand is so out of sync with what society is that she could never really understand society versus government, what motivates humanity, the real solutions to the problems she witnessed, etc. 

 An interesting side-note is that Leonard Peikoff, the guy who did a lot of the work in formalizing and updating Objectivism, has been very involved in American politics. He has generally aligned with such hardcore laissez-faire capitalist forces (sarcasm) as John Kerry and Barack Obama.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 25, 2012)

Shockley said:


> I'm not a particular fan of Objectivism either, or of any of Rand's work (excepting Anthem, which is solid), but that's really not the plot line of Atlas Shrugged.
> 
> Spoiler City: Taggert Rail has the fastest train in the world, the Taggert Comet. Hank Rearden invents a new kind of metal that is cheaper and easier to produce, threatening steel and iron industries around the United States. Also, there's a pirate. At roughly this time, the government begins to organize along vaguely Marxist lines, so a number of companies begin to self-implode, their CEOs go missing, etc. Turns out they are living secretly in Colorado under the leadership of John Galt, who is basically Super-Capitalist.
> 
> ...



Can John Galt's plan not be summarized as "abandon the world, laugh as they suffer?"


----------



## Grimbold (Dec 25, 2012)

My villains evolve as much as my characters, so i try to never start a story before i have planned a villains whole backstory and life (at least the key points).
The villain is a driving force, so you must know him inside out, and in "creating" the villain, his motives might change. I find the best villains to just be someone who isnt the heros.

The whole "I want to rule everyone and kill who appose me" is outdone and old. I think the best villains are the ones where in another story or another life, then they could be the good guys.

Secondary thought: If not another life, then if the hero's didn't win. (without being the man to bring Hitler into an internet forum ...) If the Axis won WW2, the men who started wouldnt be abhored as they are. History favours the victor, and i think it should be the same for any villain


----------



## Phietadix (Dec 25, 2012)

I am tring to stay away from Villians, There is no antaganist in my first book, just man against nature, most of the others will be proabably be the same or fighting Political Enemies


----------



## Shockley (Dec 25, 2012)

> Can John Galt's plan not be summarized as "abandon the world, laugh as they suffer?"



 No? Ayn Rand as the narrator kind of gloats over some people's death, but that's never a sentiment expressed within the work itself by any character, Galt or otherwise. 

 I hate to suggest that anyone read Atlas Shrugged because it's only faux-philosophical and not that fun of a read, but if you're going to make sweeping statements about what it preaches and what objectivism means, you should at least familiarize yourself with the philosophy. As much as I stand opposed to objectivism on philosophical grounds (I am fundamentally a positivist), let me throw out a few Rand quotes that shed some light on the positive aspects of Objectivism:

 "A crime is the violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others- i.e., the recourse to violence- that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime- and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime."

 "What is greatness? I will answer: it is the capacity to live by the three fundamental values of John Galt: reason, purpose, self-esteem."

 "Let no man posture as an advocate of peace if he proposes or supports any social system that initiates the use of force against individual men, in any form."

 "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."

 "Remember also that the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."


 Her general philosophy, while it definitely focuses on self-interest, is no less repugnant than many of the other philosophical systems (and religious systems) that have come into existence since the dawn of time. She's out there on economics, I grant you, but on the big questions - human dignity, peaceful interaction, reason, etc. she was mostly right.


----------



## MadMadys (Dec 26, 2012)

I love two types of villain types.

The first is the one you can agree with.  Their methods often are by the credo 'the ends justify the means' and see their actions as necessary for a greater good.  While the reader's initial reaction is almost always one of disgust, if they take a moment to step back they might realize that the 'bad guy' is not too far off from being a 'good guy'.  I think this makes the villain more appealing and engaging when compared to a Snidely Whiplash.

Second, is the villain within.  No, I'm not talking about the burrito the protagonist had 5 hours ago, but the failings of a character that lead to their own downfall.  A lot like _Macbeth_ where the character has only themselves to blame and either comes to terms with that or suffers an ill fate.  Again, I see this as more realistic and therefore more intriguing.  So instead of the book being about overcoming a particular person looking to blow up an orphanage, it's about self-destruction or the prevention of that.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Alright, this is a fair point I grant you. Discarding the internet forum comments, objectivism still doesn't look exactly saintly. Take Rand's flagship work: Atlas Shrugged. Now, I must say upfront I haven't read it. So tell me if I misunderstand the premise: some guy resents that a portion of the proceeds from his marvelous invention should go to charity, so he throws a petty tantrum, destroys his invention, and then convinces all the world's geniuses to go on strike so that society will collapse and realize how much it needs them. When said societal collapse happens, he puts out a radio broadcast to gloat to all the people whose lives he's wrecked and tell them how much they all deserve to die.



LOL. This is a great example of why you should have read a work, or understand a philosophy, before commenting on it.

If you think you can write an Objectivist fantasy villain, I'd be interested in seeing the final product. If the villain initiates force against anyone, he's not an Objectivist, and so that rules out the fantasy villains I've seen. I'm not saying it can't be done - anything can be done. But making an Objectivist villain seems to me to be one of the more difficult ones.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> LOL. This is a great example of why you should have read a work, or understand a philosophy, before commenting on it.
> 
> If you think you can write an Objectivist fantasy villain, I'd be interested in seeing the final product. If the villain initiates force against anyone, he's not an Objectivist, and so that rules out the fantasy villains I've seen. I'm not saying it can't be done - anything can be done. But making an Objectivist villain seems to me to be one of the more difficult ones.



Perhaps not objectivism as a whole, but its self-centered axioms can be reasonably vilified. You could even make the case for an objectivist villain who does use force by having him use the rationale that his enemies are violating his rights simply by _existing,_ and thus the use of force is justifiable.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Perhaps not objectivism as a whole, but its self-centered axioms can be reasonably vilified. You could even make the case for an objectivist villain who does use force by having him use the rationale that his enemies are violating his rights simply by _existing,_ and thus the use of force is justifiable.



No you can't, because that runs contrary to the very ideas of Objectivism. You can do that and call it an Objectivist villain, but anyone with knowledge of the subject will just think you haven't done your homework. Calling an apple and orange doesn't make it one.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> No you can't, because that runs contrary to the very ideas of Objectivism. You can do that and call it an Objectivist villain, but anyone with knowledge of the subject will just think you haven't done your homework. Calling an apple and orange doesn't make it one.



There are villains out there whose philosophy and methods vaguely line up with objectivism, minus the nonviolence part, which is usually the first part of any philosophy to be abandoned for the sake of convenience. Prime example: Lex Luthor. There are even those who paint Syndrome from the Incredibles as vaguely objectivist while painting the Incredibles themselves as anti-objectivism (that part I don't really understand).

Here's what I'm thinking: objectivism is essentially anti-altruism right? So all one has to do to make an objectivist villain (he will be a huge hypocrite, but what villain isn't?) is make them anti-altruism and pro-selfishness.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 26, 2012)

Actually, scratch what I said about Luthor and Syndrome. Couldn't Ebeneezer Scrooge (pre-redemption) be considered to be living out essentially objectivist principles?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 26, 2012)

The non-violence part is a key part. Without it, it isn't Objectivism. 

Objectivism is not anti-altruism, as I understand it from my friend. It is anti-force, and so it is against the "forced" altruism (which isn't really altruism). The one true Objectivist guy I know probably gives more to charity and needy people, both in time and money, than any of us in this forum.

You seem to have a lot of prejudices with respect to Objectivism, and like with most prejudices they don't hold up very well. I don't consider myself an Objectivist, and I think I have good reasons for it (which I've argued ad nauseum with my friend), but your view of the philosophy seems to be founded in a series of misunderstandings.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Actually, scratch what I said about Luthor and Syndrome. Couldn't Ebeneezer Scrooge (pre-redemption) be considered to be living out essentially objectivist principles?



I'm thinking about this. I don't think he is, but I'm going to ponder it a bit. I probably don't know Rand well enough to say. My understanding is that she wrote against this kind of person - the hoarder of loot. I don't know that he'd be a good example of an Objectivist villain. Of course, I don't know that he's a good example of a villain of any sort.

EDIT: Having thought on it some more, I don't see Scrooge as a "villain" at any point in the story.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I'm thinking about this. I don't think he is, but I'm going to ponder it a bit. I probably don't know Rand well enough to say. My understanding is that she wrote against this kind of person - the hoarder of loot. I don't know that he'd be a good example of an Objectivist villain. Of course, I don't know that he's a good example of a villain of any sort.
> 
> EDIT: Having thought on it some more, I don't see Scrooge as a "villain" at any point in the story.



What disqualifies him from villainy?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> What disqualifies him from villainy?



What makes him a villain? He's the protagonist. He's a sad character who is living a miserable existence because he isn't able to appreciate the simple pleasures in life. He doesn't have a fulfilling love life or family life, no friends. He learns to appreciate these things as the story progresses, but he's no real villain at any point in my mind. Unless you have a real broad definition of villain to include anyone unlikeable.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 26, 2012)

It's not anti-altruism so much as the promotion of self-interest, and not so much self-interest as reason. That's a rough variation on an actual Ayn Rand quote, for what it's worth.

 Rand didn't value wealth for the sake of wealth, but wealth because it exemplified the spirit of productivity and creation. Much in the same way she didn't really appreciate competition, but saw it as th natural development of people being productive in the same field. Scrooge can't really be defined as Objectivist because the self-interest/capitalist aspect of Objectivism is just one aspect. It's very big on (what Ayn Rand-defined as) reason, pacifism, individual rights, etc. 

 Let me put it another way - the Libertarian movement in the US has a lot of overlap with the Objectivist ideology when it comes to economics. That said, Ayn Rand considered the Libertarians to be her enemy and refused to collaborate with them because the actual philosophy that motivated them was so different from hers (Rand was neither liberal nor conservative, and probably couldn't be mapped on the political spectrum). 

 Just for another example: The best example of an non-pacifist objectivist (which again is a contradiction in terms) in all of popular culture is Rorschach in Watchmen. Notice that when he does kill/harm someone, they've already committed some act of violence and he does very little exploitation.

 As for Scrooge, Scrooge has two points that make him very non-Objectivist. One, his obsession with the woman that he used to love - one of the core ideals of Objectivism is to not live for anyone else. The second is his treatment of his employees - he can pursue wealth, yes, but he shouldn't be doing so at the expense of Cratchit.

 I can't believe I'm actually defending Objectivism. >_>


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 26, 2012)

There you go. Shockley has a much better grasp of this than I do. I read some of Rand's work years ago, but much of my current understanding of Objectivism comes from my friend who has tried to convert me to the cause numerous times.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 26, 2012)

But isn't the usual objectivist opinion of the Scrooge/Cratchit relationship simply that Cratchit is lazy and irresponsible and therefore deserves the low wage he is being paid?


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 26, 2012)

Regardless, I think I've come to realize that "objectivism" isn't the right name for what my villain personifies. Perhaps what I've been searching for is "Machiavellianism" or "Nietzsche-ism"?

(That last one's not a word. Sue me.)


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 26, 2012)

I know next to nothing about Objectivism as preached by Ayn Rand, so I don't consider myself qualified to comment on it. I do dislike "libertarian" capitalism, which people stereotypically associate with Objectivism, but that's more to do with my general dislike for capitalism than anything particular to Objectivist philosophy.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 26, 2012)

> But isn't the usual objectivist opinion of the Scrooge/Cratchit relationship simply that Cratchit is lazy and irresponsible and therefore deserves the low wage he is being paid?



 No. If you want a full Objectivist analysis of the relationship, Cratchit is making a fundamental mistake by subjecting himself to Scrooge. 



> Regardless, I think I've come to realize that "objectivism" isn't the right name for what my villain personifies. Perhaps what I've been searching for is "Machiavellianism" or "Nietzsche-ism"?



 The only major differences between what what Nietzsche taught and what Ayn Rand taught boil down to differences on religion (while anti-Christian, Nietzsche seemed to believe in a god; Rand did not) and the role of reason (Nietzsche has been described as anti-reason; Rand saw reason as the driving force in life). If you break down what they actually believed, taught, etc. they're still fairly similar. Rand, like Nietzsche, focused quite a bit on the idea of living a 'full' live - for Rand that was productivity, for Nietzsche it was the shedding of habits and beliefs that he saw as life-denying. 

 You have to be careful with Nietzsche because it's always very easy to look at what he wrote and interpret it in a very negative way and in a very positive way. For example, Nietzsche self-described as an 'immoralist' and rejected the very idea of morality - which on the surface looks very bad and worthy of condemnation. His actual stance, below the terms, was that the moralities of the 19th century - primarily Christianity and Utilitarianism - were failed moralities that were destroying the human spirit. This is actually where most of the accusations of anti-semitism come from, because he rejects the entire Judaic ethics system and even the dichotomy of good-evil. But he still had a very clear moral system, and one that was relatively advanced compared to what was being advocated for at the time. 

 It's important to remember that for all of the bad press he gets, Nietzsche once broke down crying at the sight of a wounded horse. 

 As for Machiavelli, it's important to distinguish between what the Prince was and what Machiavelli actually believed. Machiavelli, personally, was a republican who supported a more open system than what was common at the time. The Prince was more of an analysis of tactics and methods that rulers had used in times previous to the one he lived in and to explain his time. That's why he's considered the first political science - he's stating the state of things without concern for political leanings.

 ---

 I think you might be putting too much stress on philosophy, since no philosophy can really be evil as it is little more than a method for understanding the world around you. An evil person can have objectivist trappings, Nietzschean trappings, etc. and still not be a real advocate for the actual philosophy, just as one could have the trappings of Platonism, Positivism, Epicureanism, etc. and do evil.

 But I think - and this is fundamental - that a very particular kind of person goes out looking for a philosophy to describe their life and their values (a philosopher, if you would). The person who takes that time, who makes that conscious decision to define life - I don't think they can ever be evil. I think they can be in error (massive errors, even) but I think they are beyond the concept of evil and, much like Nietzsche, I don't really buy into the idea of evil.



> I know next to nothing about Objectivism as preached by Ayn Rand, so I don't consider myself qualified to comment on it. I do dislike "libertarian" capitalism, which people stereotypically associate with Objectivism, but that's more to do with my general dislike for capitalism than anything particular to Objectivist philosophy.



 Rand had a special hatred for libertarians, actually. It's one of the more interesting ideological feuds.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 26, 2012)

Jabrosky: I actually took a second to look up some of Rand's comments on the Libertarians:

"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."

"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement."

"They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas."

"Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism."

"But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them."

 So yeah, those are just a handful of examples of about twenty years worth of some serious Libertarian hatred from Rand.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 27, 2012)

Well maybe there just _isn't_ a word for what I'm trying to describe and what my villains so often exhibit: that grasping, egotistical, callous, maleficent spirit that sees in other human beings nothing more than tools for constructing or fuel for sustaining the the great machine of ambition and war. The spirit that motivates a man to "save humanity" by destroying it.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 27, 2012)

Well, there is a word - 'evil.' 

 I just don't think there's ever been a philosopher who advocated for that.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 27, 2012)

Shockley said:


> Well, there is a word - 'evil.'
> 
> I just don't think there's ever been a philosopher who advocated for that.



El Diablo?

And well, while that attitude is evil, what I'm looking for is a word to describe what _flavor_ of evil it is. Which in retrospect is probably a better description for what I intended this thread to be about: "evil flavors". There's something of a difference, at least in the story that results, between the evil propagated by a fascist and an anarchist for example.


----------



## wordwalker (Dec 27, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> while that attitude is evil, what I'm looking for is a word to describe what _flavor_ of evil it is. Which in retrospect is probably a better description for what I intended this thread to be about: "evil flavors". There's something of a difference, at least in the story that results, between the evil propagated by a fascist and an anarchist for example.



Evil can be *anything*, because it isn't *a* motivation, it's any human desire when it becomes unbalanced and pushes a person to start making trouble. You might as well talk about a unified "force of dangerousness" --and of course, the two are almost the same thing, except the one needs a moral component.

That said, evil (like danger) still has its more "usual suspects." Greed, revenge, maybe a drive to promote your own people or "improve the world" --if it overwhelms their compassion enough. Anything that pushes people over the line, from whatever angle.


----------



## wordwalker (Dec 27, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Well maybe there just _isn't_ a word for what I'm trying to describe and what my villains so often exhibit: that grasping, egotistical, callous, maleficent spirit that sees in other human beings nothing more than tools for constructing or fuel for sustaining the the great machine of ambition and war. The spirit that motivates a man to "save humanity" by destroying it.



Sounds like a fusion of a couple of things, though of course they do tend to feed on each other. Pure ambition, or maybe fanaticism about a "worthy" cause, along with callousness or lack of empathy (megalomania?) and maybe cruelty for its own sake to tighten the screws.


----------



## Rullenzar (Dec 27, 2012)

In the long wrong it really doesn't matter what you choose as long as you have fun doing it. If you enjoy how you write your villain it will show on the pages and make for a great read.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 27, 2012)

Shockley said:


> I think you might be putting too much stress on philosophy, since no philosophy can really be evil as it is little more than a method for understanding the world around you. An evil person can have objectivist trappings, Nietzschean trappings, etc. and still not be a real advocate for the actual philosophy, just as one could have the trappings of Platonism, Positivism, Epicureanism, etc. and do evil.



I think this is something more authors would do well to remember. I don't mind a book that is meant to support a specific viewpoint, politically, philosophically, or otherwise. I'll read it (if it is a good book), whether I agree with the position the author is taking or not. But when you get into the situation where you believe some social, moral, or political philosophy is inherently evil and all those who adhere to it have to be evil, then you aren't dealing with real characters anymore, but with caricatures. It doesn't matter if your evil characters are all liberals, all conservatives, all Christian, all atheist, all Objectivists, all Socialists, or what have you. The story becomes very transparent and clumsy at that point, and readers are right to toss the book into the trash and move on to something else.


----------

