Well-Armed Means Guilty

It is often said that the good must have claws, to fight against the evil, and the better the good is armed, the less chances for evil to widely spread. This view implies a number of strong statements that do not seem reasonable at all.

First, it is assumed that there is an absolute distinction of the good and evil, and it is enough to suppress evil to get more good. This is obviously wrong, since the distinction of good and evil is ideologically saturated, changing from one historical period to another. Consequently, one can easily take evil for good and good for evil, and hence be never sure what to suppress. Moreover, the same deed can combine good and evil aspects, and it is only in the further historical development that one of the sides will dominate. Good and evil are the two sides of the same, and one cannot eliminate one without eliminating the other.

Second, the very act of suppression of the opposite is itself violence, which is always in danger of turning against its source. Violence can produce nothing but more violence, unless it is controlled by a much more powerful constructive force. However, such force cannot act in the interests of one group against another group; otherwise it will destroy the very basis of sociality, and cease to be constructive.

The idea of struggling for survival is not at all a human idea. It refers to the people's animal origin, and the cruel laws of biological evolution, which have nothing to do with humanism and reason. While you're struggling, you're an animal. Once you stop fighting and start producing universally useful things, you're a conscious being.

Psychologically, the better one is armed, the more one is tempted to exercise one's power. Having a gun is dangerous, since the gun will shoot sooner or later, albeit unintentionally. Learning martial arts makes one feel better protected, which provokes voluntary acts incompatible with reason. Inventing a new weapon makes its owner forget about the interests of those who do not have an adequate defense.

I do not say that one should deny any necessity of struggle and defense. I only say that each instance of fighting, however motivated and objectively grounded, is a manifestation of the rudiments of the animal in humans, and it must be under severe conscious control until it can be entirely eliminated. One cannot remain clean living in the dirt but one can at least try to reduce the quantity of dirt. And the most appropriate for a conscious being would be to strive for a world order that would not demand any struggle, and all the human creativity is to be directed to that supreme goal.