I initially wondered whether Montana's environmental problems and polarizing disputes might involve selfish behavior on the part of individuals who advanced their own interests in full knowledge that they were simultaneously damaging the rest of Montana society. That may be true in some cases...[but] whenever I have actually been able to talk with Montanans, I have found their actions to be consistent with their values, even if those values clash with my own or those of other Montanans. That is, for the most part Montana's difficulties cannot be simplistically attributed to selfish[,] evil people knowingly and reprehensibly profiting at the expense of neighbors. Instead, they involve clashes between people whose own particular backgrounds and values cause them to favor policies differing from those favored by people with different backgrounds and values.
But what do you mean by the word 'evil', Mr. Diamond, if not acting according to values which clash with yours? And what do you mean by 'selfishness', if not a person's acting in accordance with his own values regardless of what others value?
This over-tolerant and muddled thinking would seem to deny the possibility of any true evil or selfishness. And there seems to be some vague idea here that not being a hypocrite, in other words, acting in accordance with one's values, equals virtue. Or even that having values at all guarantees that a person is not evil.
The standard is not that low--everyone has values, and I would even say everyone acts in accordance with them (those who seem hypocritical are acting in accordance with what they really value, rather than what they claim to value.) But very few are virtuous or even well-intentioned.
Also, has anyone else noticed how very badly edited all this guy's books are?
