"Yes it was understood from your first post, that you think it is ok to force people to act according to how you would like them to. By determining that 'someone' should set such standards, you are stating that some group or gang should have power over the lives of individuals by way of force."
That's the purpose behind government and organization at all levels, down to the family... It is part of who we are.
Are you an anarchist?
You tend to oversimplify things by taking them to an extreme. Laws are maintained through force, technically, but that doesn't make setting a minimum standard evil.
"Again back to the social subjectivism: "if it is willed to be by 'the people,' it will be.""
It's also the idea behind democracy. Go figure.
"No it doesn't depend on how you "look at life." A is A, existence exists; it doesn't depend on how you look at it - that does not change reality, it is called the law of identity, it is the base principle of logic, learn it some time."
A is A but what is A?
It depends on how you abstract it. Every human is a human. Every human is a collection of atoms. Every atom is an atom.
"Devotion to the good of others is not a rational foundation for one's philosophy: there is always another mouth to feed other than your own, another desire to satisfy, someone else's "good" to be devoted to, another sacrifice to make."
So, it is evil to feed the mouths of others if it is at your expense, but it is good to let them starve, if it is not at your expense?
That's pretty stupid.
"Sacrifice means taking a lesser value over a greater value; there is nothing moral about that, and a rational mind would not accept such a deal - so force must be used."
But sacrifice requires great effort and compassion. Not sacrificing something might require less effort and compassion. If compassion is important to your moral code, then sacrifice is rational.
"No, irrationality is not "vital to our identity." Identity is non-contradictory, a thing is itself (A is A). You have failed throughout your post to back up what you've proclaimed, but have simply stated 'it is' without stating why; you cannot back up what you say, because your argument is contradictory, i.e. wrong. Also, you seem to have a serious issue with using "we" or "our" when stating your own position, who are you referring to exactly?"
I don't need to clarify who "we" and "our" refer to.
At a certain level, we are irrational in our thinking. It's an abstract concept.
If you're stranded on an island with a weaker companion, but there is no alternate food source, would you kill your companion? Seems pretty rational does it? Very selfish (which, by your definition, is good.) Would it be irrational not to do so? By your thinking, yes. But in my thinking, it would be good, not evil.
Things become more rational as you go deeper down, but with abstraction, things can seem irrational, but yet serve a function.
"Not peachy-keen? It was worse in Europe than it has ever been there in recorded history. The middle ages did not set the stage for (other than that they came before) the Renaissance, Saint Thomas Aquinas (thanks to Aristotle) and other philosophers did."
Europe was largely the same even prior to the middle ages. During antiquity, what do you think was happening outside of what we normally call the "civilized world" in the deep dark forests of Europe? Even prior to Christianity, common folks in much of pagan Europe lived in a world of despair.
The middle ages spawned nations, and brought different people into communication with each other.
I'm sure the common man still had some fun in his life time, and could feel good. Faith may have been a significant part of the life of the common man in those times, and some people are capable of being extremely happy in the darkest of situations through faith alone. Wether their faith is true or not is unknown (is it rational? Is it not? There isn't enough evidence to say), but the fact of the matter is, people can be satisfied with it. And if it IS false, this means people are being sort of irrational, aren't they? Yet they can achieve happiness. But this might not be in accordance with reality. That doesn't make it evil.
Reality is not an absolute judge between good and evil because all of this is based on our perception.
I haven't studied the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in detail, but he was probably not opposed to the concept of Original Sin, and that makes him evil doesn't it? So here we just might have an example of someone who is both good and evil... which is stronger?
"Statism is not an entirely new development; dictators, and socialist gangs are the modern variation of kings and feudal lords - they all rely on force (and forced sacrifice)."
Yes, but you think statism is natural, and rational. It's reality. People were never truly independent of leaders. Look at family structures. We're social animals and we've always had some sort of concept of heirarchy. Is that evil?
You can take philosophy to hair-splitting extremes, but we're never going to be able to fully comprehend what is real and rational... We're finite.