Such a great question. What is the difference between good and evil? As easy as people try to make it out to be the answer is not so obvious. There seems to be some argument about morality being inherent to the universe and is therefore proof of God. Poppycock I say. The things we say are inherently good are actually exactly the things needed for a species to propagate and grow. Coincidence?
In order to make this discussion easier we must first describe innocent. The state in which a person does unaware of the existence of good and evil. Typically used to describe animals and babies innocence describes a creature, with at least some intelligence, who can make decisions but only makes them from curiosity or instinctual view point. For instance tigers hunt their prey when hungry and baby may accidentally kill a pet bird when playing to rough. No one can see either has performed an evil act even though both could have decided to do something else.
Where does evil come in? If that tiger continues to kill despite having more then enough food or that baby grows up and becomes a serial killer. But it doesn't have to be killing but evil usually implies someone who goes beyond selfishness to the point of harming the great environment. There in lies the key. Good is always defined as that which propagates an improvement in quality. For all purposes that truly is a matter of perception. That whole adage about history being written by the survivors couldn't be more true.
Let's pull ourselves back down to a more basic level. If evil is harming the greater society and good is improving it another way to define good is to say it is the acknowledged absence of evil doing. Wait you say. Couldn't someone help without knowing they were not being evil? Of course, but then that person was unaware of good and evil and was therefore performing an innocent act. On the other hand they had no need to be aware of the what is good to perform an evil act, because they only needed to be thinking about themselves.
Here we have the beginning of a postulate. Good is the conscious act of doing something that is not evil. How do we back this up? Perhaps the best example are the ten commandments.
*You shall have no other gods before Me
*You shall not make for yourself an idol
*You shall not take God’s name in vain
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
*You shall not kill
*You shall not commit adultery
*You shall not steal
*You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
*You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
8 of 10 are defined by not committing an evil act. The remaining two could also be argue is not acts of goodness but of respect. By not doing them a person is not view as evil but simply as a person without principal. So what we have good being defined by evil and our postulate reaches conclusion.
Why does this deserve mention? Well to point out those who have committed the most good were the ones who could have committed the greatest evil. In the end your level kindness and general perception of being a good person is defined by just how much evil you had the opportunity for but did not follow through on.
Good is not the absence of evil, but the absence of knowledge and wisdom. Once a person knows the cost of their action, that person knows the cost of evil is always more than the cost of good. The short term gain gives way to the unforeseen long term cost and consequences of one's action.
ReplyDeleteA highly intelligent person is fully capable of committing evil and often do. The most evil acts in human history were caused by people fully aware of the act they were doing. Whether they believed those acts to be evil is debatable.
ReplyDeleteWhat you state comes from the belief in the inherent evil in mankind. That knowledge given to an individual of free choice means they will choose to be good instead of evil despite the overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.