Good & Evil
Even though this subject has been discussed hundreds of thousands of times in various essays, conversations, and tomes over centuries (but not by me), I feel it’s time to revisit this topic. My guess would be that almost everyone believes there are vast distinctions between what we perceive as either Evil or Good. Within this context, there are people who we view as good and others who we see as evil. But does an individual who most of us view as the personification of a bad person, see themselves as evil? Generally speaking I would guess not.
As examples, many people in this country currently view the presidential advisor, Stephen Miller as inherently evil. He seems to enjoy the opportunity to deport hundreds of thousands of people, separate families, bludgeon protesters, in addition to making ethnically derogatory comments and encouraging his boss to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the current administration’s policies. I cannot possibly know the inner workings of Miller, but it would make sense that he believes his actions are both justified and in the best interests of his version how this nation should function.
On the other hand, most of us view the personal life and actions of Barack Obama as filled with compassion, intelligence, common sense, along with many of the traits we tend to associate with being a good person. He is not perfect, but he would be the first to tell you he is not perfect. This humble and pragmatic self-assessment is the antithesis of those who cannot utter a single sentence without uttering bombastic rhetoric about their supposed greatness.
But who or what makes the distinction? Is there a universal understanding beyond what the general public might believe? And how do these vary from one culture to another?
Unless you believe in an omniscient being sitting in judgement, delineating between good and evil, the answer to the first question is “No One”. There is no dictionary where definitive definitions can be found, especially when these terms cross cultural boundaries. What may be acceptable or even welcome behavior in San Paolo might be deemed both immoral and illegal in Azerbaijan. Same-sex partnerships are an accepted way of life in many western European countries, yet homosexuality is punishable by death in several African nations. And even if someone does believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, there are dozens of contradictions within the text to the point where an adherent can find justification for almost any act.
In his book, Sapiens, Yuval Harari suggests the ideas of both good and evil are human constructs that deliver a false narrative since these moral precepts are the results of our own subjective nature. Harari suggests the term “morality” can be defined as actions leading to the reduction of suffering. In addition, Edward O. Wilson argues in his book, The Social Conquest of Earth, that human nature is defined by a continuing struggle between individual selfishness (ego) and group-oriented altruism. From a modern perspective, this battle of wills can be interpreted as a division between evil and good. Selfish individuals can often outperform selfless ones, though coordinated groups of altruists have the ability to triumph over selfish individuals. Unfortunately the conquest of altruist over selfishness is not always the outcome. The dynamics of power create a "tribal" tension, where loyalty to the controlling group promotes self-sacrifice for the in-group while driving xenophobic and conflict inducing aggression against those not in power. And when I suggest “self-sacrifice” here it usually means the surrendering of personal morality to fit within the tenants of misguided leadership. Sound familiar?
For our species to not only survive but also to thrive in a climate of self-destructive behavior fomented by an ego driven culture, we must make judgement calls on our own with regard to how we perceive good versus evil. Yes, this is ultimately a subjective exercise, but if we are taking into consideration the very survival of humanity, we really have no choice but to follow our own internal moral compass that has not been influenced by mob association, regardless of the possibility that we have misinterpreted the direction in which it points.
Taking a stand requires a certain amount of faith in the process and in our own ability to see and acknowledge what we believe to be good as compared to evil, what is right versus what is wrong. Since we are inherently flawed animals, we can be off the mark in what we believe to be correct, but because of the existential imperative we face of saving our only home, we do not have the luxury of delving too deeply into the philosophical nuances of our actions. Making the moral judgement that we should be allowed to continue inhabiting the Earth does not seem out of step with what the majority of humans might believe to be in our own best interests.
If we are not able to make this decision, to take the stand against what we personally define as evil, then our very presence on this planet could be construed as evil and destructive as well. We are currently, systematically bludgeoning nature into submission to satisfy our own narcissistic needs. So perhaps it is all of us who should consider vacating, leaving what remains of this earth to heal and allow the creatures we have not driven to extinction to find their own paths forward.
Not a very optimistic point of view.
[Note: My wife, Rachel, after editing this piece, has suggested I add this caveat. I am not about to jump off a cliff any time soon, for those who read my thoughts as overly dark. They are musings about “What If’s” and I will sometimes consider how nature would be fairing without the presence of humanity’s insatiable appetite. That’s it. Not to worry.]
The one thing I believe will be our saving grace regarding humanities slide into the darker realms of our present existence is our need for each other. Without another person to call a friend, a wife, a husband, or simply a companion to pass the time with, our time here is, in my opinion, meaningless.
These connections are not only essential, but they help to form networks of like minded individuals, with basically the same mindset, a collective way of viewing and perceiving the world around us. These collectives are driven by our desire to be whole, to be a part of something bigger than ourselves.
During WW2, I imagine the German people may have had reservations about the consequences of their nations actions, and some did rebel, but generally speaking they followed the majority rule. Do we consider the average German at this time to be evil? Were they all guilty of murder to a certain degree or simply following the majority mindset.
One of my favorite historical phrases is from a man named Edmund Burke. To sum up his words of wisdom (not an exact quote): “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. This would of course require us to differentiate between what is good and what is evil, but in my humble opinion, evil is too broad a word. No one is pure evil, but many have evil tendencies (which I generally define as the strong or aggressive domination and manipulation of the weaker or simple minded individuals), that requires those of us who have the ability to see this evil, to do something about it. Which brings us back to our personal collectives. If we expand our own viewpoint and create an ever increasing positive philosophical approach to life through connections and the sharing of knowledge such as the one presented by Tobin, then perhaps there is hope.
Carl, Thank you for your extremely thoughtful response to my relatively convoluted post on Good & Evil. People who many of us subjectively view as Good can be swallowed up in a cult mindset and behave in ways that we would then consider Evil. Much like your analogy of the nationalistic behavior of many German citizens in the 1930s and 40s. The human mind is a very strange place. Depending on one’s upbringing and moral standards (all of which seem to come both from nature and nurture), we are going to make our own personal judgment as to what we believe is good and what is evil. You and I would most likely agree 95% of the time on those definitions (or perhaps even more often). There are millions of folks in this country who view how you and I act as inherently evil because we are not following their precepts on God, morality, and ethics, such as they are. I just don’t know how all of this will turn out. It’s very unsettling.
It may be wise to remember even asking Philosophical questions concerning the nature of good & evil have historically gotten people tortured, stoned, and burned at the stake. If you need to ask, it is evidence you do not KNOW, which automatically makes you evil.
How could greed, pedophilia, absence of compassion or moral compass, or any action by Stephen Miller or Donald Trump on an average Tuesday possibly be called ‘evil’ when they and people exactly like them have been venerated throughout history? Imagine a hypothetical Presential contest in 2028; say maybe Pam Bondi vs Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In a poll among our associates, or across the U.S. electorate, I’d bet you could right-now predict the outcome.
Jerry (or maybe his buddy Ludwig Wittgenstein) could argue both sides of the argument here. The words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are the syntactic equivalent of Snoopy’s interpretation of Charlie Brown;s speech; “Bla, bla, blady bla-bla.” [Or, perhaps I am not being fair. I’m certain Snoopy understands “Good, Doggy” quite well.]
Michael – Unless I’ve misrepresented my point of view, what you discuss in your response was kind of my original point. Any attempt at justifying good from evil is bound to run into a dead end of human subjectivity. One man’s medicine is another man’s poison, as the old saying goes. Right, wrong, good, evil, it’s all in how we interpret our environment. And if I’m burned at the stake, I hope to see you in the audience. Thanks!!!!
Michael, yes, good and evil are not commensurate in notable ways. The concepts become even more muddy when mixed with despair that our subjectivity is fashioned by upbringing and moral ideals, and one more, the givens of circumstances that we are situated in as a result of history. Human mammals are fragile, have so many possibilities to moral distortion, to become a stampeding lynch mob, etc., etc..
I just do not conclude this is a deduction for despair. Healthy societies, at least more than the one we currently experience are conceivable. There is a middle way between hard-assed white nationalism and its doctrinaire opposite. Americans need a different structural arrangement between the regions of the country, if we are to have a less violent future.
I agree with you that by some lights good and evil is not up for discussion. Your father, or your pastor or your President has told you what HE thinks than that settles it. (No need for you to think)
An expansive post. This one gets to the nub of the issue.
There is an interesting element in the Genesis creation-myth, a mention that humankind is to bear weight of the awareness of good and evil. As far as we can tell no other mammal displays evidence of moral sensibility. Seems to me that any language enabled social mammal will have to live with the moral complexity of making distinctions. Words make distinctions, a word is a definition which communication requires. Such distinctions are “made up” are socially constructed as Harari has pointed out. They are social and do not exist external to society.
To say plainly, directly: good and evil are human in origin and have nothing to do with a divinity.
I like the definition of morality which Harari offers: behavior that reduces suffering. Who would deny this is so? An easy extension of the thought would be that evil is any behavior that increases suffering. As abstract definitions this is quite clear, but becomes muddy in the lived conditions of our planet. Often what reduces suffering does not come from calculating consequences of alternative actions. One thing though is obvious from even a shallow understanding of history: the preponderance of evil originates with rogue human beings and those willing to follow them.
Another thought came to me from your comments. Will to Power, direct and surgical imposition of will power is closely associated with evil. Think of the Blitzkrieg of WWII, of the guillotine for efficiently separating heads, or of a city killing hydrogen bomb. Nietzsche is famous for his extending meditations upon will to power. I have no doubt he’d agree with the sinister possibilities entailed in human will.
So what about goodness, the obverse of evil? I think that goodness is life-affirming in the widest possible fashion, an ecosystem curated to allow a flow of many forms of life, to thrive. As a contrast to evil, goodness is diffuse, organic in it’s logic, indirect and long term. You cannot fix a ruined society overnight. Perhaps several generations or more are needed?
Agreed with your concluding paragraph about taking a stand. That seems obvious to me. The conundrum has to do with what form the opposing stand ought to take. A direct opposition to evil is often ill advised when violence in many forms is a feature of the status quo, of the structures of society. In such cases, a more subversive, insidious form of resistance seems reasonable. The challenge is to be more clever than those with the guns. The hegemony of the status quo must be undermined.
That is all that I have.
Keep writing.
Jerry – Always a pleasure to read your responses. These subjects will vex humans as long as there are philosophers left on earth. But we may be a dying breed. As AI proliferates and grows stronger, delving into questions such as “What is Good & Evil?” will most likely take an unfortunate turn. When a machine that can access everything that has ever been uttered on this subject, within a nano second, boils down the various complexities of this conundrum to spit out a verdict that no one can or will want to refute, philosophy dies. No more thinking. No more debates. No more musings about the cosmos and our place within it. I know this isn’t what you mentioned, but it’s where my soon to be obsolete mind went when I read your reply.
Humankind unable to think, become indolent and ignorant will be easy pickings, victims of the unceasing change and hazard of the cosmos.