Good and Evil, locked inside. Turn it loose...
If you were to walk into the store "Hot Topic," you would see lots of t-shirts and decals promoting the cause of evil. "Evil inside!" says one. Others sport the emblem of the "bad guys" from various cartoons, comics, TV shows, etc. Like the Decepticons logo from the Transformers.
This seems to be very popular right now. Being evil is cool! All the cool kids are doing it!
But deep down inside, everyone knows that being evil is a bad thing, and no one really wants to do it. They just profess the evilness because "good" has a bad image, or as a protest against the moral majority (which, if you ask me, is not very moral at all), or as a political statement... the list goes on.
Why do we do this?
I think it's important to understand the difference between good and evil. How do we define these terms?
For starters, I believe that most people have managed to confuse "good" with "lawful" and "evil" with "criminal." If you follow the law, then you're good. If you break the law, then you're evil.
Sorry. It's not so simple as that.
Others take this a step further, and say "Following the laws of the land is not so important, but following the laws of religion is what determines good vs. evil." Here, I think we're closer, but still missing the mark. Especially since most people who say this are Christians who insist that the only religion worth following is Christianity. That's fine for them, but it doesn't consider the many people who follow other religions. Shouldn't we have a more universal ruler to measure this?
The ancient celts believed in the daoine-sidhe, the "people of the faerie hills," who were separated into two courts: the seelie and the unseelie. The seelie were benevolent, and the unseelie were evil. Neither was necessarily good, but the seelie were at least benign. When White Wolf Game Company released the role-playing game Changeling: The Dreaming in 1995, they used the terms seelie and unseelie, but they were slightly redefined. They now meant something more along the lines of the difference between "lawful" and "chaotic" as defined in Dungeons and Dragons. Which further goes to show the confusion caused by these two concepts.
Let's look at some of the existing definitions, shall we?
We'll start with Christianity. If you look in the Bible to see what is and what isn't "allowed," that is, what is considered "good," there are a lot of different admonitions in a lot of different places. As with any religion, there are two kinds of directives: those that detail how to interact with other people, and those that detail how to behave in relationship to the deity (or deities). Obviously, since the latter kind are far more subjective and variable, we will ignore them for this writing. Let's look at the former.
Going with the Ten Commandments (since those are the most readily recitable and, although they apply differently in the New Testament than in the Old Testament where they were first described, still apply to the current religion; in addition, they apply to the Judaic religion as well, and I believe they apply to Islam too, but I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of Islam is patchy at best), we find the following seven directives that fall into the "relations with other people" category:
So basically, what we see here is that by these terms, "evil" is defined as "doing something that would benefit the self at the cost of the 'other.'" If you examine what I've written above, you'll see what I mean.
Let's look at some other definitions of good vs. evil.
Tragically, I know very little of other religions. The only other one I feel at all qualified to comment on is satanism, because I researched it some when I encountered a person proclaiming that as their religion (which is a story in itself). Most satanists do not believe that they are actually worshiping Satan. They merely see their religion as following this charge: "Do as thou wilt." From what I've read, it is the belief of those who follow this religion that as long as you only harm others in retaliation for harm that has been done to you. In other words, even in an "evil" religion such as satanism, the idea is that "evil" is defined as "doing something that would benefit the self at the cost of the other."
From what little I know of other religions, I believe that the same guideline can be applied to other doctrines.
But what if you don't follow a religion? What if you're agnostic, or atheist?
Many would argue that those who don't follow a religion have no moral guidelines, and thus, no morals at all (which in my opinion is missing the point, but that's a topic for another time). Surely, some people who don't follow a religion do suffer that problem, but many agnostics and atheists DO follow a moral code of some sort. I believe that the general idea behind this is that society cannot function if people don't treat each other decently. And since these individuals recognise themselves as part of society, they realise that what benefits the whole will benefit the individual as well. Thus, being good to the people around them will, ultimately, be beneficial for themselves.
This sounds suspiciously like a doctrine based on logic. So let's look now to the iconic pinnacle of logic as a discipline, Mr. Spock, for more insight.
Mr. Spock was the ultimate atheist. He followed science and logic alone as his philosophical/religious ideal (so to speak). He often dispensed great wisdom on the matter. Perhaps the greatest of this was when he said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Which, to me, sounds like basically just another way of saying "don't do something that would benefit the self at the cost of the other."
So it seems to me that what we have here is one underlying current in the quest for defining good versus evil: "Evil is doing something that benefits the self at the cost of the other." Good, then, would be not doing that. If you can do something that benefits the self with no detriment to anyone else, then fine. Go ahead. But if your self-benefit harms another, then it's evil.
I like to think of this as "self-promotion." Self-promotion, in my opinion, is exactly what I've been saying: doing something to benefit the self at the cost of the other. If we return to the ten commandments (since they are the most specific of the codes we've looked at so far), we see that #4: honour your father and mother -- doing otherwise claims that you know better than they do, who've been around longer and experienced more, and who have been where you are now. Benefit to self: placing your own importance and knowledge above theirs.
#5: do not kill. You're taking away some else's life, which can never be undone. Benefit to the self: you're saying you have the right to decide when you can end another person's existence. Plus whatever other benefit you might have: someone not testifying against you, your sense of vengeance is satisfied, you have one fewer enemy, etc.
#6: do not commit adultery. You're violating someone else's pact to remain faithful. Benefit to the self: You get nookie, but at the cost of the sanctity of someone else's (or perhaps your own) marriage.
#7: do not steal. You get someone else's things, and they lose that thing. Benefit to the self: whatever you're taking.
#8: do not bear false witness. In other words, don't lie. Usually, when a person lies, it's to protect himself, or someone close to him, which, ultimately, benefits himself as well. There are times when lying to protect someone else without benefit to yourself is possible; I believe this would be what we call the "little white lie." I can see a justification for this. Anyway, the cost to others is that they don't know the truth, or perhaps just that they lose confidence. Either way, the self benefits at the cost of the other.
Of course, there are lots of grey areas involved in this issue. Benefits and costs are not always equal. Sometimes the cost to others is minimal, but the benefit to the self is great. When does the benefit to the self outweigh the cost to others? When do the needs of the one (or the few) outweigh the needs of the many?
I wish I could answer that in definitive terms. Sadly, I cannot. I have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Self-preservation, self-defense, these are good things. Surely killing someone in self-defense is justified? Isn't the benefit greater than the cost? (Personally, I don't think so, but that's another topic for another time) I can see how it might be seen that way.
But overall, I think that we have a pretty good definition here. Evil is doing something that benefits the self at the cost of the other. Good is simply not. Then there's "greater good," which might be seen as "doing something that benefits the other at the cost of the self," but I think this rant is plenty long enough already.
This seems to be very popular right now. Being evil is cool! All the cool kids are doing it!
But deep down inside, everyone knows that being evil is a bad thing, and no one really wants to do it. They just profess the evilness because "good" has a bad image, or as a protest against the moral majority (which, if you ask me, is not very moral at all), or as a political statement... the list goes on.
Why do we do this?
I think it's important to understand the difference between good and evil. How do we define these terms?
For starters, I believe that most people have managed to confuse "good" with "lawful" and "evil" with "criminal." If you follow the law, then you're good. If you break the law, then you're evil.
Sorry. It's not so simple as that.
Others take this a step further, and say "Following the laws of the land is not so important, but following the laws of religion is what determines good vs. evil." Here, I think we're closer, but still missing the mark. Especially since most people who say this are Christians who insist that the only religion worth following is Christianity. That's fine for them, but it doesn't consider the many people who follow other religions. Shouldn't we have a more universal ruler to measure this?
The ancient celts believed in the daoine-sidhe, the "people of the faerie hills," who were separated into two courts: the seelie and the unseelie. The seelie were benevolent, and the unseelie were evil. Neither was necessarily good, but the seelie were at least benign. When White Wolf Game Company released the role-playing game Changeling: The Dreaming in 1995, they used the terms seelie and unseelie, but they were slightly redefined. They now meant something more along the lines of the difference between "lawful" and "chaotic" as defined in Dungeons and Dragons. Which further goes to show the confusion caused by these two concepts.
Let's look at some of the existing definitions, shall we?
We'll start with Christianity. If you look in the Bible to see what is and what isn't "allowed," that is, what is considered "good," there are a lot of different admonitions in a lot of different places. As with any religion, there are two kinds of directives: those that detail how to interact with other people, and those that detail how to behave in relationship to the deity (or deities). Obviously, since the latter kind are far more subjective and variable, we will ignore them for this writing. Let's look at the former.
Going with the Ten Commandments (since those are the most readily recitable and, although they apply differently in the New Testament than in the Old Testament where they were first described, still apply to the current religion; in addition, they apply to the Judaic religion as well, and I believe they apply to Islam too, but I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of Islam is patchy at best), we find the following seven directives that fall into the "relations with other people" category:
- Honour your Father and Mother.
- Do not murder.
- Do not commit adultery.
- Do not steal.
- Do not bear false witness.
- Do not covet your neighbour's house.
- Do not covet your neighbour's wife.
So basically, what we see here is that by these terms, "evil" is defined as "doing something that would benefit the self at the cost of the 'other.'" If you examine what I've written above, you'll see what I mean.
Let's look at some other definitions of good vs. evil.
Tragically, I know very little of other religions. The only other one I feel at all qualified to comment on is satanism, because I researched it some when I encountered a person proclaiming that as their religion (which is a story in itself). Most satanists do not believe that they are actually worshiping Satan. They merely see their religion as following this charge: "Do as thou wilt." From what I've read, it is the belief of those who follow this religion that as long as you only harm others in retaliation for harm that has been done to you. In other words, even in an "evil" religion such as satanism, the idea is that "evil" is defined as "doing something that would benefit the self at the cost of the other."
From what little I know of other religions, I believe that the same guideline can be applied to other doctrines.
But what if you don't follow a religion? What if you're agnostic, or atheist?
Many would argue that those who don't follow a religion have no moral guidelines, and thus, no morals at all (which in my opinion is missing the point, but that's a topic for another time). Surely, some people who don't follow a religion do suffer that problem, but many agnostics and atheists DO follow a moral code of some sort. I believe that the general idea behind this is that society cannot function if people don't treat each other decently. And since these individuals recognise themselves as part of society, they realise that what benefits the whole will benefit the individual as well. Thus, being good to the people around them will, ultimately, be beneficial for themselves.
This sounds suspiciously like a doctrine based on logic. So let's look now to the iconic pinnacle of logic as a discipline, Mr. Spock, for more insight.
Mr. Spock was the ultimate atheist. He followed science and logic alone as his philosophical/religious ideal (so to speak). He often dispensed great wisdom on the matter. Perhaps the greatest of this was when he said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Which, to me, sounds like basically just another way of saying "don't do something that would benefit the self at the cost of the other."
So it seems to me that what we have here is one underlying current in the quest for defining good versus evil: "Evil is doing something that benefits the self at the cost of the other." Good, then, would be not doing that. If you can do something that benefits the self with no detriment to anyone else, then fine. Go ahead. But if your self-benefit harms another, then it's evil.
I like to think of this as "self-promotion." Self-promotion, in my opinion, is exactly what I've been saying: doing something to benefit the self at the cost of the other. If we return to the ten commandments (since they are the most specific of the codes we've looked at so far), we see that #4: honour your father and mother -- doing otherwise claims that you know better than they do, who've been around longer and experienced more, and who have been where you are now. Benefit to self: placing your own importance and knowledge above theirs.
#5: do not kill. You're taking away some else's life, which can never be undone. Benefit to the self: you're saying you have the right to decide when you can end another person's existence. Plus whatever other benefit you might have: someone not testifying against you, your sense of vengeance is satisfied, you have one fewer enemy, etc.
#6: do not commit adultery. You're violating someone else's pact to remain faithful. Benefit to the self: You get nookie, but at the cost of the sanctity of someone else's (or perhaps your own) marriage.
#7: do not steal. You get someone else's things, and they lose that thing. Benefit to the self: whatever you're taking.
#8: do not bear false witness. In other words, don't lie. Usually, when a person lies, it's to protect himself, or someone close to him, which, ultimately, benefits himself as well. There are times when lying to protect someone else without benefit to yourself is possible; I believe this would be what we call the "little white lie." I can see a justification for this. Anyway, the cost to others is that they don't know the truth, or perhaps just that they lose confidence. Either way, the self benefits at the cost of the other.
Of course, there are lots of grey areas involved in this issue. Benefits and costs are not always equal. Sometimes the cost to others is minimal, but the benefit to the self is great. When does the benefit to the self outweigh the cost to others? When do the needs of the one (or the few) outweigh the needs of the many?
I wish I could answer that in definitive terms. Sadly, I cannot. I have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Self-preservation, self-defense, these are good things. Surely killing someone in self-defense is justified? Isn't the benefit greater than the cost? (Personally, I don't think so, but that's another topic for another time) I can see how it might be seen that way.
But overall, I think that we have a pretty good definition here. Evil is doing something that benefits the self at the cost of the other. Good is simply not. Then there's "greater good," which might be seen as "doing something that benefits the other at the cost of the self," but I think this rant is plenty long enough already.