There are two different ways we look at the ideas of good and evil. The first is an irrational, illogical ideology based on our own biases. We consider ourselves good and anyone we don't like evil, regardless of behaviors. This is all too common in the American Republic. Millions of Americans see themselves as good and Donald Trump as evil for no other reason then they don't like the guy. What they do and what he does is irrelevant. He's just bad and they're just good just because. Obviously, that view of good and evil is thoughtless and irrelevant. It's good and bad as black and white regardless of other factors. It's brainless "either/or" with nothing else in it. The second way is the proper way of looking at such concepts, as being catch all categories for certain traits. When we think of good, we think of various qualities that can be shoved into the term. Good means responsible, giving, just to the less fortunate, honest, helpful, non-abusive, etc. Evil includes things like murder, rape, manipulation, lying, etc. The levels of Hell in Dante's Inferno is a great example of how to separate the traits considered evil into various tiers. I feel what a person is labelled (if we can use that term) depends on how much of each quality they have, keeping in mind that the vast majority of human activity is based on just regular behaviors not included in either category. There's no good or evil way to go to the grocery store. As humans, we go because we need food. There's no good or evil to it (unless we describe the meeting of our basic needs as good. The flip side of that can be seeing overindulgence in our basic needs as being evil.) Such labelling is like various points on a spectrum. The more positive qualities we have, the farther towards good we go. The more negative, the farther we go towards evil. It's much easier to condemn a person as evil based on one trait. An unrepentant murderer can be considered evil, even if he or she is almost saintly in every other way. It's much tougher to qualify a person as good based on one quality. Just because a person is extremely giving or nice or helpful doesn't mean they're good if they're also an abusive liar. We have much greater standards for people being good. They need A LOT of good qualities to be on that list. We frequently hear someone being built up as good then someone who knows them chimes in, "Yeah, but they lie all the time." Thus, they stop becoming good in our perception because we rarely use the term "less good." We don't say a person is good but they're less good than others, though there are some colorful expressions intelligent people use occasionally. I'm reminded of Frederick Douglass calling Abe Lincoln, "A first rate second rate man," a perfect way of saying he's a good man but only to a point. He's "sort of" good. There's also a comedic expression going around by the American establishment that the US "isn't as bad" as other nations. We're bad, we're just not as bad! 😄 So what a proper thinker sees as good and evil is involved with much thought and depth. It's frequently stated simply but it's actually complicated and involves multiple insights. That separates it from the borderline personality view of good and evil, the "anti-Donald Trump" way of looking at it. When discussing these ideas, if our goal is to learn anything, we have to make sure we know who we're speaking to, as some will understand good vs. evil in one of the two ways illustrated. The "we're just good and they're just bad" perception that dominates modern politics leads to nothing, while the philosophical and intellectual way of looking at it can bear much fruit. Thanks for reading!
