In manyAbrahamic religions,angels are considered to be good beings and are contrasted withdemons, who are their evil counterparts.
In most contexts, the concept ofgood denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions. Good is generally considered to be the opposite ofevil. The specific meaning and etymology of the term and its associated translations among ancient and contemporary languages show substantial variation in its inflection and meaning, depending on circumstances of place and history, or of philosophical or religious context.
Every language has a word expressinggood in the sense of "having the right or desirable quality" (ἀρετή) andbad in the sense "undesirable". A sense ofmoral judgment and a distinction "right and wrong, good and bad" arecultural universals.[1]
Although the history of the origin of the use of the concept and meaning of "good" are diverse, the notable discussions ofPlato andAristotle on this subject have been of significant historical effect. The first references that are seen in Plato'sThe Republic to theForm of the Good are within the conversation betweenGlaucon andSocrates (454c–d). When trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition ofjustice, Plato identifies that we should not "introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature" instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves”, which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508a–c) Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, "sun is not sight", but it is "the cause of sight itself". As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in theintelligible realm. It is "what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower". It is not only the "cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge".
Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, "good is yet more prized". He then proceeds to explain that "although the good is not being" it is "superior to it in rank and power", it is what "provides for knowledge and truth" (508e).[2]
In contrast to Plato, Aristotle discusses the Forms of Good in critical terms several times in both of his major surviving ethical works, theEudemian andNicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argues that Plato's Form of the Good does not apply to the physical world, for Plato does not assign "goodness" to anything in the existing world. Because Plato's Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world, humans have no reason to believe that the Form of the Good exists and the Form of the Good thereby, is irrelevant to human ethics.[3]
Plato and Aristotle were not the first contributors in ancient Greece to the study of the "good" and discussion preceding them can be found among the pre-Socratic philosophers. In Western civilisation, the basic meanings of κακός and ἀγαθός are "bad, cowardly" and "good, brave, capable", and their absolute sense emerges only around 400 BC, withPre-Socratic philosophy, in particularDemocritus.[4] Morality in this absolute sense solidifies in the dialogues ofPlato, together with the emergence ofmonotheistic thought (notably inEuthyphro, which ponders the concept of piety (τὸ ὅσιον) as a moral absolute). The idea is further developed inLate Antiquity byNeoplatonists,Gnostics, andChurch Fathers.
For the western world, this idea developed into a religion that spawned manysects, some of which embraced an extremedualistic belief that thematerial world should be shunned and thespiritual world should be embraced. Gnostic ideas influenced manyancient religions,[6] which teach thatgnosis (variously interpreted asenlightenment,salvation,liberation, or "oneness with God") may be reached by practising philanthropy to the point of personal poverty,sexual abstinence (as far as possible forhearers and totally forinitiates), and diligently searching forwisdom by helping others.[7]
This development from the relative or habitual to the absolute is evident in the termsethics andmorality as well, both being derived from terms for "regional custom", Greek ἦθος and Latinmores, respectively (see alsosiðr).
Many medieval Christian theologians both broadened and narrowed the basic concept ofGood and Evil until it came to have several, sometimes complex definitions such as:[9]
A significant enlightenment context for studying the "good" has been its significance in the study of "the good, the true, and the beautiful" as found inImmanuel Kant and other Enlightenment philosophers and religious thinkers. These discussions were undertaken by Kant, particularly in the context of hisCritique of Practical Reason.
John Rawls's bookA Theory of Justice prioritized social arrangements and goods, based on their contribution tojustice. Rawls defined justice asfairness, especially in distributing social goods, defined fairness in terms of procedures, and attempted to prove that just institutions and lives are good, if every rational individual's goods are considered fairly. Rawls's crucial invention was theoriginal position, a procedure in which one tries to make objective moral decisions by refusing to let personal facts about oneself enter one's moral calculations.
In religion, ethics, and philosophy, "good and evil" is a very commondichotomy. In cultures withManichaean andAbrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the antagonisticopposite of good. Good is that which should prevail and evil should be defeated.[10]
As a religious concept, basic ideas of adichotomy between good and evil has developed in western cultures so that today:
Good is a broad concept, but it typically deals with an association with life,charity, continuity, happiness, love, andjustice
Evil typically is associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence[11]
the dilemma of thehuman condition and their capacity to perform both good and evil activities[12]
One of the five paintings ofExtermination of Evil portrays one of the eight guardians ofBuddhist law, Sendan Kendatsuba, banishing evil.
In cultures withBuddhist spiritual influence, this antagonistic duality itself must be overcome through achievingŚūnyatā, or emptiness. This is the recognition of good and evil not being unrelated, but two parts of a greater whole; unity, oneness, aMonism.[10]
^Wilson, Edward Osborne (2007).Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives. Random House Publishing.ISBN9780385340922.
Bentham, Jeremy.The Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1988. Prometheus Books.
Boyce, Mary (1979).Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. Corrected repr. 1984; repr. with new foreword 2001.
Dewey, John.Theory of Valuation. 1948. University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, James. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance. 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hume, David.A Treatise of Human Nature. 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurka, Thomas.Perfectionism. 1993. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel.Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. 1996. Cambridge University Press. Third section, [446]-[447].
_-_stained_glass%2c_St._Thomas_Aquinas%2c_detail.jpg)
