 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Inphilosophy,religion, andpsychology, "good and evil" is a commondichotomy. In religions withManichaean andAbrahamic influence,evil is perceived as thedualistic antagonistic opposite ofgood, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.[1]
Evil is often used to denote profoundimmorality.[2] Evil has also been described as asupernatural force.[2] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives.[3] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involveunbalanced behavior involvingexpediency,selfishness,ignorance, ornegligence.[4]
The principal study of good and evil (or morality) isethics, of which there are three major branches:normative ethics concerning how we ought to behave,applied ethics concerning particular moral issues, andmetaethics concerning the nature of morality itself.[5]
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.[6]
The philosopherZoroaster simplified thepantheon of early Iranian gods[7] into two opposing forces:Ahura Mazda (IlluminatingWisdom) andAngra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict.
This idea developed into a religion which spawned manysects, some of which embraced an extreme dualistic belief that thematerial world should be shunned and thespiritual world should be embraced. Gnostic ideas influenced manyancient religions[8] which teach thatgnosis (variously interpreted as enlightenment,salvation,emancipation or'oneness with God') may be reached by practising philanthropy to the point of personal poverty,sexual abstinence (as far as possible forhearers, total forinitiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[9]
Similarly, in ancientEgypt, there were the concepts ofMa'at, the principle of justice, order, and cohesion, andIsfet, the principle of chaos, disorder, and decay, with the former being the power and principles which society sought to embody where the latter was such that undermined society.[10] This correspondence can also be seen reflected in ancientMesopotamian religion as well in the conflict betweenMarduk andTiamat.[11][12]
InWestern 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.[13] 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 was further developed inLate Antiquity byNeoplatonists,Gnostics, andChurch Fathers.[14]
This development from the relative or habitual to the absolute is also evident in the termsethics andmorality both being derived from terms for "regional custom", Greek ήθος and Latinmores, respectively (see alsosiðr).
According to the classical definition ofAugustine of Hippo,sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."[15]
Many medieval Christian theologians both broadened and narrowed the basic concept ofGood and evil until it came to have several, sometimes complex definitions[16] such as:
Today the basicdichotomy often breaks down along these lines:
Themodern English wordevil (Old Englishyfel) and itscognates such as the GermanÜbel andDutcheuvel are widely considered to come from aProto-Germanic reconstructed form of*ubilaz, comparable to theHittitehuwapp- ultimately from theProto-Indo-European form*wap- and suffixed zero-grade form*up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms includeMiddle Englishevel,ifel,ufel,Old Frisianevel (adjective and noun),Old Saxonubil,Old High Germanubil, andGothicubils.
The nature ofbeing good has been given many treatments; one is that the good is based on the natural love, bonding, and affection that begins at the earliest stages of personal development; another is that goodness is a product of knowingtruth. Differing views also exist as to why evil might arise. Many religious and philosophical traditions claim that evil behavior is anaberration that results from the imperfect human condition (e.g. "The Fall of Man"). Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence offree will andhuman agency. Some argue that evil itself is ultimately based in anignorance oftruth (i.e., human value,sanctity,divinity). A variety of thinkers have alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannicalsocial structures.[citation needed]
InConfucianism andTaoism, there is no direct analogue to the way good and evil are opposed, although references to demonic influence is common inChinese folk religion. Confucianism's primary concern is with correct social relationships and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man. Evil would thus correspond to wrong behavior. Still less does it map into Taoism, in spite of the centrality of dualism in that system[citation needed], but the opposite of thebasic virtues of Taoism (compassion, moderation, and humility) can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it.[17][18]
Pyrrhonism holds that good and evil do not exist by nature, meaning that good and evil do not exist within the things themselves. All judgments of good and evil are relative to the one doing the judging.
Benedict de Spinoza states:
1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.
2. By evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good.[19]
Spinoza assumes aquasi-mathematical style and states these further propositions which he purports to prove or demonstrate from the above definitions in part IV of hisEthics :[19]
Friedrich Nietzsche, in a rejection ofJudeo-Christian morality, addresses this in two books,Beyond Good and Evil andOn the Genealogy of Morals. In these works, he states that the natural, functional, "non-good" has been socially transformed into the religious concept of evil by the "slave mentality" of the masses, who resent their "masters", the strong. He also critiques morality by saying that many who consider themselves to be moral are simply acting out of cowardice – wanting to do evil but afraid of the repercussions.
Carl Jung, in his bookAnswer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as thedark side of the Devil. People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project theirshadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow.[20]
In 2007,Philip Zimbardo suggested that people may act in evil ways as a result of acollective identity. This hypothesis, based on his previous experience from theStanford prison experiment, was published in the bookThe Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.[21]
For the Abrahamic religions, explaining and finding a religious answer to the dichotomy of Good and Evil is more difficult compared to polytheistic religions. Religious scholars argue that "particularly for the Abrahamic religions, providing an explanation for the origin of evil has never been an easy task. Several attempts were made to preserve together both monotheism and God’s attributes from types of dualism (e. g. Gnosticism, Paulicianism, Catharism) and the idea of God’s reduced number of attributes, due to the tension between the existence of evil and the divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence."[22]
TheBaháʼí Faith asserts that evil is non-existent and that it is a concept for the lacking of good, just as cold is the state of no heat, darkness is the state of no light, forgetfulness the lacking of memory, ignorance the lacking of knowledge. All of these are states of lacking and have no real existence.[23]
Thus, evil does not exist, and is relative to man.`Abdu'l-Bahá, son of the founder of the religion, inSome Answered Questions states:
"Nevertheless, a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves."[23]
Thus, evil is more of an intellectual concept than a true reality. Since God is good, and upon creating creation he confirmed it by saying it is Good (Genesis 1:31) evil cannot have a true reality.[23]
.jpg)
Christian theology draws its concept of evil from theOld andNew Testaments. TheChristian Bible exercises "the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world."[24] In the Old Testament, evil is understood to be an opposition to God as well as something unsuitable or inferior such as the leader of thefallen angelsSatan.[25] In the New Testament theGreek wordponeros is used to indicate unsuitability, whilekakos is used to refer to opposition to God in the human realm.[26] Officially, the Catholic Church extracts its understanding of evil from its canonical antiquity and theDominican theologian,Thomas Aquinas, who inSumma Theologica defines evil as the absence or privation of good.[27]French-American theologianHenri Blocher describes evil, when viewed as a theological concept, as an "unjustifiable reality. In common parlance, evil is 'something' that occurs in experience thatought not to be."[28] According to1 Timothy 6:10"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil"[29]
InMormonism, mortal life is viewed as a test of faith, where one's choices are central to the Plan of Salvation. SeeAgency (LDS Church). Evil is that which keeps one from discovering the nature of God. It is believed that one must choose not to be evil to return to God.
Christian Science believes that evil arises from a misunderstanding of the goodness of nature, which is understood as being inherently perfect if viewed from the correct (spiritual) perspective. Misunderstanding God's reality leads to incorrect choices, which are termed evil. This has led to the rejection of any separate power being the source of evil, or of God as being the source of evil; instead, the appearance of evil is the result of a mistaken concept of good. Christian Scientists argue that even the mostevil person does not pursue evil for its own sake, but from the mistaken viewpoint that he or she will achieve some kind of good thereby.
There is no concept of absolute evil inIslam, as a fundamental universal principle that is independent from and equal with good in a dualistic sense. Within Islam, it is considered essential to believe that all comes fromGod, whether it is perceived as good or bad by individuals; and things that are perceived asevil orbad are either natural events (natural disasters or illnesses) or caused by humanity's free will to disobey God's orders.
According to theAhmadiyya understanding of Islam, evil does not have a positive existence in itself and is merely the lack of good, just as darkness is the result of lack of light.[30]
In Judaism,yetzer hara is thecongenital inclination to do evil, by violating the will of God. The term is drawn from the phrase "the imagination of the heart of man [is] evil" (יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע,yetzer lev-ha-adam ra), which occurs twice at the beginning of the Torah.Genesis 6:5 and 8:21. The Hebrew word "yetzer" having appeared twice in Genesis occurs again at the end of the Torah: "I knew their devisings that they do".[31] Thus from beginning to end the heart's "yetzer" is continually bent on evil, a profoundly pessimistic view of the human being. However, the Torah which began with blessing[32] anticipates future blessing[33] which will come as a result of God circumcising the heart in the latter days.[34]
Theyetzer hara is man's misuse of things the physical body needs to survive. Thus, the need for food becomes gluttony due to theyetzer hara. The need for procreation becomes promiscuity, and so on. Theyetzer hara could thus be best described as one's baser instincts. It is not understood as a demonic force.
According to the Talmudic tractateAvot de-Rabbi Natan, a boy's evil inclination is greater than his good inclination until he turns 13 (bar mitzvah), at which point the good inclination is "born" and able to control his behavior.[35] Moreover, the rabbis have stated: "The greater the man, the greater his [evil] inclination."[36]
Buddhist ethics are traditionally based on what Buddhists view as theenlightened perspective of theBuddha, or other enlightened beings such asBodhisattvas. The Indian term for ethics or morality used in Buddhism isŚīla orsīla (Pāli).Śīla inBuddhism is one of three sections of theNoble Eightfold Path, and is a code of conduct that embraces a commitment to harmony and self-restraint with the principal motivation beingnonviolence, or freedom from causing harm. It has been variously described asvirtue,[37] moral discipline[38] andprecept.
Sīla is an internal, aware, and intentional ethical behavior, according to one's commitment to the path of liberation. It is an ethical compass within self and relationships, rather than what is associated with the English word "morality" (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint).
Sīla is one of thethree practices foundational to Buddhism and the non-sectarianVipassana movement;sīla,samādhi, andpaññā as well as theTheravadin foundations ofsīla,dāna, andbhavana. It is also the secondpāramitā.[39]Sīla is also wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome. Two aspects ofsīla are essential to the training: right "performance" (caritta), and right "avoidance" (varitta). Honoring the precepts ofsīla is considered a "great gift" (mahadana) to others, because it creates an atmosphere of trust, respect, and security. It means the practitioner poses no threat to another person's life, property, family, rights, or well-being.[40]
Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination ofBuddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics.[41]
In Hinduism the concept ofdharma or righteousness clearly divides the world into good and evil, and clearly explains that wars have to be waged sometimes to establish and protect dharma; this war is calledDharmayuddha. This division of good and evil is of major importance in both the Hindu epics ofRamayana andMahabharata. However, the main emphasis in Hinduism is on bad action, rather than bad people. The Hindu holy text, theBhagavad Gita, speaks of the balance of good and evil. When this balance goes off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance, as a balance must be maintained for peace and harmony in the world.[42]
In adherence to the core principle of spiritual evolution, the Sikh idea of evil changes depending on one's position on the path to liberation. At the beginning stages of spiritual growth, good and evil may seem neatly separated. However, once one's spirit evolves to the point where it sees most clearly, the idea of evil vanishes and the truth is revealed. In his writingsGuru Arjan explains that, because God is the source of all things, what we believe to be evil must too come from God. And because God is ultimately a source of absolute good, nothing truly evil can originate from God.[43]
Nevertheless, Sikhism, like many other religions, does incorporate a list of "vices" from which suffering, corruption, and abject negativity arise. These are known as theFive Thieves, called such due to their propensity to cloud the mind and lead one astray from the prosecution of righteous action.[44] These are:[45]
One who gives in to the temptations of theFive Thieves is known as "Manmukh", or someone who lives selfishly and without virtue. Inversely, the "Gurmukh, who thrive in their reverence toward divine knowledge, rise above vice via the practice of the high virtues of Sikhism. These are:[46]
In the originallyPersian religion ofZoroastrianism, the world is a battle ground between the GodAhura Mazda (also calledOrmazd) and the malignant spiritAngra Mainyu (also calledAhriman). The final resolution of the struggle between good and evil was supposed to occur on aDay of Judgement, in which all beings that have lived will be led across a bridge of fire, and those who are evil will be cast down forever. In Afghan belief, angels (yazata) andsaints are beings sent to help us achieve the path towards goodness.[47]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
It is possible to treat the essential theories of value by the use of a philosophical and academic approach. In properly analyzing theories of value, everyday beliefs are not only carefullycatalogued anddescribed, but also rigorouslyanalyzed andjudged.
There are at least two basic ways of presenting a theory of value, based on two different kinds of questions:
The two questions are subtly different. One may answer the first question by researching the world by use of social science, and examining the preferences that people assert. However, one may answer the second question by use of reasoning, introspection, prescription, and generalization. The former kind of method of analysis is called "descriptive", because it attempts to describe what people actually view as good or evil; while the latter is called "normative", because it tries to actively prohibit evils and cherish goods. These descriptive and normative approaches can be complementary. For example, tracking the decline of the popularity of slavery across cultures is the work ofdescriptive ethics, while advising that slavery be avoided is normative.
Meta-ethics is the study of the fundamental questions concerning the nature and origins of the good and the evil, including inquiry into the nature of good and evil, as well as the meaning of evaluative language. In this respect, meta-ethics is not necessarily tied to investigations into how others see the good, or of asserting what is good.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(April 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
A satisfying formulation of goodness is valuable because it might allow one to construct a good life or society by reliable processes of deduction, elaboration, or prioritization. One could answer the ancient question, "How should we then live?" among many other important related questions. It has long been thought that this question can best be answered by examining what it is that necessarily makes a thing valuable, or in what the source of value consists.
One attempt to define goodness describes it as a property of the world withPlatonic idealism. According to this claim, to talk about the good is to talk about something real that exists in the object itself, independent of the perception of it. Plato advocated this view, in his expression that there is such a thing as an eternal realm offorms or ideas, and that the greatest of the ideas and the essence of being was goodness, or The good. The good was defined by many ancient Greeks and other ancient philosophers as a perfect and eternal idea, or blueprint. The good is the right relation between all that exists, and this exists in the mind of the Divine, or some heavenly realm. The good is theharmony of a just political community, love, friendship, the ordered human soul ofvirtues, and the right relation to the Divine and to Nature. The characters in Plato's dialogues mention the many virtues of a philosopher, or a lover of wisdom.
Atheist is a person who believes that the Supreme Being exists orgods exist (monotheism orpolytheism). A theist may, therefore, claim that the universe has a purpose and value according to the will of suchcreator(s) that lies partially beyond human understanding. For instance,Thomas Aquinas—a proponent of this view—believed he had proven theexistence of God, and the right relations that humans ought to have to the divinefirst cause.
Monotheists might also hope for infinite universal love. Such hope is often translated as "faith", and wisdom itself is largely defined within some religious doctrines asa knowledge and understanding of innate goodness. The concepts ofinnocence,spiritualpurity, andsalvation are likewise related to a concept of being in, or returning to, a state ofgoodness—one that, according to various teachings of "enlightenment", approaches a state ofholiness (orGodliness).
Aristotle believed that virtues consisted of realization of potentials unique to humanity, such as the use of reason. This type of view, calledperfectionism, has been recently defended in modern form byThomas Hurka.
An entirely different form of perfectionism has arisen in response to rapid technological change. Sometechno-optimists, especiallytranshumanists, avow a form of perfectionism in which the capacity to determine good and trade off fundamental values, is expressed not by humans but by software,genetic engineering of humans,artificial intelligence. Skeptics assert that rather than perfect goodness, it would be only the appearance of perfect goodness, reinforced bypersuasion technology and probably brute force of violenttechnological escalation, which would cause people to accept such rulers or rules authored by them.
Welfarist theories of value say things that are good are such because of their positive effects on human well-being.
It is difficult to figure out where an immaterial trait such as "goodness" could reside in the world. A counterproposal is to locate values inside people. Some philosophers go so far as to say that if somestate of affairs does not tend to arouse a desirable subjective state in self-aware beings, then it cannot be good.
Most philosophers who think goods have to create desirable mental states also say that goods are experiences of self-aware beings. These philosophers often distinguish the experience, which they call an intrinsic good, from the things that seem to cause the experience, which they call "inherent" goods.
Some theories describe no higher collective value than that of maximizingpleasure for individual(s). Some even define goodness and intrinsic value as the experience of pleasure, and bad as the experience of pain. This view is calledhedonism, amonistic theory of value. It has two main varieties: simple, and Epicurean.
Simple hedonism is the view that physical pleasure is the ultimate good. However, the ancient philosopherEpicurus used the word 'pleasure' in a more general sense that encompassed a range of states from bliss to contentment to relief. Contrary to popular caricature, he valued pleasures of the mind to bodily pleasures, and advocated moderation as the surest path to happiness.
Jeremy Bentham's bookThe Principles of Morals and Legislation prioritized goods by considering pleasure, pain and consequences. This theory had a wide effect on public affairs, up to and including the present day. A similar system was later namedUtilitarianism byJohn Stuart Mill. More broadly, utilitarian theories are examples of Consequentialism. All utilitarian theories are based upon themaxim of utility, which states thatgood is whatever providesthe greatest happiness for the greatest number. It follows from this principle that what brings happiness to the greatest number of people, is good.
A benefit of tracing good to pleasure and pain is that both are easily understandable, both in oneself and to an extent in others. For the hedonist, the explanation for helping behaviour may come in the form ofempathy—the ability of a being to "feel" another's pain. People tend to value the lives of gorillas more than those of mosquitoes because the gorilla lives and feels, making it easier to empathize with them. This idea is carried forward in theethical relationship view and has given rise to theanimal rights movement and parts of thepeace movement. The impact of sympathy on human behaviour is compatible withEnlightenment views, includingDavid Hume's stances that the idea of a self with unique identity is illusory, and that morality ultimately comes down to sympathy and fellow feeling for others, or the exercise of approval underlying moral judgments.
A view adopted by James Griffin attempts to find a subjective alternative to hedonism as an intrinsic value. He argues that the satisfaction of one's informed desires constitutes well-being, whether or not these desires actually bring the agent happiness. Moreover, these preferences must be life-relevant, that is, contribute to the success of a person's life overall.
Desire satisfaction may occur without the agent's awareness of the satisfaction of the desire. For example, if a man wishes for his legal will to be enacted after his death, and it is, then his desire has been satisfied even though he will never experience or know of it.
Meher Baba proposed that it is not the satisfaction of desires that motivates the agent but rather "a desire to be free from the limitation of all desires. Those experiences and actions which increase the fetters of desire are bad, and those experiences and actions which tend to emancipate the mind from limiting desires are good."[48] It is through good actions, then, that the agent becomes free from selfish desires and achieves a state of well-being: "The good is the main link between selfishness thriving and dying. Selfishness, which in the beginning is the father of evil tendencies, becomes through good deeds the hero of its own defeat. When the evil tendencies are completely replaced by good tendencies, selfishness is transformed into selflessness, i.e., individual selfishness loses itself in universal interest."[48]
The idea that the ultimate good exists and is not orderable but is globally measurable is reflected in various ways in economic (classical economics,green economics,welfare economics,gross national happiness) and scientific (positive psychology, thescience of morality)well-being measuring theories, all of which focus on various ways of assessing progress towards that goal, a so-calledgenuine progress indicator. Modern economics thus reflects very ancient philosophy, but a calculation or quantitative or other process based on cardinality and statistics replaces the simple ordering of values.
For example, in both economics and in folk wisdom, the value of something seems to rise so long as it is relatively scarce. However, if it becomes too scarce, it leads often to a conflict, and can reduce collective value.
In the classicalpolitical economy ofAdam Smith andDavid Ricardo, and in its critique byKarl Marx,human labour is seen as the ultimate source of all new economic value. This is anobjectivetheory of value, which attributes value to real production-costs, and ultimately expenditures of human labour-time (seelaw of value). It contrasts withmarginal utility theory, which argues that the value of labour depends on subjective preferences by consumers, which may however also be objectively studied.
The economic value of labour may be assessed technically in terms of itsuse-value orutility or commercially in terms of itsexchange-value,price or production cost (seelabour power). But its value may also be socially assessed in terms of its contribution to the wealth andwell-being of a society.
In non-market societies, labour may be valued primarily in terms of skill, time, and output, as well as moral or social criteria and legal obligations. In market societies, labour is valued economically primarily through thelabour market. The price of labour may then be set by supply and demand, by strike action or legislation, or by legal or professional entry-requirements into occupations.
Conceptual metaphor theories argue against both subjective andobjective conceptions of value and meaning, and focus on the relationships between body and other essential elements of human life. In effect, conceptual metaphor theories treat ethics as anontology problem and the issue of how to work-out values as a negotiation of these metaphors, not the application of someabstraction or a strict standoff between parties who have no way to understand each other's views.
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background.C. S. Lewis, inThe Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. However, the numerous instances in which rape or murder is morally affected by social context call this into question. Up until the mid-19th century, many countries practiced forms ofslavery. As is often the case, those transgressing moral boundaries stood to profit from that exercise. Arguably, slavery has always been the same and objectively evil, but individuals with a motivation to transgress will justify that action.
TheNazis, duringWorld War II, consideredgenocide to be acceptable,[51] as did theHutuInterahamwe in theRwandan genocide.[52][53] One might point out, though, that the actual perpetrators of those atrocities probably avoided calling their actions genocide, since the objective meaning of any act accurately described by that word is to wrongfully kill a selected group of people, which is an action that at least their victims will understand to be evil. Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents.
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
Plato wrote that there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering.[54]
PsychologistAlbert Ellis, in his school of psychology calledRational Emotive Behavioral Therapy, says the root of anger and the desire to harm someone is almost always related to variations of implicit or explicit philosophical beliefs about other human beings. He further claims that without holding variants of those covert or overt belief and assumptions, the tendency to resort to violence in most cases is less likely.
American psychiatristM. Scott Peck on the other hand, describes evil asmilitant ignorance.[55] The original Judeo-Christian concept ofsin is as a process that leads one tomiss the mark and not achieve perfection. Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck describes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness which results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children or other people in relatively powerless positions). Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident in sociopaths.
According to Peck, an evil person:[55][56]
He also considers certain institutions may be evil, as his discussion of theMy Lai massacre and its attempted coverup illustrate. By this definition, acts ofcriminal andstate terrorism would also be considered evil.
Martin Luther argued that there are cases where a little evil is a positive good. He wrote, "Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt forthe Devil, so as not to give him the chance to make one scrupulous over mere nothings... ."[59]
Thenecessary evil approach to politics was put forth byNiccolò Machiavelli, a 16th-centuryFlorentine writer who advised tyrants that "it is far safer to be feared than loved."[60] Treachery, deceit, eliminating political rivals, and the usage of fear are offered as methods of stabilizing the prince's security and power.[61]
Theinternational relations theories ofrealism andneorealism, sometimes calledrealpolitik advise politicians to explicitly ban absolute moral and ethical considerations from international politics, and to focus on self-interest, political survival, and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view as explicitlyamoral and dangerous. Political realists usually justify their perspectives by laying claim to ahigher moral duty specific to political leaders, under which the greatest evil is seen to be the failure of the state to protect itself and its citizens. Machiavelli wrote: "...there will be traits considered good that, if followed, will lead to ruin, while other traits, considered vices which if practiced achieve security and well being for the Prince."[60]
Anton LaVey, founder of theChurch of Satan, was a materialist and claimed that evil is actually good. He was responding to the common practice of describing sexuality or disbelief as evil, and his claim was that when the wordevil is used to describe the natural pleasures and instincts of men and women, or the skepticism of an inquiring mind, the things called evil are really good.[62]
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(August 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
John Rawls' 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 rational individuals' 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.Immanuel Kant, a great influence for Rawls, similarly applies a lot of procedural practice within the practical application ofThe Categorical Imperative, however, this is indeed not based solely on 'fairness'.
 | This sectionis written like apersonal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Pleasehelp improve it by rewriting it in anencyclopedic style.(September 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Many views valueunity as a good: to go beyondeudaimonia by saying that an individual person's flourishing is valuable only as a means to the flourishing of society as a whole. In other words, a single person's life is, ultimately, not important or worthwhile in itself, but is good only as a means to the success of society as a whole. Some elements ofConfucianism are an example of this, encouraging the view that people ought to conform as individuals to demands of a peaceful and ordered society.
According to the naturalistic view, the flourishing of society is not, or not the only, intrinsically good thing. Defenses of this notion are often formulated by reference tobiology, and observations that living things compete more with their own kind than with other kinds. Rather, what is of intrinsic good is the flourishing of all sentient life, extending to those animals that have some level of similar sentience, such asGreat Ape personhood. Others go farther, declaring that life itself is of intrinsic value.
By another approach, one achieves peace and agreement by focusing, not on one's peers (who may be rivals or competitors), but on the common environment. The reasoning: As living beings it is clearly and objectively good that we are surrounded by anecosystem that supports life. Indeed, if we weren't, we could neither discuss that good nor even recognize it. Theanthropic principle incosmology recognizes this view.[citation needed]
Undermaterialism or evenembodiment values, or in any system that recognizes the validity of ecology as a scientific study of limits and potentials, an ecosystem is a fundamental good. To all who investigate, it seems that goodness, or value, exists within an ecosystem, Earth. Creatures within that ecosystem and wholly dependent on it, evaluate good relative to what else could be achieved there. In other words, good is situated in a particular place and one does not dismiss everything that is not available there (such as very low gravity or absolutely abundant sugar candy) as "not good enough", one works within its constraints. Transcending them and learning to be satisfied with them, is thus another sort of value, perhaps calledsatisfaction.
Values and the people that hold them seem necessarily subordinate to the ecosystem. If this is so, then what kind of being could validly apply the word "good" to an ecosystem as a whole? Who would have the power to assess and judge an ecosystem as good or bad? By what criteria? And by what criteria would ecosystems be modified, especially larger ones such as theatmosphere (climate change) or oceans (extinction) orforests (deforestation)?[63]
"Remaining on Earth" as the most basic value. Whilegreenethicists have been most forthright about it, and have developed theories ofGaia philosophy,biophilia,bioregionalism that reflect it, the questions are now universally recognized as central in determining value, e.g. the economic "value of Earth" to humans as a whole, or the "value of life" that is neither whole-Earth nor human. Many have come to the conclusion that without assuming ecosystem continuation as a universal good, with attendantvirtues likebiodiversity andecological wisdom it is impossible to justify such operational requirements assustainability of human activity on Earth.
One response is that humans are not necessarily confined to Earth, and could use it and move on. A counter-argument is that only a tiny fraction of humans could do this—and they would be self-selected by ability to do technological escalation on others (for instance, the ability to create large spacecraft to flee the planet in, and simultaneously fend off others who seek to prevent them). Another counter-argument is thatextraterrestrial life would encounter the fleeing humans and destroy them as alocust species. A third is that if there are no other worlds fit to support life (and noextraterrestrials who compete with humans to occupy them) it is both futile to flee, and foolish to imagine that it would take less energy and skill to protect the Earth as ahabitat than it would take to construct some new habitat.
Accordingly, remaining on Earth, as a living being surrounded by a working ecosystem, is a fair statement of the most basic values and goodness to any being we are able to communicate with. A moral system without this axiom seems simply not actionable.
However, most religious systems acknowledge anafterlife and improving this is seen as an even more basic good. In many other moral systems, also, remaining on Earth in a state that lackshonor or power over self is less desirable—considerseppuku inbushido,kamikazes or the role ofsuicide attacks inJihadi rhetoric. In all these systems, remaining on Earth is perhaps no higher than a third-place value.
Radical values environmentalism can be seen as either a very old or a very new view: that the only intrinsically good thing is a flourishing ecosystem; individuals and societies are merely instrumentally valuable, good only as means to having a flourishing ecosystem. TheGaia philosophy is the most detailed expression of this overall thought but it strongly influenceddeep ecology and the modernGreen Parties.
It is often claimed thataboriginal peoples never lost this sort of view.Anthropological linguistics studies links between their languages and the ecosystems they lived in, which gave rise to theirknowledge distinctions. Very often, environmental cognition and moral cognition were not distinguished in these languages. Offenses to nature were like those to other people, andAnimism reinforced this by giving nature "personality" viamyth.Anthropological theories of value explore these questions.
Most people in the world reject oldersituated ethics and localized religious views. However small-community-based and ecology-centric views have gained some popularity in recent years. In part, this has been attributed to the desire for ethical certainties. Such a deeply rooted definition of goodness would be valuable because it might allow one to construct a good life or society by reliable processes of deduction, elaboration or prioritisation. Ones that relied only on local referents one could verify for oneself, creating more certainty and therefore less investment in protection, hedging and insuring against consequences of loss of the value.
An event is often seen as being of value simply because of itsnovelty in fashion and art. By contrast, cultural history and other antiques are sometimes seen as of value in and of themselves due to theirage. Philosopher-historiansWill andAriel Durant spoke as much with the quote, "As the sanity of the individual lies in the continuity of his memories, so the sanity of the group lies in the continuity of its traditions; in either case a break in the chain invites a neurotic reaction" (The Lessons of History, 72).
Assessment of the value of old or historical artifacts takes into consideration, especially but not exclusively: the value placed on having a detailed knowledge of the past, the desire to have tangible ties to ancestral history, or the increased market value scarce items traditionally hold.
Creativity andinnovation andinvention are sometimes upheld as fundamentally good especially in Western industrial society—all imply newness, and even opportunity to profit from novelty.Bertrand Russell was notably pessimistic about creativity and thought thatknowledge expanding faster than wisdom necessarily was fatal.
The issue of good and evil in the human visuality, often associated with morality, is regarded by some biologists (notablyEdward O. Wilson,Jeremy Griffith,David Sloan Wilson andFrans de Waal) as an important question to be addressed by the field of biology.[64][65][66][67]
{{cite journal}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
