Good and evil

Good and evil are two opposing principles with conflicting characteristics. The concepts of good and evil are rooted in the study of religion, ethics, and philosophy. The origin of these two principles begins with the origin of human morality in general. Morality is defined as the beliefs about what behaviors are right and wrong. The emergence of morality in nature is studied in a number of fields including psychology, biology, and sociology. Researchers have found a consistently defined system of right and wrong conduct throughout history—right being synonymous with good and wrong being synonymous with evil. Most notions of good define it as pure and decent in nature. Evil is usually associated with harmful and depraved behavior; the problem of evil is a topic often argued in philosophy and religion.

Overview: Historic Good and Evil

The dichotomy of good and evil has been a universal theme throughout history. All cultures have words for what they consider to be good and evil. Good normally expresses something considered right and desirable. Evil is often expressed as bad and undesirable. Moral ideals often determine the way good and evil are distinguished. Goodness is often identified as that which enhances the satisfaction of life. Evil prevents this satisfaction and consequently thwarts this ideal. The moral foundations of good and evil can be traced back to early religions such as Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism. Zoroastrianism was founded by the Persian prophet Zoroaster sometime between 1000 and 600 BCE. This religion taught a dualism of the powers of good and evil (also called light and darkness). Each side was represented by abstract moral figures called "The Wise," who created good, and "Hostile Spirit," who created bad. Several centuries later, Gnosticism took hold of the Mediterranean during the early years of Christianity. Gnosticism considered the material and physical world evil. The soul was the only pure trait of existence. Both Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism believed in the power of good to triumph over evil.

Christian philosophers and theologians further explored the possibilities of good and evil over several centuries. Christian views shaped what the majority of classical and modern society considered moral and immoral. Many religious and philosophical scholars consider good and evil a dualistic feature of both humans and nature. The Christian religion associates its idea of good with its idea of God, which is represented as infinitely good in Christian teachings. In the Bible, God's goodness is contrasted by Satan's evil. Satan rebelled against God and was cast into the underworld as punishment. Therefore, the Christian evil is the denial of good and a rebellion against God.

Christianity believes that evil can be overcome by good, however. Other religions disagree. For instance, Buddhism considers the forces of good and evil to be relative and inseparable. Each quality has equal weight within a person's soul. Though Buddhists prefer good to evil, they do not believe in conquering evil with good. Rather, they believe a person should conquer both by overcoming this dual nature. Only then can a person transcend both good and evil and become pure. In doing so, the person achieves "emptiness," which is neither good nor evil. This emptiness, called Śūnyatā in Sanskrit, is what Buddhists consider the truest state of existence.

Modern thought generally treats goodness as something associated with love and life and evil as something associated with hate and death. Though goodness has many conditions, such as love, happiness, charity, and justice, some philosophers believe goodness can only be found in truth. By knowing what is true, we can know what is truly good. Concepts of evil are equally difficult to navigate. Modern interests in understanding evil increased as moral, political, and legal philosophers attempted to comprehend such horrific events as the Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Most thinkers agree that there are degrees of evil. Moral evil is intentional and ignorant of the common good and includes actions such as murder and lying. Natural evil is unplanned and includes occurrences such as hurricanes and headaches.

Moral Naturalism

Most early theories on good and evil related them back to religion and a higher power. Later thinkers attempted to dissociate the concepts from theology, instead looking to science for answers. This was referred to as moral naturalism, also called the science of morality or natural ethics. Moral naturalism considered good and evil a product of the characteristically rational human disposition, which assigns goodness to that which benefits humans the most. This changeable goodness is countered with equally changeable evil. Neither of these notions has any responsibility to religious beliefs; rather, they are given their meanings based on a person's most basic needs such as hunger or shelter.

Instead of seeking moral guidance from theology, naturalists feel that good and evil can be best understood in a scientific sense and are based on "natural facts." This allows fields such as neuroscience and biology to share in an area of inquiry previously reserved for theologians and philosophers. The ambition of the moral naturalist was to identify these natural facts using empirical, or observed, knowledge and understand our reactions to what we already know rather than focusing on what we do not. The vagueness of this theory has made it susceptible to much criticism, particularly from classic moral scholars. Moral naturalism gained in popularity in the late twentieth century and both scientists and philosophers continue to utilize its methods to investigate good and evil.

Bibliography

Ingram, Paul O., and Frederick J. Streng. Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007. Print. http://books.google.com/books?id=pQNKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&dq=Buddhist-Christian+Dialogue&hl=en&sa=X&ei=giUkVOCGMcb4yQSnuYHACQ&ved=0CCAQ6wEwAA#v=snippet&q=good%20and%20evil&f=false

Matthews, Shailer, and Gerald Birney Smith. A Dictionary of Religion and Ethics. New York: Macmillan, 1921. Print. http://books.google.com/books?id=wOkVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=dictionary+of+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hkckVKW0GoeqyQTurYGQDg&ved=0CDQQ6wEwBA#v=onepage&q=morality&f=false

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "Definition of Morality." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "The Concept of Evil." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "The Definition of Morality." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 14 Mar. 2011. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#toc

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Moral Naturalism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7 Aug. 2006. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/naturalism-moral/#Intro

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Value Theory." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 29 May 2012. Web. 260 Sept. 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/index.html

Geach, Peter T. "Good and Evil" from Theories of Ethics. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. Print. http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil