|
|
|
I can't be bothered to edit it, so this is the.... UBER spelling and gramatical errors version. IT was an essay I had to write for school called "The laws of life".
Good, Evil, and Decisions
There are many things in this world that are opposites. There is the color black and white, light and darkness, and the biggest one, good and evil. A man once said that darkness is the absence of light, and in the same way, evil is the absence of good. However, is it possible for good to exist without evil; Or evil to exist without good? One without the other has no meaning. What is good and evil? Who defines good and evil? What is the difference between a good and bad decision?
Most people would define good as something that helps another person. A book called The Science of Good and Evil said that morality originated from a person doing what was best for their family, and as time progressed, what was better for the tribe, and now in modern times, what is best for the nation. When asked what evil is, many different answers would arise because everyone has different beliefs. Some might say homosexuality is evil, some might say abortion, some might say murder, and others might say other things like divorce or disobeying your parents. With so many opinions, how does one know what the true definition of good and evil is? Is it truly possible to have a set list of what good and evil is without religion if atheism and postmodernism both suggest that a person can believe whatever they want? If I believe that skinning babies is right, and you don’t, who is right?
So then, who is the person that defines good and evil? In a government setting, the laws are decided based upon a majority rules vote, so if one person things something is immoral, but 99 people think it is perfectly fine, then it is automatically viewed as perfectly fine because, majority rules. This works for things that can be commonly agreed on like murder and rape, but without somebody to define EXACTLY what is right/wrong, debates can arise. For example, a huge debate has been ongoing in North America for as long as some people can remember concerning abortions. Some people believe it is wrong, murder, and that it should be banned, while other believes that the potential parents should have the right to decide. So far, the majority thinks it is ok, but is ending a potential life, fetus or not, perfectly fine? And of course, in some situations, the results of a majority wins vote can hurt a minority. Votes aren’t the only thing that can hurt people; Decisions can too.
When asked, a person might say that a good decision is one that brings good, and a bad decision is one that brings evil. Others might say that a good decisions being good consequences, and a bad one brings bad consequences. Can a decision still be considered a bad one if there aren’t any (noticeable) bad consequences? Example, if a 15 year old gets drunk, but doesn’t do anything stupid, and no one finds out, and therefore no bad consequences, is it still a bad decision? Also, if someone makes a decision that has a positive impact on a majority, but a negative impact on a minority, does the good impact cancel out the bad impact? For example, if a nuclear power plant has to get rid of its waste, and they dump it near a community, a large majority are benefits because they get power, but the minority in the community near the dump has to suffer the possibility of radiation dangers. So, is it a bad decision even though the majority of people in that city are happy?
After thinking through these points, you start to wonder if it is possible for humanity, in all it simplicity, to have the ability to comprehend the true meaning of good and evil. With every person having a different set of beliefs, where do we draw the line of who is right and who is wrong. Each person has their OWN laws of life, which is proven by the fact that each person writing this very essay isn’t writing the exact same thing word for word; and it is almost certain that each person’s is very different from every other person’s. Even if one doesn’t believe if God, after using some deductive logic, you start to see that there HAS to be a point from where we decide what our ground rules of life are. Maybe it would be wise to use the bible as a starting point to define these rules, instead of using the post-modernistic way of thinking, because if we follow the principle that no person’s beliefs are wrong, the world will turn to chaos when someone decides that it is moral to start world war 3. Defining good and evil doesn’t seem important at all until you think of the possible consequences. So maybe it is time to draw the line, and figure out who is right, and who is wrong, before we get ourselves killed. May God have mercy upon our souls.
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a simpler way to look at good and bad based on Socrates:
Being good is not about helping your friends, good is giving no harm to your enemies.
No one wants to do harm (generally), even terrorists. People view their own actions as good because they're getting a benefit back from it by either benefiting themselves directly, or someone they support (friend, family, etc;). You don't judge who's good and who's bad as you've stated in your article, because no matter what, you'll always be biased towards something. Hence, the most suitable way to consider oneself good is to not harm others, but everyone benefits from that, not just a sole group of people. Obviously in our state of time, benefiting everyone is virtually impossible, but we should work on as many people as we can fit in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seeing as my beliefs don't constitute a book telling me right from wrong, i've come to distinguish that morality is not a predefined statute. This does not mean, however, that I think people are absent of ethical binding.
Beyond that i'll just quote a bit from an article i've kept away for the past few months.
"If one person kills another, when is it truly an injustice? Always. The question, then, is rather: if one person kills another, are their actions justified? While the distinction is nearly indescernable, there is indeed difference. The act will always be unjust as there will always be someone against it (in this sense, all acts are unjust). However, if that person's moral structure permits such an act, they should in no way feel guilty or be termed sinful. It is not until one breaks their own moral code that they have done wrong.
So, if one person kills another, do they get off the hook? Of course not. Whether or not cases of rape, manslaughter, child abuse, and the like fall into one's moral structure (and they rarely do) is irrelevant. They remain a threat to the majority, and as such their beliefs become expendable to society. Lock them up.
Actualization of these perceptions is daunting, particularly as they invalidate any morally based questioning. Do masses pull on each other? Yes; Do people die? Yes; Did someone buy a car today? Sure. But answer this: is it ok for us to hate each other? I say it is, most say it isn't. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong. Injustice? Definitely. But..."
|
|
|
