Good and Evil

In response to a quote from Ralf Waldo Emerson’s Self-Reliance.

"Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong is what is against it.”

The biggest issue that I see with the terms “good” and “evil” is their use as a descriptor for any given interpretable force or idea.

Using the example of selfishness, one can assume that humans all are, to some extent, selfish. This word comes with obvious baggage in the form of a negative connotation by our modern interpretation. Selfishness is seen as the food of greedy businessmen and the schoolyard bully. However, from a more optimistic viewpoint, the idea of selfishness could be reworded to the idea of survival; one will tend towards putting one’s own needs ahead of the needs of others for the sake of evolutionary progress and self-sustinance. This idea will obviously have a much more positive connotation to any Darwinist, progressive thinker.

Another fairly simple answer would be love. Generally, people would say love is the epitome of good, but others might say it is simply falsities and impairs judgement, leaving the somber, darkened connotation of an addictive drug.

For any disputable idea or force, wide discrepancies will be found between the many possible interpretations, each, to some extent, seeded in one’s own moral viewpoint. Because these interpretations follow directly in the path of personal viewpoints, it is important to remember that the connotations one assigns with any idea are solely personal.

Almost any idea or force could be, at this point, assigned to either the “good” or “evil” sides of the spectrum, the two sides of the spectrum being constantly balanced and conflicting with one-another. For ideas such as love, the societal mean will undoubtably lean towards a positive connotation, but there will always be outliers to the mean. These outliers deserve unbiased and uninfluenced respect in conversations that do not directly pertain to the subjectable idea. If judgment of the idea is included in the discussion, this judgement both removes all other paths possible when an alternative interpretation is considered.

I see this possibility of paths like the expansion of a family tree. With each new child in each new generation, the opportunity for infinitely more children is opened up, exponentially increasing the total amount of people in the family. The shape this expansion creates, with increasingly many possible children from each new child, is much like that created in a discussion when an interpretable idea is looked at from multiple directions. When any of these interpretable ideas is looked at with a predetermined connotation, it closes the door on all opportunities that would potentially arise from its alternatives. If all ideas are looked at pre-connotated, only ONE out of the infinite possible conclusions can be reached. Surely this cannot be seen as a preferable route for rational, abstract thought conversation.

The reason I have a personal intolerance for the terms “good” and “evil” is that they are the simplest, and most judgmental forms of pre-connotation. Classifying something as either “good” or “bad” gives no real understanding of the concept, or the speaker’s full standpoint on the subject. Instead, all that is gained is the knowledge that the speaker finds this idea either preferable, or not.

On a personal level, I am however a full advocate of thoughtful and meaningful classification. If, after thorough analysis of the subject matter, the thinker can fully summarize all parts of a finite idea (i.e. not love, as it is terribly undefined) towards either “good” or “evil” progress, this can come in handy when making personal or internal conclusions or arguments. More simply put, classification makes the personal decision-making process more efficient.

Despite the need for personal efficiency, it is still important to maintain an open mind regarding ideas for not only personal growth, but the benefit of discussion as a whole.