Right...
I have been thinking about the old series of posts I wrote about good and evil. One of the biggest things that shocked me about that is the individual who argued that good and evil do not exist. This shocked me, because I've always believed that no matter who you are, or what you believe, there is always a right thing that you can do and a wrong thing. Rather, at least one of each.
I have given the matter much thought since then, and I have realised something: to most people, "Good" and "Evil" mean exactly the same thing as "Holy" and "Unholy." When these people talk about doing something Good, they mean "something that is approved and even promoted by their specific religion." So to a Christian, giving alms to the poor is a Good thing, because the Bible tells them it is, and therefore, is a condoned (even suggested) act. This makes the act holy. Is it the right thing to do? Not always. Is it the wrong thing to do? Sometimes. Is it Good? If we equate "Good" with "Holy," then yes, it is a Good thing. However...
The Bible states that you should turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek, therefore, is a Holy act. Failing to do so (that is, seeking retaliation) is thus an Evil act. Is turning the other cheek a Good thing? In terms of holiness, yes. In terms of right and wrong? There it gets a good deal more complicated. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Is retaliation Evil? Again, in terms of holiness, yes. In terms of right and wrong, however, it depends on a great many factors.
It is my observation that the terms "Good" and "Evil" don't HAVE to be equated to holy and unholy. They can be used synonymously with "Right" and "Wrong," instead. There is no universal, hard and fast, black and white, objective measure of right and wrong. What is right in one situation can be wrong in another. Giving five dollars to the homeless guy sleeping on the side of the road might be the right thing to do if he needs it for a warm cup of soup to keep from dying of hypothermia. It might be the wrong thing to do if he uses it to buy liquor and dies from alcohol poisoning.
How do we judge these things? How can we know what is right and what is wrong? We have to do the best we can.
But it is in this sense that we see that person can be evil (that is, actively behave in a manner contrary to the preachings of religion) and still be a good person (because he does what is right, as best he understands the right course of action to be).
I swear I remember reading somewhere about an Asian philosophy that preaches tenets involving things like "rightness of action" and "rightness of thought," and other similar concepts, but I no longer remember what philosophy that is, if I'm even remembering it correctly at all. I am unable to find answers on Google. But the question remains: how do you define what is right and what is wrong?
In any case, even those who choose to perceive themselves as "evil" still see themselves as doing "right," even if what they think is "right" is only going to bring happiness for themselves.
Good and Evil may not exist. Surely, there is no objective universal determinant of what is good and what is evil. There is a measure of Holy vs. Unholy, but this is specific to any given religion, and will vary from sect to sect. There is a measure of right and wrong, but it is flexible, circumstantial, and varies from person to person.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
/rant
I have given the matter much thought since then, and I have realised something: to most people, "Good" and "Evil" mean exactly the same thing as "Holy" and "Unholy." When these people talk about doing something Good, they mean "something that is approved and even promoted by their specific religion." So to a Christian, giving alms to the poor is a Good thing, because the Bible tells them it is, and therefore, is a condoned (even suggested) act. This makes the act holy. Is it the right thing to do? Not always. Is it the wrong thing to do? Sometimes. Is it Good? If we equate "Good" with "Holy," then yes, it is a Good thing. However...
The Bible states that you should turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek, therefore, is a Holy act. Failing to do so (that is, seeking retaliation) is thus an Evil act. Is turning the other cheek a Good thing? In terms of holiness, yes. In terms of right and wrong? There it gets a good deal more complicated. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Is retaliation Evil? Again, in terms of holiness, yes. In terms of right and wrong, however, it depends on a great many factors.
It is my observation that the terms "Good" and "Evil" don't HAVE to be equated to holy and unholy. They can be used synonymously with "Right" and "Wrong," instead. There is no universal, hard and fast, black and white, objective measure of right and wrong. What is right in one situation can be wrong in another. Giving five dollars to the homeless guy sleeping on the side of the road might be the right thing to do if he needs it for a warm cup of soup to keep from dying of hypothermia. It might be the wrong thing to do if he uses it to buy liquor and dies from alcohol poisoning.
How do we judge these things? How can we know what is right and what is wrong? We have to do the best we can.
But it is in this sense that we see that person can be evil (that is, actively behave in a manner contrary to the preachings of religion) and still be a good person (because he does what is right, as best he understands the right course of action to be).
I swear I remember reading somewhere about an Asian philosophy that preaches tenets involving things like "rightness of action" and "rightness of thought," and other similar concepts, but I no longer remember what philosophy that is, if I'm even remembering it correctly at all. I am unable to find answers on Google. But the question remains: how do you define what is right and what is wrong?
In any case, even those who choose to perceive themselves as "evil" still see themselves as doing "right," even if what they think is "right" is only going to bring happiness for themselves.
Good and Evil may not exist. Surely, there is no objective universal determinant of what is good and what is evil. There is a measure of Holy vs. Unholy, but this is specific to any given religion, and will vary from sect to sect. There is a measure of right and wrong, but it is flexible, circumstantial, and varies from person to person.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
/rant