Who defines "good" and "evil"? That is very subjective. I remember pondering on the subject and set myself an example. If a parent tells a toddler not to go near a flight of stairs for fear that the child may fall, the parent is determining for that child that going near the stairs is “bad”. Going near the stairs is not inherently bad because adults do it. But given the circumstances and obvious consequences for a child, it is “bad”. Extrapolating this to more complex issues, it seems to me that “bad” or “evil” and “good” depend on the definition of a higher authority. In our world, that authority can be the community, the government, God or a sense of morality in general.
I don’t have any particular examples, but I’m sure one can come up with situations that are perfectly OK (moral or good) in one society and not in another. The same applies to laws. When it comes to morality, since humans seem to have some sense of it (bad or good), it seems to me that the “true” definition of what is moral, immoral, good or evil, would depend on a higher authority, ultimately a Supreme Being. If you don’t believe in a Supreme Being, then that authority lies pretty much within what oneself is willing to recognize as a final arbiter within ones ethics.
That’s why I’ve never had a problem with the Biblical accounting of Adam and Eve. Obviously, eating of the fruit was not an “evil” or “bad” act in it self. The determination was made for them as to what was bad and the only “sin” was to disobey someone who had determined himself to be their moral guide, their higher authority. The “sin” was to choosing to not accept or reject that higher authority for whatever selfish reason and supplanting themselves as the ultimate authority. Having been created with the ability to choose, they exercised it. They were not flawed or imperfect. They were perfectly able to choose according to the way they were built.
I’ve had my doubts about a Supreme Being. But the only thing that keeps me from disbelieving in one at all is that the universe would be in pretty sad shape if somewhere along the way we could not defer how we are to conduct ourselves to a higher arbiter of what is right and good and evil. Killing is not wrong. Killing for the wrong reason (whatever has been determined by a common accepted higher entity) is what we generally considered wrong. Within this set of parameters there’s room for the possibility that there’s no higher intelligence to guide us. Some people feel that eventually humanity may come to terms with it self and achieve a universal moral standard of good and evil. I don’t have that kind of confidence.
The philosopher Berkley (why do people pronounce it ‘Barkley’?) gives an example: “If a lute be not well tuned, the musician fails of its harmony.” Does that mean that the note is “bad”? Well, yes, but only in the context of the musician and anyone who appreciates music. Otherwise, it’s just a sound, neither good nor bad. Was it Berkley who spoke of “cause and effect”? They are different sides of the same coin. They are inextricably related to each other. Speaking of relativity (by way of cause and effect), Einstein suggested that the presence of matter “defines” space itself. There’s no point of speaking about space if there’s no matter in it. One thing defines the other. Can you have a cause without an effect or the other way around? I can’t imagine it. The problem is determining which is the cause and which is the effect. To me it’s the same with good and evil. By defining one or the other, we are saying something about it’s opposite. They are inseparable.
Does that mean that each has to be experienced? No! It’s different with inexact non-quantitive issues like morality. I can be in a state of happiness without having to experience unhappiness. I can also experience a state of being alive without being dead. But, I know that death is the opposite of living, thinking the opposite of not thinking, feeling the opposite of not feeling. It’s the gist of what Solomon was saying in Ecclesiastes. I can imagine being filthy rich without ever being so. The opposite of being filthy rich is not being terribly poor. It is NOT being filthy rich. The opposite of feeling love is not feeling hate. It is NOT feeling love. But, feeling love defines it’s opposite. Feeling defines NOT feeling. Good defines evil or bad, which is what we call 'NOT good'. Must evil exist? Yes, by definition. Does it HAVE to be experienced? No, but it would surely be nice to see a day when such negative experiences are eradicated from humanity.
Etude
