Good and Evil

[unclesammy]

Good and Evil
Dimitri Marshall, December 10th, 2008

Good and evil are one of many contrasting terms defined by human beings, including day and night, high and low, introvert and extrovert, fascism and Marxism, and so forth. Humans are, by nature, observational creatures and we are constantly trying to make sense of what we observe. Some of our termed polar opposites are much more subjective than good and evil, like day and night for example. Most, if not all, humans perceive day to be when the sun is above the horizon, whereas, by contrast, night is when the sun is below the horizon. In both cases, humans generally agree on the same perception of day and night.

Good and evil, on the other hand, are completely self-orientated perceptions. What one person considers any level of good, another may consider some level of bad. This is, arguably, the most basic form of conflict between people on (among others) an interpersonal, multicultural, and international scale. The question, then, begs, why do we not all have the same perception of good and evil? The answer, I believe, is both simplistic fundamentally, yet very complex socially, and the solution to this conflict would appear to have no existence based on the fundamentals of the problem (that being good vs. evil, and the personal and social extremism associated with preserving good and eliminating evil).

Good and evil, I believe, can be defined quite simply and universally (although the attributes for each would be unique to each person) both psychologically and biologically. Psychologically, good equates happiness, enjoyment, bliss, joy, security, and so on, and evil equates sadness, despair, depression, fear, distress and so forth. Biologically we can relate each (good and evil) with chemical releases within the brain to obtain (or create) a certain emotion. What, then, creates ones perception of good and evil, resulting in different emotions psychologically and biologically (that is, the release of, say, dopamine vs. adrenaline).

In simplistic form, our perception of good and evil can generally be observed in universal forms when we are younger, before we have been absolved into our cultural and social construct. Good and evil will generally be the same for a young child. According to Maslow, this would include our physiological, safety, and love/belonging needs, respective in order according to level of importance. Because our needs are vastly more basic when we are younger, we generally have the same concept of good and evil, because the situations that would incite fear, distress, sadness, or happiness, joy, security for one child, will, in the vast majority of cases, be the same for another child. Playing with a toy will make most children happy, whereas a hungry child will make them distressed.

As we grow older, or mature (however that term can be defined), our inter-relationship dependence and involvement begins to become more obvious. Our needs become much more complex, considering, now, our diverse amount and level of relationships, as well as our life experiences. Our perception of good and evil are now also defined by our parents, peers, culture, society, religion, and whatever other variable you can imagine. Good and evil is now not just simply what your basic needs were as a child, but is now an evolving, dynamic and complex definition. This is where, I believe, humanity falters.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a philosophical model of humanity in which he believes humans are happiest when their life is as simple as possible. The fewer variables, simplistically, that can contribute to our perception of good and evil, I argue, is the key to contentment. In Rousseau’s model, he uses indigenous people for evidence of his theory, and some critics of Rousseau argue that this is too small of control for basis of argument. True, that might be, but let us consider the argument that I subject; that of the nature of our children and their innocence.

The problem with society, today, is that we confuse our perceptions of good and evil by complicating our relationships with secondary priorities (materialism, religion, ideals) which trump our primary priorities (see Maslow’s hierarchy). Historically, this argument can be supported by religious crusades, war, genocide, and so forth, which continue to repeat themselves today. Humans are confused with the importance of defending our ideas rather than preserving humanity, love, and altruism, which are our most basic needs for survival (among others).

Rousseau believed that you cannot turn back history; that is, in our current society and world, we cannot go back to being simplistic indigenous beings. Our complexity is so great and interweaved at this point, that it would be impossible to reverse our current construct. The argument, however, I present, is that the change that humanity needs, in this sense, is not external, but rather internal. I agree that our current social construct is impossible to reverse, yet we can change our attitude and control our perceptions; we have fee agent (or choice). Rousseau argued this perspective as well, that self-love was the ultimate key to happiness. If we were to realize that our priorities, which we believe are survivalist, are in the wrong order, we can exist in our current structure still, with only a much different perspective of the world.

At this point it would appear as though I suggest that humanity needs to reduce itself to a simplistic, child-like form. In a sense, that is correct, however much to simplified. I believe, in our current construct, it is also important for us to develop and progress, as a species, intellectually, artistically, technologically. This is a very vague idea, and is meant to be so, as the ultimate destination of this progression can be something different for everyone. I suggest, at this point, a more liberal view in our progression, one which emphasizes tolerance and removal of prejudice. The child-like form I propose is that we ensure our priorities for survival remain as simplistic as possible; so as to not allow ideas, such as materialism, trump our other basic needs such as love and belonging.

Ultimately, it is our disagreement of good and evil, which is responsible for our condition, but only because we confuse which “good” and which “evil” is more important. If we can reduce our behaviour to a more mature child-like form (basic needs of Maslow), then we can successfully align our perceptions of important good and evil. It is cliché to say, yet we are all 99% more alike than we are different, yet we are at war with ourselves and each other over the remaining 1%.