Beyond Good and Evil


Is there such a thing as good and evil, or are these qualitative statements rendered from conscience minds?

I think to address this question we must return to humankind’s animal state and ask ourselves whether or not “good” and “evil” are matters for other beings and entities. For example, what is there of these two concepts between the deer who eats the grass, the ticks that burrows under the skin of the deer and the wolf who preys on the deer? Is the aardvark who decimates an ant colony committing a heinous act or simply foraging? Are two rival packs of animals vying for dominance in a specific territory simply endeavouring to survive or committing a form of gang warfare? In all these scenarios, I believe that most of us will concur that they are acts of nature.

Enter Humankind. Our prime difference separating us from the rest of the natural world is encapsulated in Descartes statement: “I think therefore I am”. We are perhaps the only creatures on the planet that reasons our actions and views the world in terms of it’s various layers, depending on our level of consciousness. This, in our early days, lead to the development of pagan and, later, monotheistic religions as we attempted to reason our existence, give our lives purpose and to develop social rules to allow our species to prosper and live harmoniously. Without these constructs, we would live in a state described by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” The power to which Hobbes alludes is represented in both religion and politics. As history has also illustrated, again quoting Hobbes: “Covenants without the sword are but words and of no strength to secure man at all.” Certainly, contrast Russia pre and post 1989 and we can see how when the totalitarian grip of the Communist Party and its various minions like the KGB let go, the Russian mafia took over.

So societal peace was originally based on fear, but is now, in many parts of the world, being reasoned as we strive for social harmony. I certainly see this experiment in the prison where I work as we spend thousands annually on convicted offenders to “help them so they can live as a law abiding citizen” while largely neglecting the victims and families of their crimes. This is part of not wanting to perceive ourselves as being a barbaric or vengeful society, but rather an inclusive and reasonable one (…yes, and Communism looks great on paper, but the human implementation leaves much to be desired!).

Ultimately, as all that I have presented was being created, we needed a rubric or gage by which to create this reasoned harmonious state. First, Humankind made itself distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom, putting more value on a conscious human life over an apparently oblivious duck or porcupine, becoming to Nature what the Church, in many parts of the world, had become to the peasantry. Then we started to make things qualitative: take neighbours cow = theft and execution (later reduced over the centuries to prison time and, later, fines). Kill cow = need food thus okay. Kill neighbour = not okay because neighbour’s kin kill back then no one left to raise cows = bad. These qualitative things eventually became “good” and “evil”.

It was all going along so well until society’s consciousness developed further and we grew from caves to condominiums. Then we realised that there are nothing but layers of grey as opposed to black and white. So, what was a Commandment as simple as “thou shalt not kill”, became a plethora of reasoned arguments, complicated by individual and cultural perspectives. Just as one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, our reasoning shows that there are no pure absolutes in regards to our concepts such as “good” and “evil”. Even if one belongs to a religion, questions still remain and we just chalk it up to not being quite as wise and omniscient as
G(g)od. If there is no immortal soul, what does anything matter if one day our planet is reduced to dust? I’m not advocating that we forgo these qualitative assignments as I have no desire to return to Hobbes natural state of man, but, can’t help but observe that, oftentimes, it’s our interpretation of such qualitative things that causes us to war rather than prevent us from warring.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that we have reached the epiphanic moment that Nietzsche wrote of: the Übermenschen or Superman as the masses tend to remain more like sheep as opposed to Zarathustra. Nietzsche wrote, appropriately enough, “Morality is the herd-instinct in individuals”. I would add to this that “good” and “evil” are the necessary implements required to keep the herd together. Closing with Wittgenstein: “The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem”….

Enough said!