Atheism 16 - Good v. Evil

    This is another of those questions that hasn't actually been asked, but it's a big part of any religious belief, so it bears addressing.  It is, in fact, the very core of any religious belief, or any social belief for that matter, as we will see.  It is also another question for which I am personally ill-equipped to answer, so what follows cannot be seen as any definitive response, merely the musings of a fellow space traveler who has occasionally pondered the topic.

    When it comes to defining the terms "good" and "evil," it seems to me that every society has developed the concepts independently.  Even when looking at a simple subsection of the idea, such as prudence, one finds a plethora of different ideas.  While a young woman in Victorian England would be thought of as imprudent if she were to appear in public with an exposed calf muscle, a young woman in ancient Polynesia would be perfectly acceptable were she to appear bare-breasted, or at least very nearly so.  When we examine the larger concepts of good and evil, the waters become even more muddied.

    As I had done when examining the nature or God, I decided that, rather than delve into the complexities of varying social norms, it would be far more expedient to look into social commonalities.  How could we define the terms "good" and "evil" so as to satisfy all of the various groups, both modern and antiquated, upon which it has been incumbent to so define them?

    After much consideration, I ultimately concluded that "good" must be defined as "those actions which put the needs of the group before the needs of the individual."  This meant, of course, that "evil" must, in turn, be defined as "those actions that put the needs of the individual ahead of the needs of the group."  Having pondered these definitions, I found myself extremely satisfied with them.  They were simple; a five-year-old could understand them.  And they were reasonable; any society, any organization, must define the terms thus in order to maintain any sense of organization.  To do otherwise would simply lead to anarchy.

    It also helped me understand what the writer of Genesis meant in saying that we're "all evil from birth" (Gen. 8:21).  If you're a parent - if you've ever been a babysitter - then you're well aware that we come into this world without empathy: we're born evil, as it were.  When a newborn gets hungry at 2:00am, he does not care how sleep-deprived his parents might be.  He is going to scream until he gets nourishment!  This is in no way a condemnation of the infant's behavior; it is simply an acknowledgement that, using the simplified definitions above, "evil" is our natural state.  One could argue that individual survival depends on evilness.

    However, as previously observed, no society could survive if each of its members were allowed to continue prioritizing its own needs over those of the group as a whole.  For a social group to even exist - to say nothing of achieving civilization - the individual members must be taught to shift their priorities to the group and away from the individual.  Various mechanisms are ensconced to achieve this shift, namely a governing and/or religious body.  Both are designed to reinforce "good" as the greater alternative over "evil."

    This all seems quite self-evident.  So how does it all end up being so complicated? This, too, became instantly self-evident.  Acknowledging that we're all "born evil," it is also true that we all wish to appear "good" to our fellows.  This natural state of humanity - this distinction between our equal desires for self-gratification and social acceptance, puts us in the very distressful state of having to constantly live a lie, even if that lie exists only within our own minds.  Working out a variety of methods of seeming "good" while simultaneously being "bad" becomes very complicated, indeed.

None of this is comfortable to ponder, but it does seem to be a valid argument.  Ironically, it puts us in a position to take more offense at words than those words' definitions.  Psychologists say that the average person tells ten lies a day (I've never counted, but I humor myself with the idea that my personal average is a bit lower than that).  Yet, every one of us would be offended if someone called us a liar.  I doubt anyone makes it to 3rd grade without at some point knowingly taking something that belongs to someone else, even if it's nothing more than a pencil or a nickel.  Still, who among us is comfortable with thinking of ourselves as a thief?  Somehow, we've reached a point at which the word is more problematic than the action.

I suspect that the reason for this is that we are all addicted to selfishness, but selfishness brings with it a certain level of guilt.  It is easier to rid ourselves of the guilt than the addiction.  Think about that the next time you're judging someone for their actions.

Pax