Good or Evil by Boxers Branahin

                Is man basically good or inherently evil?  We will henceforth refer to ‘men’ and ‘man’; this is not out of colloquial convenience, rather out of sexual bias; I think we all recognize that women are both ‘good’ cooks and ‘evil’ people.  Back to men.  I was introduced to the question by the American public school system in the form of Locke and Hobbes.  The experience was sufficiently pathetic; the students (myself included) were incapable of recognizing the true depth of the question and, likely, neither was the teacher.  To my younger self it seemed ridiculous; life was simple – some people are good (Americans, minorities, Japanese) others are evil (Communists, Imperialists, Republicans, Japanese).  To say that we were all the same, that we were derived from a single prototype was unfathomable.  Sure the school system preached sameness, but it also preached black and white, good vs. evil.  How could there be a middle ground - a gray?  If we all started as good or evil, how could we transition from one to the other?  No, in my primitive mind it was clear that some people started good, others evil and we stayed that way.

                What if we were to assume that there is no universal good and no universal evil?  Does it simplify things?  It seems obvious to any educated adult that the concepts of good and evil are socially determined – matters of changing opinion.  So what motivates us, if it is not a predestined desire to do good or to do evil?  I would have to say that our motivations have always been, and always will be bestial in nature.  Our existence is a struggle for status, and ultimately breeding privileges.  So what are good and evil?  Goodness comes from a desire to uphold our social system, manifest in honor, truthfulness, etc, etc.  Without these ‘virtues’ the whole system would fall apart, and even the cheaters don’t want to lose the system (how can they cheat if there are no rules to break?).  Evil on the other hand comes from the natural competitive desire to get ahead – survival of the strongest and all that.  For one to get ahead, others must fail and from this dynamic comes the concept of evil; those doing the failing (or fear the potential to fail) accuse their antagonists of being ‘evil’.

                But perhaps I should try to answer the question and deem man as either inherently good or evil.  OK, man is evil.  Why?  He is inherently ‘evil’ because his first instincts are selfish.  As a baby man takes and demands with no compassion for others.  He must be conditioned to be ‘good’; he is taught the rules of the society by parents, teachers, police – figures of authority.  In our society minors are not accountable for evil actions; they are not expected to fully understand the difference between good and evil.  It takes eighteen years of social conditioning before they can comprehend the ‘rules’ to the level of being able to choose between ‘good’ and ‘evil’.  Good is therefore a willingness to obey the rules of society and evil is a decision to disobey the rules.

So is ‘evil’ just animal instincts?  It would appear that way, at least the ones that the society does not encourage.  Murder, rape, theft, deceit, are all prime examples of animal behavior – things an animal would perpetrate without remorse.  Yet I have seen an animal express remorse – a dog.  A dog conditioned by our society to know it was evil to overturn the garbage can, but unable to restrain his impulses.  Is this dog evil?  He knew perfectly well what was dictated by society, but he just couldn’t help himself, his animal instincts got the best of him.  Are humans are just like this dog, struggling to control their animal instincts?  Certainly some people I know.  Yet for some of us there is obviously more to the human existence than survival and propagation of genetic code.  What is art, beauty, philosophy?  If we were not to at least partially forsake our animal instincts we would have no time to pursue these loftier ends.  So is good good?  Sure, I find it difficult to explain why, but I think most of us would agree that good is indeed good.  It makes us feel good knowing that we are doing our part to uphold society and order.  Is evil evil?  This is more open to interpretation.  To someone such as myself who has mastered the ‘rules’ and is guaranteed success through following them, I would say, “yes, evil is evil, people who break the rules should be punished, severely!”  But to someone who achieves success through breaking the rules – well it becomes difficult for me to ascertain their true opinion, not being one myself and all that.  It could be argued that at some level they all loath themselves for their inability to conform to society and raise a veil of indignant justification to condone their evil actions.  If this were the case it would make for a nice universal definition of good and evil, because it would make evil universally evil.  Yes, let’s say it’s true.

                Yet problems arise when two societies differ in opinion.  A behavior may be ‘good’ in one, and ‘evil’ in another.  Killing wolves for example (or Saracens, or even slugs.  I recall fondly in fifth grade duteously collecting snails in a bucket in the school garden.  When my motives were questioned by my fellow fifth-graders I proudly revealed my intentions of feeding them to the chickens.  I felt that I was undertaking an activity that was beneficial to myself (feeding snails to chickens is wild fun), the plants and the chickens – worthy of praise no less.  Many of my fellows were appalled and felt that I was a callous, sanguinary demon).  In such cases is it reasonable to understand the activity to be both good and evil?  The answer is yes if there is no universal, everlasting set of rules.  This conclusion, of course, raises an uncomfortable confrontation with many popular major religions but then we haven’t been discussing fairy tales and social conditioning, we’ve been discussing the heart of man.