The concept of good and evil is becoming more complex than ever. It is one of the oldest concepts yet scholars from vast backgrounds of religion and philosophy have been unable to agree on what “good and evil” means. From most moral and religious perspectives, the distinction between good and evil is lack and white. Most of us understand “good” as behaviors, outcomes, or personalities that we admire. It can include aspects like comfortable life, honesty, affection, and humility. On the other side, evil is defined as a negation of good. Anything that we do not admire like calamities and mean people is evil. While the concept of good and evil is a foundational moral principle to us, there has been a new realization that it is a myth as does not exist. The existence of good and evil is disputable because of metaphysical comfort as our human nature.
Significantly, we, humans are complex beings. Our tendency to define good and evil relies mostly on if a situation or a person is admirable to us. For instance, if we find a person to be mean to us, we are quick to describe him/her as evil without minding if we are mistaken. Bernstein (13) described this tendency as metaphysical comfort, where we tend to be self-righteous. When we desire this comfort, we attain a false sense of judgment, disputing the existence of good and evil. Consider an example of the 9/11 terror attack on September 11, 2001, where thousands of Americans lost their lives. Americans condemned the attack by terming the attackers as evil and a bill of war terror was signed. This bill has resulted in many revenge attacks on the countries and parties that facilitated 9/11. The American attacks have also caused as much damage as 9/11 since lives and properties have been destroyed. In this case, the ideology of good and evil does not make sense as each party is fighting to be justified. The metaphysical comfort effect is portrayed by how Americans are quick to call attacks against America terrorism, yet it avenges by committing similar or worse attacks. Notably, this example just proves the non-existence of good and evil. People are always willing to choose paths (whether good or evil) convenient to them.
The aspect of metaphysical comfort is also reflected in how the purported evil is used for “good” purposes. As mentioned above, the traditional understanding of the difference between good and evil is always in black and white. This distinction has it that “evil” and “good” do not mix. However, in reality, we find ourselves incorporating “evil” with “good” just to attain our comfort. Take an example of how we lie to save dire situations. For instance, consider an example where a son lies about his problem to his sickly mother to protect her from the stress that could cause her to have a heart attack. Our moral principles insist that lying is evil, yet, in this case, could save a mother from worrying too much. The son would most probably judge his lie as “good,” but would most likely hate to be lied to if tables were turned. Importantly, this example shows the concept of good and evil is not as significant as we believe. As human beings, we tend to favor actions, people, or situations that make us comfortable provided we achieve greater and favorable outcomes.
In need, the concept of good and evil is overrated since there are no such things. Its misconceived existence is attributed due to most religious backgrounds, particularly monotheistic religions. These religions emphasize good and evil to make people abide by their (religions) principles and culture. Similarly, we, people only agree to the existence of the concept of good and evil to benefit ourselves only
Work Cited
Bernstein, J. Richard. The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11. Polity Press, 2005.
