Argument: "Black-And-White" modern views of "good" and "evil" aren't completely accurate
TimeReq: ~ 5 min
23:29 hrs MST
08/17/2018
Tempe, Arizona
Remember the fairytales you read as a kid? Like the one where a knight in shining armor fights an evil dragon to rescue the damsel in distress? Where the heroes were noble and good-looking and the villains ugly and inhuman?
Where evil was the destruction or ruin of the world, and where good always won?
Real life struggles of "good" vs "evil" bear NO SEMBLANCE to such notions at all. Which is why they're stuck in fairytales.
And why I really hope it should be that way.
Fairytales aside, everything from the declarations of Abrahamic religions fortelling a final battle of universal good and evil to an "us vs them" mentality can be distilled to this core concept:
"Everything that fits within this box of things we call 'good' is 'good'"
"Everything else that is outside that box of what we call 'good' is 'bad'"
This paradigm of a total, universal 'good' and 'bad' is inaccurate
Here's an example that demonstrates why:
Assume there were only 2 allied nations in the world, both of equal population. A sudden virus-based famine struck the globe.
Both nations were totally unprepared.
Nation A's people are starving, because most of their crops died due to factors they can't control.
Nation B's people are barely surviving, because most of their crops lived due to factors they can't control.
Nation A offered to buy food from Nation B. Nation B refused, because there was only enough food for one nation
If both nations split the available food, riots from both nations would throw civilization into total collapse.
Nation A, having a superior military to Nation B, invades to take their food from them.
Nation B is compelled to fight back despite knowing they will lose.Who is 'good' and who is 'evil'?
People are quick to jump to Nation A being 'evil', since they invaded Nation B
Yet Nation A's crop failure was not within their control.
And Nation B's crop survival was not within their control.
Nation A was compelled by random events to turn on their ally, and take their food to ensure its people survived.
Nation B was compelled by random events to refuse to help their ally, to ensure its people survived.
Both nations committed acts of 'evil' of varying extent by contemporary standards. One refused to help their friend, and the other invaded the former.
It is justifiable for Nation A's people to call Nation B "evil", as they refused to share their food, making them starve
It is justifiable for Nation B's people to call Nation A "evil", as they invaded their country and took their food, making them starve
It is justifiable for Nation A's people to call Nation A's actions "good", as they were prioritizing their survival
It is justifiable for Nation B's people to call Nation B's actions "good", as they were prioritizing their survival
If anything, tragedy and fortune are mostly beyond one's control. They usually do not happen based on whether a person was 'good' or 'evil'. Real Life is random.
'Evil' people can still rule nations & succeed, while 'Good' people can still be destitute and homeless
"Two wrongs don't make a right". But that rhetoric is callous, considering how at least an entire nation's population just got wiped out. It doesn't solve our problem, either.
Of course, real life will never be simplistic as this model. But real life doesn't have people, institutions, or nations that will ever be considered "totally good" or "totally evil".
The reality is, there are infinite shades of grey, the definition is largely subjective, and the lines for defining both concepts are VERY blurry.
Consensus Vs Dissenssion
Rather, people are moved to action out of "Consensus" on a common set of premises
And are also moved to action out of "Dissension" from said Consensus
Consensus and Dissension separately can either be "good" or "evil"
Consensus takes hold when a critical number or people of critical influence believe & support a set of premises/ideals.
- Think- people believing in a certain religion, government structure, political party, boy band..
Dissension takes hold when people deviate from or reject said consensus of premises/ideals
- Think- people rebelling against a regime, opposing political party, rival boy band...
Dissension can even grow into a consensus of a set of premises/ideals that conflict with the original
This is important, as it explains that people view concepts of 'good' and 'evil' based on varying semblance or deviation to commonly accepted ideals.
It also explains why internet fanatics bash each other on Facebook when the other believes in a different religion or political party. Because, to one, the other doesn't share the same consensus with them. They DISAGREE.
And when someone disagrees with something that a critical mass of people accept, they label it 'evil'
When enough people believe in something, they label it 'good'
This is somewhat like rivalries between two gorgeous, popular girls in high school, but on steroids.
And different from popularity, consensus tends to be about something significant about life, and one people are freakishly emotionally invested in.
Extrapolate this concept to religious wars, clashes between political ideologies, whether EXO is superior to BTS...
Use your better judgement: don't completely trust people you think as heroes. And don't completely blow off people you think as villains.