Dear Friends,
It seems to me, that without empathy, sympathy and indeed kindness, the concept of evil would be impossible to understand. Since it is only through the lens of empathy, kindness and sympathy can we even see evil. For without kindness, evil simply is. Concepts need metrics. The opposite is true as well. That without hatred, anger and wrath we could not understand the good. We can say that in these cases, the opposite gives meaning. Like cold and hot. Without feeling the one we cannot understand the concept of the other. If you have never been cold, how do you know you are hot, and if you have never been hot, how do you know you are cold? Far from an eclectic thought experiment, these ideas have real world implications. That goodness needs evil and evil needs goodness… is one example.
Vulcans (if they existed) would not be able to grasp good or evil. Ethics for such people would consist entirely of calculated profit. If a strange dog helps you, it did it out of a sense of good and evil. On the other hand, if a theoretical Vulcan helped you, it would necessarily be out of a calculated sense of profit. Since Vulcans have no emotions, thus no sense of right and wrong. Why is a dog’s ethics better than a Vulcan’s profit calculation… if I am helped anyway? For several reasons. The first requires a sense of right and wrong to understand. The dog’s action, motivated by ethics is selfless, and therefore pure hearted. The Vulcan’s is essentially a selfish capitalistic exchange. Not immoral but not selfless either. Which means the Vulcan’s help (goodness) will always be contingent while the dog’s is not.
Therefore good and evil are deeper concepts than simply actions but of motivations and perspective. When a farmer cuts the head off a chicken, from the chicken’s point of view and evil has been done. From the farmer’s perspective a good has been done, and from a neutral perspective… it depends on the frame of reference (perspective) of the viewer. An observer who identifies with the chicken will see evil, where one who identifies with the farmer, will see good. A truly objective observer might see everything differently, depending if they have empathy, kindness and sympathy in their hearts, or coldness, selfishness and pride. Leading us to conclude that good and evil are not amenable to objective calculations but are basically subjective feelings.
Some may fall away there, and say if good and evil are “merely” subjective feelings, then why consider them at all? I might offer that our feelings are often the most important things in our lives at any given moment. At least we live as they are. I say that because there is not one among us who has not been overwhelmed by emotion at one time or another. How can we dismiss a thing that can overwhelm us? Only a fool pretends that something that can usurp our consciousness is irrelevant. Nevertheless, can a subjective thing be objectively measured? Again I would offer yes. Everything we measure objectively is based on subjective experience. We all subjectively experience red as a color and agree it is red. The same is true of an inch, a horse and cold. Making every objective observation subjective at its core.
If good and evil are subjective feelings, dependent on context and deeper than mere actions and motivations, then how can we ever measure the good or the bad? By using the aggregate subjective experience as a guide… as we do inches, colors and indeed horses. You and I can tell when we walk outside if it is cold or hot. Therefore we can also tell if a thing is good or evil, if we have kindness, empathy and sympathy in our hearts. Since we can now understand good and evil, and every human hearted person wants more good and less evil in the world, (although the elimination of all evil means the elimination of good as well). Then we are left with the Golden rule as the measure of good and evil, both subjective and objective in the aggregate, and reciprocity in response.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
