Good stuff...

Our inability to describe hot and cold, light and dark, good and evil in terms other than in polar opposites to one another, may be merely a limitation of our language. We simply have no other way of describing darkness than the absence of light. We have an idea in our minds of what darkness is, but we cannot communicate that concept without making reference to light. This expands on Will’s argument that good and evil are nothing more than human constructs. He argued that in the natural state of things no actions made by animals are good or evil. The tiger is certainly not “evil” for killing the gazelle; it is merely doing what it naturally does to survive. Good and evil are then just labels that we humans have placed on actions that are socially acceptable and unacceptable. This was basically Danny’s argument. Since they are invented labels, this means we have chosen to define the concepts of good and evil as polar opposites to one another. Thus, by very definition the two concepts cannot be defined independently of one another. I like that.

Now... let’s not go as far as to say that people who disobey the socially accepted good are “insane” (as that would imply a complete lack of reason on their parts). However, people like Hitler and Stalin, who we label as “evil”, were clearly not motivated by the socially acceptable norms that govern the majority of us. Rather, they were acting in very selfish ways, attempting to gain power for themselves, no matter what the cost. Danny argued their behaviour was simply “not natural”. But according to Hobbes, their behaviour was entirely natural (recall his natural state of things in which everyone seeks power individually). Mel argued that “it is against the nature of man to do himself harm, or choose to do anything against his best interest”, and therefore “a man who would choose against his appetites (evil) is not acting in a sane capacity and his actions are void of meaning.” But actions that we label as “evil” are not necessarily harmful to the person performing them, or against his best interests. Rather, evil deeds are usually harmful to other people.

Ok, now before I finish this wonderful post in which I do nothing more than expand on or counter previous posts made by others (aren’t I clever, posting a question and then waiting for you all to respond so I can leech off of you all, muwahahaha), I’d like to address the second part of my question, which I feel didn’t receive nearly enough attention: Is it necessary for us to have the possibility, the presence of evil before us, in order for us to choose the path to goodness? Or in other words, does choice exist between good and evil without the presence of the two prior to the decision-making process? What’s choice without knowledge of the consequences of that choice? Ack! I can’t even fathom answering that now; I just finished writing a paper for another course. I’ll leave that to another day... or to other "groupies".