幫我神

so a while ago i proposed a statement that neither good nor evil should be used as absolutes. i then stated that i would write out a post explaining why i thought this, but i got too busy with my intense social life (playing computer games from 1987) and forgot. obviously there are a lot of parts to each end of the good-evil spectrum that i’m not going to go into, because the specifics don’t have much to do with my point, which is: accusing someone of being evil, or in turn, praising them for being good, both as absolutes, is blatantly flawed in that neither concept can be objectively defined. to attempt this will result in my doc marten colliding with your throat.

goodness is typically associated with being moral, charitable, peaceful, loving, and the rest, whereas evil is renowned for its nature in immorality, wrongdoing, and malevolence. these associations are widely enforced from childhood so we grow up knowing what is socially acceptable and what isn’t. however, the masses predominantly avoid acknowledging that people could ever challenge these definitions, because that would create questions without answers and a regime (or lack thereof) without structure. we aren’t taught to accept that the concepts of both good and evil are up for interpretation.

common example: murder, regardless of religious affiliations, is widely considered an evil act, and by association, murderers are considered evil people. however, consider these scenarios: if a mother is awake during the night and notices the house is being burgled, does she have the right to shoot the burglar point blank to protect the safety of her children? she is, in fact, only continuing her duty as a mother to shelter her kin, so is murder, in this instance, an act of goodness? if a mentally unstable homeless man is murdered because a passer-by fears the safety of his or her community, does this excuse the initial evil act of murder because he is, in his eyes, also performing an act of goodness? final example, if a soldier is required to shoot an enemy soldier to protect his fellow man and serve his country, does he have the right to do so in order to fulfill his duty? is murder permitted, in this case, because he is potentially defending himself, and because it is an act of goodness intended to protect his country? as is the case with all examples of either good or evil, there are always exceptions. with that being the case, neither good nor evil can be sufficiently defined, and both have to be subjectively determined. this is what i mean by people using either good or evil as absolutes. 

saying 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective statement. it’s factual and cannot (theoretically) be challenged. saying charles manson’s actions were pure evil and that he should rot in hell for what he did is a subjective statement. it is an opinion and can be challenged. if charles manson believed that his actions were to prevent further evil in the world (feel free to google “helter skelter” to understand what i mean), then because that was his intention, does that mean that he was performing an act of goodness? of course someone could always argue that manson is mentally unstable and therefore cannot succinctly decide what the difference between good and bad are, but imo mental instability shouldn’t dictate someone’s right to decide their own moral principles.

this is why i try not to cite things or people as being evil or good. the two are commonly used as absolute, definitive labels, and are then misinterpreted as being objective. this is also why i don’t think either evil or good actually exist. they’re both outdated terms, and instead of dictating whether someone or something is one or the other, everyone instead should accept that people just are, and as a result, everyone in response should just be.