the path
Ever since I was young, I've been a bit different than other people. As I grew up, I observed that many people were really caught up in the idea of good and evil or right and wrong or however you'd like to characterize the dichotomy. Often, those beliefs of right and wrong were based on their understanding of the tenets of some religion, family pressures or simple greed and lust. There is some fundamental difference between people who believe in doing the right thing, misguided or not, and those who are simply out for themselves.
These fundamental beliefs were often interpreted as rules on behavior. The rules seemed to actually control and dictate behavior in a lot of situations. In other words, if a person ends up in a certain situation they must do whatever is right according to their standards of good. Whatever the belief system, I have found that a true and honest conception of good shares common characteristics, such as love, faith and the Golden Rule. While I understand these concepts of good, for particular reasons, I have never really felt bound by them. In whatever situation I am in, I never seem to have any problem just doing what I like.
The question this raises is this: Does my lack of constraint to a typical moral or ethical system prevent me from being a "good" person? This question delves into all sorts of classical philosophical meanderings on the nature of good. For the sake of brevity, let me skip those and tell you what I think. I think that there is an objective standard of good based on the principle of doing no harm (ahimsa, sort of, and for convenience in this essay) . I believe that almost all activities are done in the service of a subjective interpretation of "the good" and the process of justifying following a desire by adjusting notions of good. I believe necessity is the true driver of nearly every event. I certainly do not believe that sexual or other cultural mores have anything to do with the concept of good, though the typical mores may be based upon the concept of ahimsa and as such serve the good. To me, those things done through necessity that may be considered inevitable have nothing really to do with being good or evil.
That's quite a lot of talking and no definite conclusion on my opinion of good, isn't it? Well, bear with me a few paragraphs longer. Some may characterize good simply as the avoidance of evil. This may be the first level, and I think that this is in accordance with the original christian understanding of sin. As I understand it, the original concept of sin was to miss the mark. In other words, to see something as "evil" or feel it as such through the emotional action of conscience and to yield to the desire and do evil in its pursuit. If good is only the avoidance of evil, then perhaps it can be pursued simply by trying to do no harm and help our fellow man do so.
However, this view forgets all about the inertia and rising entropy of life. If you assume everything is getting better, then you can simply avoid evil. Yet, if things are getting worse - and they are - this cannot be sufficient. This introduces the concept of the greater good. As a great oversimplification, assume things for the individual, family, community, society, species either get better or get worse. To some, service to the good of any larger unit justifies harm to the lower.
I cannot hold to such a blatantly socialist view. Rather, I would prefer to look at reality and my own situation. The reality is there are only so many things I can do. I can look at what can do the greatest good, and try to find a path that aligns my interest with that of the larger groups. If I can see a path, and that path can lead to some larger goal then perhaps the violation of ahimsa is justified. I must ensure that any such violations in the past be justified by the size of the goal at which my path points. Since my options are limited, I may assume there is an optimal path that maximizes good and minimizes harm.
So, am I good or evil? I don't know. I will try to see my optimal path and follow it, and try to reduce the harm caused by my passage.
Ever since I was young, I've been a bit different than other people. As I grew up, I observed that many people were really caught up in the idea of good and evil or right and wrong or however you'd like to characterize the dichotomy. Often, those beliefs of right and wrong were based on their understanding of the tenets of some religion, family pressures or simple greed and lust. There is some fundamental difference between people who believe in doing the right thing, misguided or not, and those who are simply out for themselves.
These fundamental beliefs were often interpreted as rules on behavior. The rules seemed to actually control and dictate behavior in a lot of situations. In other words, if a person ends up in a certain situation they must do whatever is right according to their standards of good. Whatever the belief system, I have found that a true and honest conception of good shares common characteristics, such as love, faith and the Golden Rule. While I understand these concepts of good, for particular reasons, I have never really felt bound by them. In whatever situation I am in, I never seem to have any problem just doing what I like.
The question this raises is this: Does my lack of constraint to a typical moral or ethical system prevent me from being a "good" person? This question delves into all sorts of classical philosophical meanderings on the nature of good. For the sake of brevity, let me skip those and tell you what I think. I think that there is an objective standard of good based on the principle of doing no harm (ahimsa, sort of, and for convenience in this essay) . I believe that almost all activities are done in the service of a subjective interpretation of "the good" and the process of justifying following a desire by adjusting notions of good. I believe necessity is the true driver of nearly every event. I certainly do not believe that sexual or other cultural mores have anything to do with the concept of good, though the typical mores may be based upon the concept of ahimsa and as such serve the good. To me, those things done through necessity that may be considered inevitable have nothing really to do with being good or evil.
That's quite a lot of talking and no definite conclusion on my opinion of good, isn't it? Well, bear with me a few paragraphs longer. Some may characterize good simply as the avoidance of evil. This may be the first level, and I think that this is in accordance with the original christian understanding of sin. As I understand it, the original concept of sin was to miss the mark. In other words, to see something as "evil" or feel it as such through the emotional action of conscience and to yield to the desire and do evil in its pursuit. If good is only the avoidance of evil, then perhaps it can be pursued simply by trying to do no harm and help our fellow man do so.
However, this view forgets all about the inertia and rising entropy of life. If you assume everything is getting better, then you can simply avoid evil. Yet, if things are getting worse - and they are - this cannot be sufficient. This introduces the concept of the greater good. As a great oversimplification, assume things for the individual, family, community, society, species either get better or get worse. To some, service to the good of any larger unit justifies harm to the lower.
I cannot hold to such a blatantly socialist view. Rather, I would prefer to look at reality and my own situation. The reality is there are only so many things I can do. I can look at what can do the greatest good, and try to find a path that aligns my interest with that of the larger groups. If I can see a path, and that path can lead to some larger goal then perhaps the violation of ahimsa is justified. I must ensure that any such violations in the past be justified by the size of the goal at which my path points. Since my options are limited, I may assume there is an optimal path that maximizes good and minimizes harm.
So, am I good or evil? I don't know. I will try to see my optimal path and follow it, and try to reduce the harm caused by my passage.
dammitt:
Good luck!