Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[Paraprakrti]

I've seen an argument in many places that "evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light." Taken at face value, this seems like a plausible scenario. However, I've come to wonder whether it may actually be the other way around.

For instance, let's consider the poster child of evil: murder.

In what sense is murder the absence of good? Well, it's easy to suggest that it's the absence of a sense of morality or self-control. However, it seems to actually boil down to an absence of an inclination not to murder.

Here's a fairer way to pose the question: What is NOT-murdering? Do we walk around every day thinking about how we're going to not-murder people?

Murder seems very much more so a "presence" of something than the "absence" of something. Not-murder isn't a word because it's just the normal state of affairs, it doesn't bring anything conceptually into existence. There wasn't exactly a first "not-murder," but there definitely was a first murder.

Since an act of evil brings something conceptually into existence that wasn't there before, this seems to suggest that it isn't the absence of good -- rather, it seems that good is the absence of evil.

Consider what we consider many acts of good: what does giving money to the poor, healing the sick and an honest person turning in a wallet they found on a street have in common? They're all actions that alleviate or diminish acts of evil (or potential states of suffering). In other words, good appears to be defined by attempting to cause the absence of evil.

Is it good to watch a neighborhood to prevent thiefs from breaking in? Is it good to alleviate a rape victim's suffering through counsil and medical attention?

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good? I can't think of any instances that aren't better stated the other way around. Can you folks?

If good gains its meaning by the alleviation or prevention of suffering then the ultimate good would be the ultimate prevention of suffering: by preventing it from ever existing.

Enter, my Amended Problem of Evil elsewhere on this board.

Anyway, what do you folks think about "good as the absence of evil?" Can you think of counterexamples?

This is all very interesting. And although I am not one who champions this "evil is the lack of good" idea necessarily, I will play the part and attempt to offer an answer. One could say that the material universe is characterized by a lack of eternal form. Hence, acts such as murder are possible.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't believe there is anything that is absolutely good or evil. For me, life is not so black and white. Consider wars, or conflicts. Both sides think, "We're the good guys here." I do believe there is that which leads us upward, and that which is a sidetrack.

When i look at others, I can always find some humane or 'good' qualities albeit difficult at times. Life, the universe, etc. just are.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I don't believe there is anything that is absolutely good or evil.

Which is precisely why EVERYTHING in this life is indeed relative, including truth!

As the Baha'i scriptures put it:

"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof.

"Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."

—(Gleanings, page 157)

(And they also explain in detail how and why evil doesn't exist save as the absence of good. Quote upon request.)
Best!

Bruce

 

[Dan4reason]

No, in fact I agree with the statement I quoted that says that's EXACTLY what it is.

Peace,

Bruce

If I'm getting confused tell me.

If everything that is not good is evil, then nothing can be neutral, there is no moral middle ground (something that is morally neutral is defined as that which is neither good nor evil).

If everyone who was not your friend was your enemy, then no one would be a neutral character.

 

[BruceDLimber]

I haven't denied the concept of neutrality.

MANY thins are neutral because they don't enter into the question of whether something else is good or evil.

But my point is that, truth in this life being relative, there's a SPECTRUM of goodness!

One thing may be very good, something else not quite as much so.

And evil remains the relative absence of good. In this respect, the second item descxribed above might sometimes be described as slightly evil because it has less goodness than something else even though it's not grossly evil. Regardless, the stress should properly be on goodness, which is why "evil" as a concept is thus less important.

So long as you remember the key concept of noting where something lies on the spectrum, you should be in good shape.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[erobinson25]

I've never actually considered this problem in either direction, this is the first time I've really thought about it. Am I automatically doing good, because I'm not doing evil? Perhaps both good and evil are branches away from "the norm". I'm sitting here looking on the internet. Am I doing an evil deed? No. Am I doing a good deed? Not really. I'm not actively doing either.

I'd say both good and evil could be relative to a state of neither and require positive activity in either direction for them to become recognisable.

I agree, just because you are absent evil doesn't mean that you are good. As said above you could be neutral.

 

[erobinson25]

I haven't denied the concept of neutrality.

MANY thins are neutral because they don't enter into the question of whether something else is good or evil.

But my point is that, truth in this life being relative, there's a SPECTRUM of goodness!

One thing may be very good, something else not quite as much so.

And evil remains the relative absence of good. In this respect, the second item descxribed above might sometimes be described as slightly evil because it has less goodness than something else even though it's not grossly evil. Regardless, the stress should properly be on goodness, which is why "evil" as a concept is thus less important.

So long as you remember the key concept of noting where something lies on the spectrum, you should be in good shape.

Peace,

Bruce

But being neutral would put them at zero in terms of a spectrum so it would not be close to either. Also good and evil is definitely all about perception depending on your cultural norms and value systems.

 

[Dan4reason]

I haven't denied the concept of neutrality.

MANY thins are neutral because they don't enter into the question of whether something else is good or evil.

But my point is that, truth in this life being relative, there's a SPECTRUM of goodness!

One thing may be very good, something else not quite as much so.

And evil remains the relative absence of good. In this respect, the second item descxribed above might sometimes be described as slightly evil because it has less goodness than something else even though it's not grossly evil. Regardless, the stress should properly be on goodness, which is why "evil" as a concept is thus less important.

So long as you remember the key concept of noting where something lies on the spectrum, you should be in good shape.

Peace,

Bruce

So what you are arguing is that except for the case of morally neutral objects, evil is the absence of good?

Lets say good is white and evil is black, do you see the spectrum like this?
WWWWW
So the w's in between are a mix of good and evil.
I say that assuming that if good and evil exists, even things that contain good and evil also can contain morally neutral elements.

So there is a third color in this whole spectrum. You might have a situation where something is a mix of the morally bad, good, and neutral. There might be a situation where there is only a mix of the morally good and bad, or morally neutral and bad, or morally good and neutral.

Evil is not necessarily the absence of good because the morally neutral can exist in good's absence.

 

[BruceDLimber]

But being neutral would put them at zero in terms of a spectrum....

Wrong. It simply makes that object irrelevant to the good/evil spectrum.

For example, whether a can of soup is colored red or yellow has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with good and evil.

The spectrum isn't relevant to everything all the time.

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce