Good Vs. Evil

goodevil2

The concepts of good and evil are so ambiguous that there really is no knowing as to what exactly is good and evil.  What may be good to some, may be bad to others:  And what may be bad to some, may be good to others.  Because of its ambiguity, no one on earth can really make an affirmative answer as to what they really are.  Hence, it is then safe to reason that a good person can still do bad things:  And a bad person can still do good things.  Indeed, even an evil father can still do good for his son, and give him good gifts.

Some say that “excessiveness,” or “overindulgence,” is a sign of badness, which then doesn’t really support what the person might really be if we’re talking about a nun who is excessive with overeating.  Therefore, the concepts of good and evil are of subjective criterion; purely of self-reflective perspectives: in which they (good and evil) can then be anything to anybody.

So let’s pause subjectivities for now, and think of objective criterion instead.  For example, although good and evil are subjective, the terms “construction” and “destruction” are objectives.  For those who may be confused of the ambiguity of good and evil, one can then objectively apply the disambiguation of constructive and destructive dispositions (e.g., according to the biblical account of Noah and the deluge, the God of the bible brought about a global flood to rid of the evil people in the earth, at that lifespan. One can then say that what the biblical God did was a “good” thing; but of course, that would still be a subjective matter, because in an objective manner, the biblical God still had to take “destructive” measures to do IT’s “good” deed: so that in all of the disambiguated acknowledgements, the biblical God still became “destructive”).

With all this in mind, one can then at least safely judge as to what is then constructive and destructive, objectively of course, and not subjectively.  It is then safely to determine that certain enmity behaviors and communications are literally destructive (e.g., destructive physical and psychological abuse).  Anything or anyone that then works “against” you is abusive: and anything or anyone that then becomes “enmity” with you is destructive, but that’s only true when the abusive and enmity situations at hand are proven as facts, and not by maybe subjectively assuming, or presuming, the situation at hand.  To “objectively” acknowledge a situation that is constructive or destructive, one must not use the figurative heart (emotions) to make such determinations, because once you do, the literal acknowledgements will then become self-perspectives, and self-reflective: it’ll then be determined based upon one’s own ego, which is then purely idiosyncratic and abstracting.

So the concepts of good and evil are purely abstracts; in whereas, the concepts of construction and destruction are purely nonpartisans.  So the proper way to use the subjective concepts of good and evil is not for you to determine it for someone else, but to let that someone else determines it for him-/her-self.

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Trispace, Sedacycle 10, 9 R.M. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

0 votes

Leave a Reply