I believe good is intrinsic, while evil is extrinsic. Intrinsic means essential. Extrinsic means not part of the essential nature of someone or something. Everyone is born with a friendly soul but they have the ability to learn to become evil. Some people in life may seem along the lines of evil since they were born.
Not all people have the same definition of evil. Evil can be expressed in many ways. Whether that be describing a person or giving a place a scary setting. Most though, think of evil as a person rather than a place. Those true qualities of evil help show if a person is a human monster.
The word “evil,” according to Merriam-Webster, means “morally bad.” With such a vague definition, how can one discern the truth behind what is good and what is evil? John Gardner’s novel Grendel provides multiple philosophical outlooks demystifying the epic poem Beowulf’s antagonist. Grendel is a monster, however Gardner clearly asserts through multiple philosophies that not all monsters are inherently evil. Grendel proves not to be evil due to his belief in solipsism.
Whether working with a co-worker, learning with a classmate or hanging out with a friend, the thought of any of them having the potential to be evil does not cross the mind. Everyday people are not typically evil beings, but if people are not evil beings then why do they commit actions like torture, killing and genocide? Could it be that the certain people committing the acts are just monsters deep inside, or could the actions be mere products of circumstance? In his article "The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror", Crispin Sartwell, a journalist and philosopher, advises his audience to take a look at the heinous acts people have committed throughout history as a way to show us how anyone could commit evil acts, including ourselves. Marianne Szegedy-Maszak,
Evil comes in various shapes and sizes. While good is found all over, it is also masked by the evil that overpowers it. Controlled through physical, and verbal manipulation, people are easily tricked into thinking that what is right, is wrong and what is wrong, is right. Whether they are committed to being good, there will always be a moment where evil will darken the bright side of a person 's soul. In the novel The Sisters Brothers by Patrick DeWitt, the author portrays the good and evil side of human nature through the main characters to show how susceptible it is to manipulate a person’s mindset to be good or evil.
Therefore, good and evil are subjective qualities that everybody defines differently. The official definition of “good” is morally right. Consequently, everyone has a different set of morals that can change the definition of good. Man’s behaviors can sometimes be considered good, other times be considered evil, but man evolved behaviors that increase our chances of survival and reproduction, whether they be typically good or bad.
People, for the most part, are inherently good. It is life that makes them evil, people are affected by events, influences, and circumstances. For the most part, there is an explanation for every “evil” person 's behavior. I will focus on the impact that conditions have on people, as well as the cases of inherently evil people. The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls is a perfect example of inherently good people making poor choices and hurting others because of the things that have impacted them.
Can we consider people as Good or Evil? People can be defined as neither good nor evil because many factors lead to us being a mixture of both. One of these factors is that we only have one perspective of life and the actions they do. This means we don 't have all the information to be able to form an opinion on them. Another factor is that we are unable to measure how good or bad an action is.
Although everyone has the capacity to act good, there is also evil within everyone and it is only
Firstly, man is born evil because society shows him to be evil. An example of this is how parents must raise their child to be good. A parent never has to raise their child to do bad things. A young child might draw on the wall and believe that it is art, however the parent will stop the child and tell them that drawing on the wall is a bad thing to do.
Through out history evil has been best depicted as the absence of goodness and goodness as the absence of evil. With goodness being comprehended as the direct opposite of evil. It is under speculation that maybe there can 't exist only one general meaning of good vs. evil. I trust this, in light of the fact that any one individual 's perception of good or evil is without a doubt directed by one 's social comprehension of certain qualities and ethics within their culture, i.e. the power of social conformity (Muncaster-Social Psychology Lecture, 2016). Yes, there can be cases of evil that is seen as malevolent all over the world but due to the ethnocentric component of the perception of cultural morals and values, one is unable to categorize another individual as evil or good based upon their own cultural understanding of this notion.
One of those meaning is that evil is when one living individual stops seeing another living being as a living being. Many people underestimate the power of situation in driving behavior. A great example of this would be slavery. Slavery refers to a condition in which individuals are owned by others.
Since the beginning of the world, everyone has their own point of view on the battle between good and evil. Since these two are opposite behaviors, good and evil must have nothing in common, right? I believe that evil is only evil by the way someone perceives it to be. For example, let 's say a man robbed a woman 's purse ; to that guy who stole the purse, it 's probably the only way to get enough money to stay, but to the woman she just lost the money she had earned. Now to the woman, the man was bad, but to the man, he is just trying to survive.
Applying “good vs. evil” as a measurement to form an opinion on others could be seen as the equivalent of using the similar vs. different dichotomy to deduce the value of another person or culture. In Montaigne “On Cannibals” he claims “Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice” elucidating to some subconscious suitability we all have of deeming whatever is different or out of the norm to be bad (7). For instance instead of trying to understand The Donner-Reed party and the Tupinambas cannibalism we can quickly retort by how they “breached their primary loyalties.” which in theory is a lot easier than trying to emphasize for these individuals (Didion