Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.
Martin Luther King Jr. would argue and say the one that can tell the difference between a just and unjust law is the gentleman. Yet, Confucius would argue and say the gentleman is the one that is willing to take action while the petty man is all talk. As Confucius states, “He first puts his word into action. He then lets his words follow his action.” (2.13, The Analects). The gentleman knows and understands the power of words.
In cases of unjust laws, by obeying them, the country is put in harm and not in benefit. In Gandhi’s Satyagraha it is stated “An oppressor’s efforts will be put in vain if we refuse to submit to his tyranny,” (page 38). This means to make a change in the law, it is the responsibility of citizens to stand up for the wrong of the country. This act is what giving back to the country means, not, obeying unjust laws. As mentioned before, unjust laws don't seem unjust to everyone, there are some people benefitting from it in the wrong way which is why it is unjust.
I think that good and evil is inherent in all of us, as humans, and has been within us since the beginning of our existence. It is impossible to know the exact origin of good and evil, but I suspect it was bestowed upon us by God as a way to test all of us with the concept of free will. The concept of free will gives each of us the right to choose between good and evil. People everywhere need to understand that there will always be bad people out there and people who want to hurt others. Knowing this, we all need to try to always be good and make the world better to create a balance between good and evil.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.” Wiesel is undeniably wise and sincere. He is saying right things that most of people should be aware of.
They are fighting with themselves on whether they want to do good or evil but in the end chose evil, “If Fernandez 2 someone’s evil, it can’t be blamed on inborn capacities. We all have a heart of conscience, a heart of reverence and a heart of right and wrong” (Mencius 80). Deep down all humans
Torture is against the law, therefore torturing the man would break the law. Using the universalized maxim would also mean violating the principle of humanity because according to the principle you have to "always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means" (Garcia, Kant Slide 19). By torturing the man, he would be treated as a mere end instead of an end. Therefore, following both
It's anything but difficult to see that the establishments of cutting edge human advancement were not based on a rationality of good relativism. The very demonstration of passing a law and authorizing it recommends a settled standard that everybody is required to cling to. The explanations behind this are self-evident: if everybody in a general public truly, genuinely went about just as good and bad were absolutely matters of sentiment, then society would implode into a clash of "might makes appropriate." In an ethically relativistic culture, the main all inclusive motivation to do (or not do) anything is to maintain a strategic distance from the results from one's companions. Every single human law include some ethical rule being upheld by risk of results.
My example for this theory is that: (The government said that piracy is a crime and that people must not commit this mistake, meanwhile, some people doesn’t really want to obey it but because of the fact that they would be put into jail for this crime then they would come up with the decision to just follow the moral rule, morality in this sense is really unnatural.) Sophists expanded the works of Socrates and Plato about the connection of knowledge and
For Kramer, if people often undergo punishment even when they have conformed closely to the prevailing legal norms or if they often do not undergo any punishment even when they have plainly violated those norms, the inducements for them to abide by those norms will be markedly sapped. Simmonds responds to Kramer’s criticisms in the second edition of Central Issues in Jurisprudence and in some subsequent works, where he reaffirms, first, that evil rulers typically have reasons to deploy violence even against those. Who do not regularly disobey enacted rules and, therefore, there is no reason for rulers to wish to be bound by the principles of legality. Should rulers govern through public, precise, and consistently applied norms, they would give room for innovative or creative ways of political opposition and would facilitate its coordination, which would destabilize the regime and convey to the general population an image of the regime’s weakness. There is no reason to think that these rulers would cease to wish to resort to paramilitary forces or groups of thugs who informally exercise violence on those who, although acting within the framework of established rules, express disaffection or opposition to the regime through their actions.