I find this whole idea of good and evil pretty amusing. This
is the vaguest classification ever known to mankind. There is nothing called
good or evil in this world. Everything is purely contextual. What may be good
for some might be evil for others. What might be evil for some might be good
for others. So what is the benchmark? Evil is defined as anything which is
morally objectionable. Whose morals? Whose objection? Whose rules are to be
followed? Who made the rules that set apart good and evil? Who made these arbitrary
tenet that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. But nobody
has a clue on what basis good and evil has been defined. Some say good has been
defined as something favourable to the sustenance of the society. In other
words a man’s self interest has to be traded off for the interests of the
society. A man instead of living for himself is forced to live for the so-called
benefits of the society. Everything that we see around the world today is
because of man’s inherent nature of self-interest. Till somebody is not being
destructive, everything should be acceptable. But still we are taught from
childhood that selflessness is a virtue. Why? Selflessness amounts to the cruellest
form of depravity. My strong view is that the laws that define good and moral
are made by weak people who are insecure that they will be overpowered by the
virtues of self-interest of mightier people. There is nothing called inherent
goodness of man. Everything is programmed into the mind by the incessant
teachings right from the day he/she is born. Everybody is just playing a role
of a so called ‘good human’ even when his insides are churning. There is
nothing called evil. It’s anything that does not conform to the random idea of
moral. It’s a myth that society needs a code. As the joker says in movie ‘The Dark
Knight’-When the chips are down, these
civilized people will eat each other. If you really need a definition for morality,then there can be only one rule. There is no
morality above man’s self interest.
i don't agree with the author's point of view. society will turn into jungle-raaj, in absence of moral codes.
ReplyDeleteIf you read my blog, I have mentioned destruction is not acceptable because destruction is anti-nature. But caging the free-will of man or any creature is also anti-nature. Thanks for your comment. :)
Deleteha. Man, you guys are giving a short cut to going straight to the stone ages....
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment my friend. But there was an iron age only because there was a stone age my friend. If not for the free-will of man, we would have been still stuck in an age before stone age.
Delete