Good and Evil Versus Power and No Power

Hello again,
Today for my blog post I am going to try and do the first "conglomeration of ideas."  This conglomeration I think is interesting in that it is mixing two different dichotomies (opposites).  I find this particularly cool because it is a way of merging two frameworks of analysis.

Anyway, starting with the poll.  66% of people said that there was "good and evil" and 33% said that it was about who had more power or less power.  I think this is interesting in that it seems that we have some sort of general strong feeling that there is an objective good and an objective evil.  But I am not sure that this is true.  In a lot of cultures what is "good" and what is "evil" ends up being defined very differently.

For example, in modern American culture we would probably consider stoning and adulterer to death "evil."  It is an incredibly painful way to die, and the crime is pretty common place at this point.  However, for thousands of years in many cultures this practice was not only acceptable, but seen as the righteous punishment for that particular crime.  And in some places around the world it still is.

So what changed?  Well, actually, stoning hasn't been a cultural practice in the west for a long time.  So I will look at an example that I know more about and fits into this analysis better.  Namely, women's rights.  Particularly, wife beating.  For hundreds of years beating one's wife was totally acceptable.  In fact, during the middle ages and (I think) into the renaissance and enlightenment, there were laws that regulated how large of a stick you could use to beat your wife.  Which, actually, was probably fairly progressive for the time.  Except for that people were also advocating at the time the right time to beat your wife.

So, something fundamentally changed in what we viewed as "good" and "evil" (or at least bad) in this sense.  I think that what changed is the nature of the power relations between the sexes.  Which is why this is a good example.  It may seem to us now "objectively" clear that you shouldn't beat your wife.  However, that is merely because we live in a culture where the voices of women have been allowed to speak.  They have power in our culture.  Wife beating still happens, which I think speaks to the work the feminist movement still needs to do.  But it has been reduced probably and due to a change in power.

In this way we don't have two clearly defined frameworks.  But ones that overlap, the more powerful someone or a group is the more they are able to define the discussion of what is good or evil in a society.  Now, some people reading this may be thinking "yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, some things are bad, but cultural norms, but what about greater prohibitions, like the prohibition against murder, that seems inherently evil, so there must be some objective good and evil."

First of all, the prohibition against murder is greatly debated.  Namely, under what circumstances is it okay to murder someone.  That discussion has been defined by who are more powerful.  When the aristocracy was in power in England (and the early bourgeoisie) it was a crime punishable by death to steal.  Obviously that isn't the case anymore, and many of the thinkers in the time period were opposed to it. 

But, let's take a step back and say the murder of innocents.  Cold blooded murder is something that is opposed as "evil."  And I think we can all for the most part agree that this is true.  Now, is there some sort of just inherent human trait that makes it so that shooting someone in the face seems bad?  Some objective "evil" that we all just know that is bad?

I think, perhaps, to an extent, it is inherent in human kind to want to work together with others.  Or at least not kill them on first sight.  However, I think also, this perhaps general inherent trait is strengthened by a group that has a ton of power in our society.  Mainly, everyone.  Almost everyone doesn't want to be murdered themselves, and "everyone" holds an incredible amount of power in our society.  Consequently, a prohibition against murder of innocents has been solidified within our society as "evil".

And I think this points to the end solution of all of this.  How we can balance these two competing discourses and get at some truth of what "good" is versus what "evil" is in some objective way.  Mainly, to have every group have around equal voice and equal power in a society.  That way everyone's objections as to what is "evil" can be given weight in the public discourse to sway other's and also defend themselves.  This is, of course, a utopian vision of discourse in any society.  However, at least individually, we can listen to what other's consider evil and try and reach a middle ground with them.

Of course, there are some issues which I will never budge on because I feel that a prohibition against them is "evil" in and of itself.  For example, banning gay marriage, or at least some sort of legally endorsed union.  That is just wrong.  Both because there is no empirical evidence to prove it, but also because it marginalizes a a minority within the U.S.. Of course, I think that this derives itself from a lack of voice that the LGBTQQIAA movement has.  And, also, from the radical position of one group to position another group as an a priori "evil."  Which is perhaps why it is important to avoid believing in any sort of "inherent" evilness or goodness of something, and instead is important to understand that one's feelings on what is "good" and what is "evil" need to be looked at as something socially defined, and understand that your viewpoints are probably being shaped by who has the most powerful voice and can most define our social narrative.