Beyond Good and Evil - A look at why to be neither

Introduction

Why is a good habit a good habit? Why is something considered to be evil? Though sounding perplexing and contradicting, it is still a question to ask ourselves. What exactly are these moralistic pillars? Upon what prospect and prerequisites are they based? And yet another important and final question, what are the apt answers to all of them? The whole concept of Good and Evil is defined and argued on the basis of two definitive terms, namely; Good and Evil.

Good or Goodness is termed in various vernaculars as something being appeasing to oneself or having met the desired requirements. The definition of Evil, on the other hand, is considered to be just the opposite of what is considered good. Therefore, these two adversaries are said to inflict and guide; actions in an individual's lifetime. These actions or thoughts that are formed out of these moralistic filters, contain the power of changing the motion of the whole world.

“When an idea exclusively occupies the mind, it is transformed into an actual physical or mental state.” - Swami Vivekanand

Thus, an extensive and careful study of these propellers of ideas is extremely necessary.

The Argument

The purpose of the argument, in essence, is twofold.

First, it is to state the futility of having a thinking process with roots based in the realm of the good and the evil. Secondly, by the way of this argument it may be proved, per say, that the human mind, is inherently prone to being a captive of such moral obligations. Therefore, during the process of establishing the argument, the first stop shall be defining or comprehending the specified obligations themselves. Solely for the purpose of creating a simple tale of events that the reader should find easy to absorb, thus, we may incorporate the whole message of the argument in the form a train journey.

Furthermore, pleasing the associative nature of the human brain this train journey shall be conducted by a central protagonist, of whom we shall simply refer to as; the protagonist. Now another peculiar association that we shall be able to observe as the protagonist continues to ride on the train journey would be that through every two stations he shall age a considerable amount in years. Let one more remark be stated as fact; he shall possess no knowledge of where he is going. By where, let it be said that it does not only refer to his generic destination but also to his general sense of direction as to the way he is heading. The only clearly known facts or observations to him would be the name of the stations and some vague thoughts about a few of the stations that pass in the premature starting of the long journey itself. Now in our understanding, are the following points, clearly based upon the preceding statements-

1. The protagonist is traveling on a very long journey to a destination that is completely unknown and hence non-existent to us and to the protagonist.

2. The protagonist in the present, shall only be aware of the stations that move along with his journey. In the prospect of future, he shall only be aware of the fact that some stations of some names would come in the beginning of the journey. This thought, though it shall be stated very clearly, shall be considered only his assumption as he cannot be aware fully of the future. In terms of the past, another remarkable thing shall be stated that he shall not be of aware of any activity before he sat in the train at a particular station.

The Journey

The journey of the protagonist begins at the first station and while he sits and places himself at his appropriate place, the train starts up the process of locomotion. The position of his sitting is in a certain separate compartment within a coach of the train. The only company our traveler has is of an old lady that shall be considered a complete random stranger. The interactions between them shall to the reader forebear the whole purpose of the argument.

The first sight for our fellow travelers appears to be of a mother tending to a newly born baby boy.

This baby, to our two precepts’, appears to be thoroughly enjoying the care of his mother. Thus, the protagonist remarks; this little boy as it appears to me, shall be a good kid.

To this specific remark the old lady asks, how is that related to us and his future?

In a dynamically organic environment, we know, the surroundings of an organism reacts to the actions of the organism, through an appropriately placed reaction?

Precisely, the lady replied to the protagonist.

Thus let it be known that the actions of that baby boy throughout his lifespan shall produce appropriate reactions by his surroundings?

Rightly said, the lady again replied.

Furthermore, my lady, I ask, did we not see him in his mother's care?

Again correct. The reply came.

Thus, do we not by the way of watching his actions, become a part of his surroundings? And if we have, then shall not his actions encompass a certain portion in our brains? And if it shall, then it shall be completely related to us.

You said the truth, but how are his actions related to his future?

To that if I may, I shall speak that all his actions whatever they might be, does influence his environment? If that is true then all his actions in the future itself are bound to get various reactions themselves.

You have said well. But now I ask of you, why do you say that the kid shall be a good kid, from which I presume, you would want the kid to be good? Now I ask, what is it that you mean by the kid being good? The old lady asked him.

In the simple manner of speech, by the usage of that term, I wish for the boy to be of a good character, a good faith and of a good fortune.

By what you remark, I gather, that the pylon of goodness, according to your perspective, is built upon these three bricks? If it be so, then starting from the first brick, will you clarify for my understanding, the meaning of a good character? The lady asks.

A good character is something that is yielded from deeds done in the apparent favor of the majority. A good character is not to be worn around with indignity or ignorance as it beats the purpose of the character itself. This specific character of a person or a group tends to be the fore-bearer of the person or the group themselves and accordingly presents upon the audience of the fore-bearer, an obscure set of rules that inherently guide the audience to interact with the figure. Thus a good character is of utmost important for being a good human being.

I do agree with your descriptive definition of a good character, my son. Furthermore, will you care to enlighten me with another definition of what is meant by being of a good faith?

By being of a good faith, a person establishes himself as a man who believes in a certain deep rooted value, idea or ideal. This deep rooted notion in a person, as the person believes; forms and shapes the ideas of the person about his surroundings. It also helps to guide his actions and reactionary way around the whole of his lifetime.

By your wit you have thus expressed it all. But my dear what of the last brick? A good fortune? The lady again inquired.

Good fortune, if we thoroughly analyze it, is none other than the combined resultant of a good character and a good faith. Through the application of both the traits, it is very common to synthesize a good fortune for oneself. This good fortune doesn't necessarily belong to a materialistic form, it could easily be mental peace and salvation. A good fortune, even doesn't need to be for the person in question himself, it could be applied in the benefit of others too. Now that I have answered all your doubts, dear lady, so I presume you must be having no more? The protagonist asked the lady.

Correct sir, I do not have any further questions about this matter, in-fact on the contrary, now let me clear out some important truths in-front of you. Now my good sir, will you tell me, what is the result of a completely obedient dog barking at his own master?

The master tends to feel wary of the dog.

Perfectly fine. Now what happens if the dog greets his master by barking at the master?

Well, then two cases might appear in-front of the master. In one scenario the master might out of various reasons, fail to recognize the friendly nature of the bark and then again be wary of the dog. The second could be in the case when the master comprehends the message correctly and as a result will be content with the services of the dog.

Precisely. The lady replies. Now my dear, would you reply to me, in essence, whether the dog is aware of his intentions?

He should be, the protagonist replied.

Yes, but is the master aware of his dog's intentions?

I highly doubt that.

Now tell me when a petty servant is presented in-front of a grand jury, accused of a petty crime, and have almost adequate evidence against him, what should happen according to you? Mind two points before passing your comment my dear, the jury shall be assumed fully exhausted out of workload and there shall be no competent defence for the petty servant of the state.

In that unfortunate scenario, I have to admit that there is a very high probability for the servant to be convicted.

Yes I am afraid that would be the case. Then If say that the servant was a man of evil character, evil faith and potentially evil fortune, what shall you say?

I shall then say, that it was befitting action for such a man.

Now tell, what you would say if I shall remark, that the servant was a man of good character, good faith and potentially good fortune. Then what shall you remark?

I would only remark that, then it would be more than unfortunate, it would have been a general sin towards humanity.

Surely my dear, that is correct. But did you ever ask me had he done the crime? No because these moralistic obligations were, for you, of a more important nature to ask and answer about. That applied to the jury as well in a different sense. And in what sense do you say that? Asked the protagonist.

Tell me first, should the jury be considered to know the servant beforehand?

I highly doubt that possibility. The protagonist answered.

Do you then agree that the jury, except his official judicial case history, shall not be aware of anything regarding the servant himself?

It is the truth that you speak.

Then as you have agreed in understanding to my previous statements, will you not agree now as I remark that there exists no possible way that the jury could be aware of the character, faith and fortune of the servant at the time of the trial?

True. The protagonist replied.

Then going further do you not agree that the goodness or the evil of the servant does not matter to the jury when they, unanimously, pronounce a judgment.

Yes, I do agree.

Then have we not established that in an enclosed system, where judgments are given affecting the systems outside, there appears to be no need for these traits of morals to be known and hence their presence is, essentially, redundant.

Well, yes, but then will the origin of this phenomena not be contained only to that enclosed system itself? If yes, then it cannot be considered a universal truth. Furthermore, if it is not a universal truth, then how could one be sure that this proposition of yours, is in-fact, truth at all?

I do accept your proposal and for the same purpose I shall try to prove that this dependent on the whole concept of good and evil is absolutely redundant and should be non-existent.

Just as the lady said this, the train had passed three stations and the protagonist, who earlier, was in youth, came to adulthood.

Now I have crossed my youth, and in this age, I have begun to realize that stars are far away, and the mountains are immovable. I have begun to realize the importance of power and possibilities. At this age, I know wherever this train might lead me, death will finally come to me.

At length, as you have tasted your adulthood, you no longer mock death, you have started to fear it too?

Yes I have. For that fear is borne out of respect for death and love of life.

True, now when you fear death do you not want to live a longer life compared to a scenario in which you, for some unknown reason, begin to love death?

Yes in that former scenario, I would very well agree to live a longer time than if I were in the latter of the situation, wherein; I would prefer dying at the earliest.

True, now that you understood this fact, let me introduce another situation. What would happen if I were to assert that I shall kill you when we arrive at the next station? When I remark this, let us both assume that I shall be completely sincere in this task and that I shall surely be successful in killing you. At this remark, the context of the answer that I require out of you, shall be in the following-

1. The answer shall be simply in terms of what thinking process would occur in your brain.
2. I do not require what reaction you will take, instead you shall only remark what you shall think about my action.

My dear, then in accordance with the apt restrictions, I shall pronounce that I shall think ill of you and your action, in essence.

Absolutely correct, young man. Now when you think ill of me, you shall produce the action according to your said thought. But, let us try find out if this thought of yours shall become the origin of your actions. Now when you think ill of me, what is it? Is it not a result instead of a source in itself? Is it not that because I had threatened you and as a result you have thought ill of me? If so then this thought becomes a result and not a source of the action. If this thought is a result then, this intermediate result shall not be included in the end product of you, naturally trying to avert my action. Do you agree?

I do. The protagonist agreed.

If you agree then perhaps this certain phenomena could also apply to a larger system. Now let us take this topic of death and let us say that death in itself threatens you which it always does. Now does this threat and its reaction from you follows the same procedure?

It does.

Then if it does, let us apply it to an even more general form. If one person tells you that they shall award you immediately do you not, in the usual sane case, think well of them?

I would.

Then does not the same procedure would take place as it does in the case of death? If it does then can we not proclaim hence, that the thought of evil and good does not in any way render our actions?

Well, you have masterly proved that it does not.

If it does then we have finally proved that it is in-fact utterly, redundant and should be non-existent.

The Conclusion

After carefully dissecting the topic, we finally encounter the fact that these moral obligations in-fact only superficially influence our actions.

They in themselves, are not the source of our thinking, which originally appears to be evolved out of the process of evolution (which could a potential topic for another paper), but what they do accomplish, is to influence our intrinsic reactions in various appropriate or inappropriate ways.

Therefore, we can say that these catalysts of human reactions are not explicitly useful and in essence can be discarded with. The removal of these catalysts however, appears to be a tough task for humans in general, which further opens a grand path for humans to walk and learn upon.