Recently, I watched a movie named “7 Deadly
Sins”. It depicted about the 7 criminal cases claimed by the “gods” in genuine
life that usually made by humans. If you had watched or fancy of this movie,
some of you might feel that was a horror film, but it was not. It was an educational
film that provided meaningful moral values to humans in daily life. It led
humans into the world of the comparison between the good and the evil, just
like the saying of “gods”: Souls with good deeds come to heaven, but, in the
other hand, evil masterminds and measures drop to hell. Therefore, there is a
question right here, is it effective to dispense with good and evil deeds? 
Now, to start with, the answer for the question above has no answer that
is a piece of cake. This is because some people controverse that emphasizing on
these labels can be spiteful. Some believe and mention that the comparisons of
good and evil are earnest for creating moral judgement and social order. To
talk about good deeds first and foremost, as everyone acknowledges and know,
they are like honesty, kind, caring, courageous, considerations, cooperation,
diligence, intelligent, integrity, moderations, selfless, tolerance,
rationality and more. In the other hand, bad deeds comprise of dishonesty,
cunning, mean, unkind, selfish, discourteous and more. These are the
controversies when talking about dispensing with good and evil:
Firstly, dispensing with good and evil prone to subjectivity and
relativism. The two meanings, good and evil have cosmic diversification between
individuals and cultures, making them to be subjective and potentially leading
to conflict. It recommends moral judgements that are not based on objective truths
but are instead created by individuals or cultural perspectives. This implies that
what the person or community considers good may be seen to be as evil by
another side, leading to a spectrum of moral ideas rather than a worldly
accepted standard. When mentioning about subjectivity, if good and evil are
dispensed, it implies that these terms are not inherently fixed quantities but
are rather personal analysis and interpretation. People may have different
moral frameworks, and what one person deems virtuous, another might not. While
for relativism, dispensing good and evil suggests that moral judgements are
correlated to certain cultures or societies. What they might concern is that a
moral imperative in one community could be viewed as culturally unacceptable or
even evil for the other side. As a result, moral disagreements happened and
became inevitable, as there is no objective for good and evil. Individuals will
absolutely have differing opinions about good and bad deeds that might lead to
ethical clashes. Lack of universal standards also occurred. Without objective
moral truths, it becomes complicated to establish universal ethical principles.
Things that are claimed to be good may vary wildly across cultures and time
periods. Tolerance and understanding become challenging. Moral relativism seen
and supposed to promote these two. This encourages us to concern about the
different perspectives and values of different cultures, recognizing that our
own moral frameworks are not necessarily the only right one.
Besides that, many people focus on actions, instead of labels nowadays. Some
argue that the focus should not be on the consequences of actions, rather than
on labelling individuals as good or evil, as this can lead to judgement by
people based on a narrow and potentially inconsistent view of their character. Thus,
it allows for a more nuanced and accurate understanding of morality. It acknowledges
that actions can have positive or negative consequences, and that individuals
can perform both good and evil acts, refraining situations of simplifications
of assigning fixed labels like good and evil to people or groups. Focusing on
actions is more efficient because context matters. The consequences of an
action are essential in determining its morality. Actions that benefit others or promote
well-being are generally considered good, while those that cause harm or
injustice are considered bad. Nuance and complexity are one of its parts. Human
behaviour is complex. Individuals can perform actions that are both good and
evil, and the similar action can have diverse consequences depending on the
situation. It aids in hindering stereotypes from occurring. Labelling
individuals or groups as good or evil can lead to disadvantageous stereotypes
and generalizations. Focusing on actions permit more individualistic assessment
of behaviour. Accountability is promoted. When actions are the focus,
individuals are held accountable for the consequences of their selections. This
promotes the feels of responsibility and can encourage more ethical behaviour.
It inspires for changes. By analysing actions, we can distinguish patterns that
are considered positive and understand how to promote the same actions. This
can lead to a positive social change and promote a more ethical society. For
instance, a person who donates to charity, which is a good deed, can also lie
to get an outstanding job, which might be a bad action. Emphasizing on actions
rather than labels allows us to identify both positive and negative aspects of
their behaviours.
Next, they promote understanding, sympathy and empathy. By dropping the labels, it may be simpler to understand the motivations behind actions, even those that seem evil, and to enhance empathy for the others. Good is often associated with absence of self-centeredness, compassion, and the power to put others’ needs first, which are all qualities related to empathy, while evil is often seen as a lack of empathy and an inability to connect with each other. Empathy, in turn, is a crucial element of expressional intelligence and can be a powerful motivator for altruistic and prosocial behaviours. When empathy is expressed as a good quality, which is the ability to understand and share the emotions of others is often seen as a positive trait which contributes to compassionate behaviour and a more peaceful society. For the relationship between empathy and moral development, in some of them, empathy is considered a necessary component for mature, moral functioning, influencing individuals to act altruistically and refrain from aggressive behaviour. When a person lack of empathy, he or she is considered evil, as those who are unable to connect with others’ feelings are more likely to engage in harmful behaviour. Empathy-altruism hypothesis suggest that empathy can lead to altruistic actions by humans, motivated by a desire to alleviate another person’s suffering.
Not
only that, but it also causes liberation from self-acceptance. The constant
need to identify actions that are good can lead to self-deception and a
distorted view of reality. Attachment to these concepts, and the resulting
judgements, it can make suffering and refrain enlightenment. By transcending
the good versus the evil framework, individuals can access a more profound
understanding of reality and achieve a state of inner harmony and freedom from
the cycle of rebirth. This might lead to the emotions of indignant and
resentment, but allows for a more compassionate and balanced perspectives,
where all actions are seen as arising from a cause-and-effect system, rather
than being inherently good or evil. Dispensing with good and evil can be done
by recognizing the impermanence and interconnectedness of all issues.
All in all, dispensing with good and evil might be sophisticated to identify if they are better or not. Thus, we should learn to moderate these two “elements” and choose the best, effective ideas to solve certain situations.
Comments
Post a Comment