Recently, I started thinking about a question. If everyone understands that GOOD is good, and that when taking any actions one should be guided by the criteria of GOOD, then why do so many unkind events occur? I am not suggesting we consider pathological cases, where someone acts this way to express their mental deviations. I propose we look at why this happens at the level of normal people and normal societies.
What is good? Strangely enough, most definitions lead us into the realms of religion, psychology, philosophy, or esotericism, but no one speaks about clear criteria. Each definition allows every person to understand GOOD in their own way. As many people as there are, there are just as many interpretations of this seemingly simple and clear concept.
What is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. Moreover, what was considered GOOD yesterday may not be perceived as GOOD by the same person today, or tomorrow. There is obvious uncertainty in this concept. How can this be? Why has no clear set of criteria yet been chosen that would allow us to unequivocally classify any event or action as GOOD or not good? Criteria that would allow any individual or group to immediately assess their actions or plans based on the criterion of GOOD.
No one doubts that when ADDING two numbers, you need to add one number to another; that when RUNNING, you need to move differently than when walking; that swimming is moving through water; and that an elephant is not an eagle. That is, in most cases, we use a rather precise system of criteria, which allows us, regardless of gender, skin color, or religious beliefs, to clearly interpret most concepts.
But what happens with GOOD—why is voluntary euthanasia considered GOOD by one person, but a crime against humanity by another? Why is playing in a casino GOOD for one, but a harmful addiction for another? Why is faith in God GOOD for one, but for another, an anachronism or even evil?
I am sure that many have thought about this, but sought answers within specialized fields of knowledge. I, on the other hand, tried to find the answer by moving from the general to the particular, relying on cause-and-effect relationships and clear logic. Our civilization exists because our ancestors were able to SURVIVE in a hostile environment and gradually adapt it for themselves, for their LIFE. Accordingly, LIFE is something most valuable and important, the provision and protection of which we, as humanity, constantly strive for. Obviously, GOOD is something that ultimately has some sort of positive, beneficial effect. For what purpose? Of course—for LIFE!
That is, what contributes to our survival, ensures and protects our life, is good, and what harms, hinders, or destroys is evil. But is what is good for one person always GOOD for everyone else? Or in other words, does it contribute to the survival and LIFE of everyone else? It seems not!
A person who throws a poisonous snake out of his own yard into his neighbor’s yard has protected himself and his family, but has created a clear threat to the LIFE of his neighbors. So, did he commit an unkind act?
Is everything that contributes to a person’s survival (LIFE) and does not worsen the survival conditions (LIFE) of others considered GOOD?
With the best intentions, I beat my son with a belt for some wrongdoing. The action is aimed at forming in my child a strong association that bad deeds bring pain and suffering (punishment). Can my actions be considered GOOD? It seems difficult to find the right answer? Not at all. Look at the situation through my son’s (another person’s) eyes—he would not call my action good. For him, it is definitely evil. So, thinking that I am doing something that contributes to LIFE, I am actually worsening another person’s LIFE at this moment in time.
Of course, one could start reasoning about the usefulness of such a lesson later on, that this beating could serve as a warning and prevent a more serious misdeed, etc. But right now, at this very moment, I, using my strength and my position, have worsened another person’s LIFE (conditions). Therefore, this is not a good act.
GOOD can only be something that is good for me and does not worsen the LIFE of those around me. Now imagine that by using this principle and the understanding that GOOD is the foundation of survival and LIFE, you make decisions about certain actions. Euthanasia destroys life—EVIL, and there are no other options.
Capital punishment destroys life—EVIL. A surgical operation to remove a diseased organ promotes survival—GOOD. Loud music at a party that disturbs neighbors worsens the living conditions of others—EVIL. War destroys life—EVIL. The birth of a child promotes survival—GOOD. In this way, any situation or event can be analyzed.
If an action endangers the life of even one person, worsens the living conditions of even one person, or reduces the chances of survival for even one person, then it is not GOOD. Accordingly, only what promotes survival, what helps and protects LIFE, is GOOD.
Filyanin S.N.
08.2013
