Good & Evil
There are some other kinds of misjudgements we make in that nexus between stimulus and response. They include how we think about good and bad (or good and evil, if you prefer a more dramatic approach).
Now this is the part where I start to explain what various words mean and how things are categorized, and you will likely not see it that way. That’s ok. Think of this practice as a kind of special language and what terms mean here don’t necessarily have to match up to how we are comfortable using them. But if you go with this framing for now and simply sit with it, like that roleplaying experiment I mentioned before, it will help to more deeply see the value systems being proposed.
In some discussions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ people might be referring to the evils of the world, or the problem of evil. But I am going to use the two terms here in a very narrow sense. Here, when I speak of good and evil, I am going to be talking about that positive or negative categorization we make, deliberate or not, regarding all of the various events and conditions we encounter in life.
Most naturalists view the world as having no inherent value or meaning. Rather, we are the meaning-makers. Things have meaning to beings because they have implications that relate to the goals and purposes of those beings1. Therefore, all of our value judgments are subjective. But remember, we are now counting the subjective as something that matters2.
So, for terms like good and evil, we naturalists have to think about what practical definition we are going to use such that the words still have some kind of function or purpose. True, we could say, “well let’s simply do away with all this good and evil talk” and we can do that in deed; but we can’t really do it in principle. Even if we didn’t literally use those words, the fact is that we are constantly judging things in terms of whether they are positive or negative. People who say they have no use for the word “evil” will still be found making ‘that face’ as various offensive issues are discussed or certain kinds of events take place. They will prefer words like ‘problematic’ or ‘unhelpful’ so they don’t sound too reactionary or simplistic. This puts us at a layer of perceived civility above those primal impulses to judge things as ‘evil’. But it is precisely the primal responses we are attempting to get at here. So, a term like ‘evil’ is suitable for this because it is loaded and emotional.
Regardless of which terms we use, pragmatism calls us to make these distinctions and we find that our psychology urges us to make these judgments habitually, even in cases where it is not necessary or practical3. So, whatever terms you use to talk about this, pick those which are not shielded attempts to intellectualize these judgments. Pick those which your most primal child-like self would use in something like a hypnagogic state, arising from a nightmare or dream.
This psychological propensity we have for making these value judgments seems to have a function and we should begin by examining what that function could be. It seems apparent that the function of these value judgments is to decide which things should be pursued, and which things should be avoided.
Thus, when we judge something good we are (consciously or not) comparing it to how we think it will serve our drives and goals, and finding it to be helpful to them. Conversely, that which our minds categorize as bad or evil will be those things that seem to directly oppose or at least obstruct our drives and goals.
Something else important and interesting happens at that point. The moment our minds put something in the ‘bad’ box, a corresponding negative emotion arises. The moment we put something in the ‘good’ box, a corresponding positive emotion also arises. There can’t be a gene for getting angry when your car is damaged because cars didn’t exist long enough for our DNA to have evolved that. There is a judgment taking place within our mind that having our car damaged is a bad thing.
In this kind of practice, we do not try to alter or suppress the natural emotional response to good and bad things4. That would be a much more difficult task which I’m not even sure is possible, and certainly isn’t emotionally healthy. If you ever find yourself trying to control, contain, or suppress emotion in this practice, this is not correct understanding. Instead of dealing with the natural emotional reaction to good and bad, what we can do is consider more closely what gets put in which box and how.
If the purpose of this value judging is to establish what things we will pursue and what things we will avoid, then we can see that we are often falling into a malfunction.
For some reason, our minds will make this judgment about all stimuli, whether or not the pursuit or avoidance of that thing is within our power. The malfunction of this instinct is when we make the judgment of ‘good’ on something we do not control bringing to fruition. The malfunction also happens when we make the judgment of ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ on something of which we do not control prevention. This again highlights the folly of attachment to outcomes not in our control, but here I want to emphasize its implication to a practical, useful definition for good and evil.
So, what if we decided to define good as only those beneficial things within our control? What if we decided to define bad as only those harmful things within our control? And what is in our control? No external is within our control. The only thing that we truly control is our Will - that is, our choices and values.
I understand there will be a lot of “what about’s… ?” at this point, but bear with me. If we were to define good and bad this way - really do it deep down - there would be some very profound implications. For one, it would mean that the corresponding positive and negative emotional response would only arise in relation to things genuinely within our control. In other words, it would mean that our happiness in life was completely and solely within our control, regardless of external circumstances5.
But, I can imagine someone protesting, ‘this is just a subjective word game!’ Yes, it is what we mean by framing. Right now, it doesn’t seem like much because simply choosing to call a tire a sandwich doesn’t make us hungry when we look at it. But what is important to understand is that you’ve been playing word games your whole life. The “way you are” is a conglomeration of your experiences and how you have been inspired to build your word game. The way you (we all) have done so is what has lead to the suite of emotional responses you have in different situations. And, unless you are a fully enlightened being with no inner difficulties, we have already examined how much of the standard cultural word game produces illogical and tumultuous results6.
In large part, the endeavor of this kind of spiritual practice is this: reworking our internal word game in a deep way over time, such that our perspectives begin to deeply shift. This is why reading and mere thought isn’t enough - it takes practice, which we will get to soon.
We also have a lot of obvious concerns still floating out there. These include things like, “Even though the following may be out of my control, how can I be expected not to call someone killing innocent people evil?” You may even find the notion perverse. I promise to address these kinds of questions. But for now, although I can still feel the suspicious squint in many a reader’s eye, let’s proceed with this new outlook on good and evil: The only good things are my beneficial choices, and the only evil things are my harmful choices.