Many times the question has been asked. “What actions ... for good and evil?” To this simple question there have been numerous answers. Some people believe law is good and ... is evil.
Many times the question has been asked. “What actions constitute for good and evil?” To this simple question there have been numerous answers.
Some people believe law is good and lawlessness is evil. Therefore actions which reside in the bounds of the law must be good and those which do not are evil.
Some people believe God is good and the Devil is evil. Therefore actions which abide by the teachings of God are good and those of the Devil are evil.
Some people believe that happiness is good and that which is not is evil. Therefore all actions resulting in happiness are good and those which do not are evil.
All of the previously stated beliefs contain a great deal of merit but are also raw and undefined. My belief, in a sense, is simpler. Many times the simplest answer really is the best. Although, life is a complex jumble of nuances that many times can not be easily defined. Therefore I treat my definition of good and evil as merely a starting point by which greater questions can be based.
I believe life is good and death is evil. By this I do not simply mean that it is moral to live and immoral to die for each man lives and most certainly does each man die. In this the glory of life would be nullified by death and morality would be nothing as it would cancel itself out. My belief is that morality is not singular. It does not reside within nor is it relative to only ourselves. It is an absolute, life itself is morality. In this I believe society, the interaction of all living things, is the greatest good.
Now we have a answer upon which all moral dilemmas can be based.
Is it good to kill a living being to preserve ones self? To answer this you must first ask “Does this preserve the well being of society?” The answer is yes. In most cases it is morally sounds to end a life to preserve your own. To live we must eat and to eat we must kill.
It is the intent that constitutes the presents or lack of morality. If the intent is just but the action is not we can not punish those who commit the action. To do so would be to hinder the well being of society. If the action does not coincide with the intent how can we assume that further actions will not. We also can not assume if one killed while intending to preserve then that persons future intent would be to kill. The only thing we can assume is that if one intended to preserve that their future intent is going to be to preserve. If we hinder those future actions we must also assume that we are hindering the well being of society.
Every man at some point will intend to kill rather than preserve. That is why we can not judge, based on a single intent, the worth of a man. To accurately judge the whole of ones intent must be taken into account. If that whole is in favor of preservation then we must assume further intent will coincide. If that whole is not to preserve then we must also assume their further intent will coincide. In such a case to ignore this would be to ultimately harm society. In either case, if the harm to preserve ratio of ones intent is high enough some action must be taken. If rehabilitation is possible to swing the ratio in favor of preservation then that is the proper action. Otherwise the influence of that persons intent must be taken away from society in such a manner that the action itself does the least harm to our well being.
