Good versus Evil, the Great Debate
ENWR 110, Mr. Caldwell
December 3, 2001
Concepts of good and evil permeate the great sum of human awareness. They appear in literature, art, philosophy, spirituality… indeed, good and evil can be seen in almost every facet of human culture. One might argue by this diffuse influence that such concepts are human universals. As widespread as they are, however, beliefs in good and evil are commonly taken for granted. Do such ideals exist in nature, or are they exclusive to the human experience?
In examining this question, one must take objective findings into account. In his essay entitled Nonmoral Nature, Stephen Gould uses naturalistic observation to argue against the universality of human morality. He examines the debate from all sides and concludes that such concepts cannot realistically apply to nature as it does to man. However, if one examines the works of Charles Darwin, the discrepancies between man and nature begin to disappear. This view suggests that morality is a purely social construct. Proof of such a hypothesis is prevalent in many sources, such as literature or recent history. Following this logic, one must conclude that concepts of good and evil are altogether arbitrary, subjective, and unnatural.
Stephen J. Gould offers several very convincing arguments in his famous essay, Nonmoral Nature. He begins by addressing the “problem of evil” as debated by theologians whose dogma included a “benevolent God” (Jacobus 475). They examined the issue using “natural theology – the antiquated doctrine that attempted to infer God’s essence from the products of his creation” (Jacobus 479). This “a priori” approach assumed that good and evil must exist in nature and then attempted to prove it (Jacobus 479).
As Gould points out, however, “the framing of the question ‘in our terms’ is thoroughly inappropriate in a natural world neither made for us nor ruled by us” (Jacobus 483). He cites examples of creatures, such as the ichneumon fly, whose behavior appears very evil from a human perspective. Creatures such as these obviously do not possess the mental capacity to understand such a complicated topic. As Gould goes on to say, “although we acknowledge that we witness little more than automatic instinct or physiological reaction, still we describe the defenses of the hosts as though they represented conscious struggles” (Jacobus 476). He concludes this to be the primary flaw in natural theology. “Nature,” he writes, “contains no moral messages framed in human terms” (Jacobus 482).
Using these findings, one can quickly reach the conclusion that organisms in nature simply do not understand moral imperatives of good and evil. In one of his examples in which the ichneumon larvae devour caterpillars, Gould writes, “Caterpillars are not suffering to teach us something; they have simply been outmaneuvered… in the evolutionary game” (Jacobus 483). Thus, one cannot realistically apply moral questions to nature, as naturalistic observation demonstrates how immoral nature really is.
However, one can take this conclusion a step further by using Charles Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution. Darwin observed the “endless number of strange peculiarities” of the “productions… under nature” (Jacobus 438). He theorized that “variations… should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations” and that “individuals having any advantage… over others, would have the best chance of surviving and or procreating their kind” (Jacobus 438). This principle, which Darwin dubbed natural selection, has been all but completely verified by modern archaeology and genetics.
The theory of natural selection was almost immediately expanded into the theory of evolution. In evolution, the “preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations” in different environments would eventually give rise to genetic adaptation and speciation. One can easily see how such changes would eventually culminate in the vast, dynamic organisms that now populate the Earth. At the inception of this theory, however, an important question arose: Did man himself evolve from previously existing organisms?
So far in the course of scientific research, most evidence indicates that mankind did in fact evolve into what it is today. Archaeological findings have been able to verify the progression of ancient primates through various evolutionary stages into Homo sapiens. Concurring with these discoveries is a vast array of physiological and genetic data that shows man’s innate similarity to primates. Numerous scientific disciplines have directed their inquiries into this area, with the majority of conclusions pointing toward the veritability of human evolution. Indeed, to the scientifically inclined, human evolution is often considered fact rather than theory.
Therefore, in combining the views presented by Stephen Gould and Charles Darwin, a problem can readily be seen. If, as Gould holds, questions of morality cannot apply to nature, then how can they apply to human beings if, in fact, we are also part of nature? Given the validity of both Gould’s and Darwin’s conclusions, one begins to wonder whether concepts of good and evil are altogether valid.
One can attempt to prove this hypothesis in any number of ways. In disproving validity, however, an excellent approach might involve demonstrating subjectivity. As the scientific method holds, subjective data is inadmissible as fact. An excellent literary example is Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, which provides eloquent proof of just how relative good and evil can be. Douglass writes about the “blighting and dehumanizing effects of slavery” on his mistress. He describes her as “a woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings” who becomes tainted by the “poison of irresponsible power” (Jacobus 128). This, obviously, is a matter of perspective; as Douglass himself perceives his mistress becoming evil, she no doubt believes herself to be doing what is good and proper.
Herein lies the dilemma presented by concepts such as good and evil. Countless instances exist in which the terms can be antithetically altered between two observers. An excellent example from modern times is the rash of terrorist incidents that occurred on September 11th. One can think of few tragedies more horrendous than the genocide of thousands. Indeed, American sentiments ran highest following the massacre. Many dubbed the attacks as unforgivably evil.
However, as evil as the act was considered by most, others believed the exact opposite. News broadcasts following the incidents were filled with accounts of celebration in some countries. While many condemned the attacks as profoundly evil, others praised them as profoundly good. This provides the modern mind with undeniable proof of the subjective nature of good and evil. Such concepts cannot logically be considered human universals, or universals of any sort, if their perception can fundamentally switch from one individual to the next.
This string of logic provides a very real and very obvious conclusion. As Stephen J. Gould explicates, the application of moral values to natural things is “thoroughly inappropriate” (Jacobus 483). On the other hand, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has proven that human beings are intrinsically natural. In combining the two, one can see that questions of good and evil are just as inappropriate with regards to humanity. Proof of this assertion can be found in many sources, such as literature or recent history. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to all the data presented is that concepts of good and evil are ultimately subjective, arbitrary, and unnatural.
Resources
Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.