Humanity is wrong
Humanity defines itself as Good and Evil, however do you really know what that means? Every human sees, perceives, and imagines the world differently, and this entails that one person has a different definition of good than another; Furthermore, we can take reference in the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes for his definition of natural law; and finally, William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies, shows his point of view on human nature, but more importantly, he shows his readers how good is relative.
Imagine a starving homeless family, do they have the right to steal food? They say yes, ontheotherhand the law and the average person says no. Without food this family would starve and die, so it seems good for them to be able to steal the necessary food to keep themselves alive. However, the law defines this as bad so it must be bad, right? Wrong, because the family sees it as good. This example shows how one person can see an action as good and another person can see the same action as bad, that means no one is correct. Humanity should not define something as good or evil, but rather, what helps us as …show more content…
The article Locke Versus Hobbes defines Hobbes’ thoughts on natural law as, “In practice morality for the most part merley a command by some person or group or God, and how law merely the momentary will of the ruler.” Hobbes’ belief is the closest humanity has to clear definition of what is good and bad while taking into account the relativity. However, it is not perfect: Hobbes puts too much emphasis on one group to define what is good and what is evil, he should have defined it on a more situation to situation basis. The best definition is: Good and evil are relative, there is no clear distinction between them. As humans, we can only do our best to look at situations objectively and formulate what is good and bad for that specific instance and no
Humanity defines itself as Good and Evil, however do you really know what that means? Every human sees, perceives, and imagines the world differently, and this entails that one person has a different definition of good than another; Furthermore, we can take reference in the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes for his definition of natural law; and finally, William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies, shows his point of view on human nature, but more importantly, he shows his readers how good is relative.
Imagine a starving homeless family, do they have the right to steal food? They say yes, ontheotherhand the law and the average person says no. Without food this family would starve and die, so it seems good for them to be able to steal the necessary food to keep themselves alive. However, the law defines this as bad so it must be bad, right? Wrong, because the family sees it as good. This example shows how one person can see an action as good and another person can see the same action as bad, that means no one is correct. Humanity should not define something as good or evil, but rather, what helps us as …show more content…
The article Locke Versus Hobbes defines Hobbes’ thoughts on natural law as, “In practice morality for the most part merley a command by some person or group or God, and how law merely the momentary will of the ruler.” Hobbes’ belief is the closest humanity has to clear definition of what is good and bad while taking into account the relativity. However, it is not perfect: Hobbes puts too much emphasis on one group to define what is good and what is evil, he should have defined it on a more situation to situation basis. The best definition is: Good and evil are relative, there is no clear distinction between them. As humans, we can only do our best to look at situations objectively and formulate what is good and bad for that specific instance and no