Good Vs Evil

The Good and Evil in Our Life People can identity the difference between good and evil based on their nature. According to Samuel Johnson, education gives us the power to discern or see the good from the bad, and to “prefer” the good. We can see that a good person would volunteer with nonprofit organizations, donate money to charity, stand up for others, and help people without expectations. While an evil person would murder people for their possessions, hurt people, tell lies, take advantage of others, and do theft. The nature of good are doing actions that benefit others, and being selfless. In contrast, the nature of evil are doing actions that have a negative effect on others, and being selfish or greedy. As I reflect on the …show more content…
Camus said that “the evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance.” Camus supports Socrates’s view that no one knowingly pursue misery. He says good intention do as much harm as malevolence. For example, a war is started to protect their land, but the war was destroying the land. Even if they were ignorant, it still wouldn’t change the outcome of the war. He continues with “On the whole, men are more good than bad.” Camus agrees that most people in the world are good, but that’s not the point. The real point is that he sees the bulk of humanity as good and ignorant. Furthermore, he states that “the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies itself to know everything...the right to kill.” First, we are ignorant. Second, we are ignorant of our ignorance, and we assume we know enough, but we actually don’t. The most incorrigible vice is that we think we know everything, then we claim the right to kill. In this case, a person was put into jail based on an assumption, and after a few years, new evidence was found for the prisoner to get release from jail. In this case, the jury assume to know that this person is guilty, and made a decision to put this person in jail, but realizes the jury didn’t know enough to make that decision. Camus also claims that that “the soul of the murderer is blind;...there can be no true goodness nor true love without …show more content…
I agree with Socrates suggestion that no one would knowingly pursue misery because no one wants to be miserable. I also agree with Gaylin about how everyone has free will to choose to be evil or good, since our life is full of choices. In our society, we have a system of rewards and punishments that help us be civilized people. So, I would disagree with Asimov because I don’t find it insulting that we need this system to be human beings because without this system no one would follow the law, and our community would collapse. In addition, Davies’s statement makes sense because if people have a lot of energy to be evil, then we would have a high crime rate in the U.S. Furthermore, Camus also made good point about how we assume we know everything, but we actually don’t. In a way, we are like Blake who killed the fly with his thoughtless hands. Overall, I believe that as long as I don’t pervert the language or use protective rationalization, then I can embrace good, and avoid