Good and Evil

Can we Derive Good and Evil Through Science?

20/1/2019

The Scientific method is rooted in reason and experiment. It relies naturally on philosophy as a starting point, then feeds back to philosophy to provide better understanding, get some refinements, or remove discrepancies in the philosophical concept. “We are under an obligation to carry on our study of beings by intellectual reasoning” (The Decisive Treatise. 1:4). What motivated this article is the general loss of definition of good and evil based on some fixed terms of reference. In this paper, I argue that science and virtue work together in building a better society.

We know that there is no universal standard for good and evil to cover all living things, let alone all forms of matter. For example, the lion’s survival depends on the death of the deer, and that carries disparity of terms of reference. In that sense we may never get a universal measure of good and evil. “That unanimity on theoretical matters is never determined with certainty, as it can be on practical matters” (The Decisive Treatise. 2:15).

It may help, if we make some classes with common needs and attributes, then we generalize for the good concepts (i.e. Justice) to maximize benefits, minimize harm to the largest number of groups, and get optimum benefits for the overall. I hope we can get some advantages by extending justice from a special group to a larger population. I doubt it would work if we extend exceptions on the application of justice to special groups, and apply them to larger groups, because that reduces the total good. For example, we may make an exception and accept the unbalanced relation between predators and herbivores, because predators’ fundamental survival depends on such relation. However, generalizing such special case to relations between nations or human classes can produce disasters. With this consideration, the following definitions may help start the concept’s development.

We start with abstract definitions of good and evil in relation to the needs and perceptions of the concerned group in making the judgment. If we reach a working outcome, we may extend the good concepts to other groups and restrict the evil ones to minimum exceptions to get optimized concepts that serve the maximum number of groups and nature in general.

From a human perspective, we define good as what makes life better for the most, and evil as the anti-thesis. We are built with needs, physical and psychological, and we use imagination and learning to make conclusions about them, and how to achieve their satisfaction. If the needs are satisfied, then we feel happy, and less inclined to commit evil. Otherwise, if our needs are threatened by any means, real or assumed by imagination, then we tend to push back, and evil starts from there. Augustine does not agree; he thinks our evil is born with us “I have myself seen jealousy in a baby” (Confessions I.7, p.28). In addition, Augustine did the sins for the love of the wrong itself. (Confessions II.4, p.47).

Amongst all possible solutions for a problem, good represents the correct solutions that make life better for the most, and evil is the rest of solutions with varied wrong degrees based on how far they deviate from good. For example, take a community living in an isolated place with limited but manageable resources. If they distribute resources to satisfy the needs for all and prevent exceptions, people can manage, and this is a correct good solution. Alternatively, if they allow exceptions for some to get more than their share or needs, part of the population will not have their needs satisfied, and that will generate problems. Allowing exceptions with no compelling reasons represents a wrong solution or evil, and extending the benefits to the maximum number of people represents good.

Accepting that God is the source of good, does God contain everything or does everything contain him? (Confessions I.4, p.23), makes the concept easier to comprehend. He created the universe with many interactions and resources; correct solutions provide maximum satisfaction, and the wrong ones are the rest. Correct solutions must exist to enable the universe to evolve, but nature is too complicated to ensure reaching correct solutions from the first try.

The physical universe contains things and their opposites, and this is necessary for life to function. Opposite charges attraction is necessary to create atoms and molecules. Similarly charge repulsion is necessary to limit the accumulation of charge in one place, and that what keeps nuclei size limited; otherwise all charges in the universe will collapse to a single point. Mass is always attractive, but too weak to compete with charge or nuclear forces, and that keeps mass accumulation at check for small systems. In the end however, such relatively small force is what controls the stars motion, and the universe configuration. Blackholes can destroy the universe if they grow without check. The creation of molecules and atoms is generally good, and we tend to generalize it, but blackholes are an exception, and must be minimized to have a sustainable universe. In fact, that exception is necessary to some degree, because without black holes the stars may run way faster than they should for a stable universe. “Good seems to be what everything aims at.” (Nich.Eth 1.1.1). Correct solutions carry with them wrong components; they must be tuned to get the best outcome, and that is hard. Good solutions are a small set compared to the total number of possibilities. Without interaction between possibilities, we may not get the correct answers or accomplish good in the first place.

The universe with a built-in component of conflict enables finding the correct solutions based on free will and intelligence from the primitive levels to the human societies. There can be no good with no evil or the opposite, otherwise, what’s is the point of life? (Confessions VII.12, p.148). During the long journey of figuring the right answers, we do not get the correct ones most of the time, because they are a small subset of all answers. Hence we “commit errors” that are forgivable as long as they are made within good intentions. Redemption comes out of the struggle to find the correct answers after many wrong tries. In this sense there are “forgivable sins”. However, if we know the correct answers, but insist on acting on the wrong ones, then we are “teaming” with the devil through our free will, and we deserve punishment. In some religions there is a point of no return, and those who pass that point are the devil followers, and real evil doers. They must be fought and stopped, because they inflict misery on others, and that generates new waves of evil. The cycle goes on, until a big disaster engulfs the people. It would be desired if we can get help from one who knows better. If we rely on our intelligence and good will we may progress, but the wrong solutions can overwhelm our path. We need the help at least to find the major paths. In this sense God is needed.

Many philosophers think that reason or logic alone can lead to God’s role, and equally many others use similar logic to prove the opposite. “We do not transform earthly questions into theological questions. We transform theological questions into earthly ones” (The Jewish Question, pp. 81-82). They use various logical tricks and cyclic arguments to make pseudo conclusions “The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world of which religion is the spiritual aroma” (Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, pp. 57-58). Such conclusions may work for the originators of the logic, but they will not expand freely without control, and systematic education of ideology. In some sense these are not free choices. Alternatively, based on our logic and reliance on deep seated feelings within us, we are ready for answers, provided they remain sincere and true. We need a guide to get the best possible solutions, or at least minimize the wrong ones, from someone who knows the complexities. If there is no one there, it will be a big loss. The critical factor in reaching God is something within us; based on our free uncontrolled and unbiased will; either we feel him or we do not. We have to open to detect him through our deep thoughts and feelings. If we cannot, then maybe we are not ready.

There are in fact three reasons beside logic, our readiness in principle to feel his existence, and want his influence. The first is our brain, which is designed to detect the metaphysical world through feeling without an associated physical detection. The second is our deep drive to reach out and integrate with the universe, driven by a sense of justice and fairness; and finally our inevitable death. If we take these points, we can conclude that life is too precious to terminate and perish with no consequences; and that injustice is so widespread, and there must be some balance somewhere. Still, our direct internal feelings are what makes the big difference. Many people cannot get it, and they remain outside the realm of integration.

However, we still need science, because religion does not provide the details, and if it does, we will get lost in details we do not know their origins. Science provides the details when we are ready. Accordingly, we need religion to know the initial conditions, and the main solutions. We have to be very careful here, because wrong desires can corrupt all religions, and we need a light to help us see if the religion is corrupted. One critical help is to feel God within us, and the other is to keep reason strong to describe the wrongs, and not just sense them “Thus the theologians too in their statements about the world do not conform to the apparent meaning of Scripture but interpret it allegorically” (The Decisive Treatise. 2:28), which is a big challenge that should remain within the true elite domain, because ordinary people can get highly confused. (The Decisive Treatise. 3:3).

In conclusion, science can provide good ideas that resonate with the best of our deep inners, because good solutions always make life better and satisfactory, and that resonates with the best of us. Reason and good science can help strongly in arriving to the rules for good and evil, but realizing God’s deep influence within us makes the difference. Religions more likely have one origin, and they represent logical conclusions from the derived good and evil, and the unity of the creator; it makes a good sense to get God help to find the right solutions.

Uncorrupted religion can save us a lengthy process of trial and error to reach the right answers. However, when a religion gets strong with many followers, the sheer power and economic leverage, can corrupt the leaders who are generally more ready for corruption. They start to think they are different, and deserve better than the others, and they become more ready to inflict harm on the weak. After some time, the ruling class will need to corrupt the religion core to serve their deeds or mishaps.

Good leaders with solid virtues are extremely needed. They must be capable of helping the weak before the strong, protect everyone in the country, and use universal virtues of humanity “One who asks the law to rule, therefore, is held to be asking god and intellect alone to rule, while one who asks man adds the beast” (Politics III.3.1287a28). In order to keep moving forward, we must keep building on our successful and good experiences. To build a better country, we use the past for a renewed frame of work that learns from errors and enforces good solutions. Finally, we should keep virtues as a reference, and be ready to purify religion periodically from the accumulated dead weeds produced out of corruption, or facing life details with no clear cut solutions. “Set your heart on the Dao (the way), base yourself in virtue, rely on benevolence, journey in the arts” (The Analects 7.6).

Annotated Bibliography

Aristotle, and H Rackham. The Nicomachean Ethics. Harvard University Press, 2003.

The theme of this book is a Socratic question previously explored in the works of Plato, Aristotle’s friend and teacher, of how men should best live.

Aristotle, and Stephen Everson. Aristotle, The Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

The title of the Politics literally means “the things concerning the polis. It deals with the philosophy of human affairs.

Augustine, and William Watts. Saint Augustine’s Confessions. Harvard University Press, 1979.

The work outlines Saint Augustine’s sinful youth and his conversion to Christianity.

Averroës, and Simon Van den Bergh. Tahafut Al-Tahafut (The Incoherence Of The Incoherence). EJW Gibb Trust, 1987.

In this book, Averroes defends the use of Aristotelian philosophy within Islamic thought.

Averroes. The Decisive Treatise. Translated by George Hourani. London, 1961.

The Decisive Treatise is a legal opinion that Averroes, promulgated for his fellow Malikite jurists in order to demonstrate that the study of philosophy is mandatory for the skilled people.

Confucius, and Arthur Waley. The Analects. Knopf, 2000.

The analects is a collection of sayings and ideas attributed to the Chinese philosopher Confucius and his contemporaries.

Marx, Karl, and Joseph J. O’Malley. Critique of Hegel’s ‘philosophy of Right’ , 1970. Print.

This book is a manuscript in which Marx comments on fellow philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s 1820 book Elements of the Philosophy of Right paragraph by paragraph.

Marx, Karl. The Jewish Question. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

This essay by Karl Marx was one of his first attempts to develop what would later be called the materialist conception of history.

Plato, and Benjamin Jowett. Plato: The Republic. Forgotten Books, 2008.

This book talks about justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man.

Sieden, L. Steven. A Fuller View. Divine Arts, 2014.

This is a biography of Buckminster Fuller. It talks about Fuller’s vision of hope and abundance for all.