About conflicting interests, I would agree that conflicting interests don't necessarily indicate good or evil. Obviously, there is a certain interconnectedness among living things which necessitates such conflicts. For example, a mosquito needs blood to breed, but in the process of taking blood a poison is left in the skin of the victim, causing minor swelling and itching. Similarly, a lion needs meat to survive, but in the process of procuring such meat, a death takes place. I don't dispute this. What I would assert is that good and evil, morally speaking, can only be found within the human sphere. Or, more precisely, the intellectual/free-willing sphere (humans may not be the only intellectual and free willing creatures). Any other form of evil wouldn't be in the realm of impunity, that is, there is nothing to attach guilt to (unless you formed a long line of effects to the initial cause of evils), hence, not moral evil.
The problem with the modern conceptions of evil and good is that they are too closely
linked to emotional responses. More specifically, the emotional response elicited from the perceiver of any given evil or good. When we think of evil or good, we think, along with it, about certain emotions. So, often times, when one does not feel repulsed emotionally from a certain action (or event), one does not really believe it to be evil. Likewise, when one does not feel an emotional attraction to a given action (or event), one does not really believe it to be of great value, or goodness. So, whenever conflicts of interest arise, obviously the one who might benefit from the conflict will see goodness in his favor, while the one experiencing cost will see evil. Hence, if one were to step outside of emotional responses concerning certain activities or events, one may be lead to believe that good and evil don't actually exist.
Yet, I would assert that good and evil aren't necessarily meant to be attached to emotional responses (though emotional responses are often good indicators of good and evil). Furthermore, I would also assert that good and evil aren't even necessarily relegated to those social interactions that were refer to as conflicts of interest. I do not believe that something is evil if it harms another. Sure, that may indeed be an occasion of evil, but evil is much more expansive. Likewise is good.
I suppose, since I've been talking about good and evil, and have said that they are misunderstood and misrepresented, that I should probably share what my view on good and evil is. After all, why criticize another's viewpoint without offering another? What is the point? Well, my conception of good and evil is something mathematical, though, I hope, not so distant. Namely, the positive and the negative. By this I mean that if there is a negation of sorts, from an action, event, what have you, it may be considered evil, while where there is a position there is good. Now, obviously there are many arguments against this. "Is that to say that a negation of apples from a basket of fruit is evil?" Surely not, and this isn't what I mean.
Consider for a moment, a lie. I would assert that lies are evil, but some would assert that lies are good (at least sometimes). Those who would say that lies are good would say that they are good because they benefit the liar (or the one being lied to) in some way. For example, a man might lie to keep his job. This is a benefit to the liar. A person might also lie about how a dinner tastes, so as to benefit the happiness of the cook. Yet, I would assert that a lie is fundamentally wrong because it negates truth. The difference being that the action itself is negative, while the benefits (according to the one lying) are definitely positive (to a point). So, in a certain light, good and evil are subjective realities.
Yet in another light they are not. They are subjective only as far as the benefit (or positive effects), or cost (negative effects) upon the acter and affected person(s) go. However, they are definitely objective, since despite who is acting and who is being affected, the very nature of the quality is unchanged. It is simply a matter of weighing the positive against the negative, and for the one who sees greater position, or greater negation, the action will SEEM good, or evil. However, we all know that just because we see something, doesn't mean we see all that we need to.
What I mean by this is that we may perceive something to have greater position than negation, but in actuality, there may in fact be greater negation (and vice versa).
Yet, as I said, this doesn't change the very nature of a given act. In logic, one learns, according to Tautological structures, that if there is one falsity within a given set, the whole is false. Only a fully true set is a considered true. It is a perfect set (according to its nature). It is definitely true that humans are not perfect according to human nature, but only perfect according to individual nature (ie, I am perfectly me). One may act in a good way, in alignment to his own nature. For example, a person may learn best through reading, rather than vocally, and to learn that way is positive for that person. However, a perfect human being might be said to best learn by way of all learning capacities. Hence, while that person may be learning best according as himself (according to his own nature), he is not learning best as a human being (according to human nature). So, one must weigh carefully how he acts according to his own nature versus human nature. It would be most beneficial in this world to learn according to each individual's own nature because of the way our society is built, and because of scarcity, particularly of time (or one's lifespan). Hence, one must forego the greater good of learning through all human capacities, and hence becoming a more rounded individual, in order to meet the needs brought on my our society (quick education for a good job to support a living).
Likewise it is with lies. Humans are bore with the capacity to learn. This means we have an innate desire for truth, for how can we be said to be learning if we are only shown non-truths? Hence, as humans, lies are necessarily negative, since they belie our very nature. Yet, for individuals, lying may actually be said to be part of their nature. It may indeed be a tool for self-preservation. Hence, a different good is sought, and an evil forebore. That good sought is self-preservation (and is believed to be the greater good), and the evil forebore is the lie.
I suppose to sum up, and hopefully to clarify, good and evil are words that refer to position, or negation with regards to the nature of a thing, or specie, within the realm of actions or events. Moral good and evil may only be had by intellectual and free-willing creatures, and refers to good and evil that impinge guilt and responsibility. Other goods and evils are not moral, and are not as savory, or abhorrent as moral goods and evils. Existing things, objects, cannot be considered as evil, since evil, as I have asserted, is a negation, and no existing things is a negation. Only events can cause negations, and an action may be said to be evil if it causes a negation (or itself is lacking and incomplete). However, some evils must be forebore for the sake of greater goods.
Finally, and this is a matter of debate I suppose, all evils must be foreborne for the sake of a clear conscience. Guilt is the greatest evil. Actions that cause guilt must be avoided at all costs. BUT, our senses must not be deadened so that guilt may no longer be felt. If that is done, then one may altogether lose the sense of good and evil, and when that happens, the loss of truth is not far behind.
The problem with the modern conceptions of evil and good is that they are too closely
linked to emotional responses. More specifically, the emotional response elicited from the perceiver of any given evil or good. When we think of evil or good, we think, along with it, about certain emotions. So, often times, when one does not feel repulsed emotionally from a certain action (or event), one does not really believe it to be evil. Likewise, when one does not feel an emotional attraction to a given action (or event), one does not really believe it to be of great value, or goodness. So, whenever conflicts of interest arise, obviously the one who might benefit from the conflict will see goodness in his favor, while the one experiencing cost will see evil. Hence, if one were to step outside of emotional responses concerning certain activities or events, one may be lead to believe that good and evil don't actually exist.
Yet, I would assert that good and evil aren't necessarily meant to be attached to emotional responses (though emotional responses are often good indicators of good and evil). Furthermore, I would also assert that good and evil aren't even necessarily relegated to those social interactions that were refer to as conflicts of interest. I do not believe that something is evil if it harms another. Sure, that may indeed be an occasion of evil, but evil is much more expansive. Likewise is good.
I suppose, since I've been talking about good and evil, and have said that they are misunderstood and misrepresented, that I should probably share what my view on good and evil is. After all, why criticize another's viewpoint without offering another? What is the point? Well, my conception of good and evil is something mathematical, though, I hope, not so distant. Namely, the positive and the negative. By this I mean that if there is a negation of sorts, from an action, event, what have you, it may be considered evil, while where there is a position there is good. Now, obviously there are many arguments against this. "Is that to say that a negation of apples from a basket of fruit is evil?" Surely not, and this isn't what I mean.
Consider for a moment, a lie. I would assert that lies are evil, but some would assert that lies are good (at least sometimes). Those who would say that lies are good would say that they are good because they benefit the liar (or the one being lied to) in some way. For example, a man might lie to keep his job. This is a benefit to the liar. A person might also lie about how a dinner tastes, so as to benefit the happiness of the cook. Yet, I would assert that a lie is fundamentally wrong because it negates truth. The difference being that the action itself is negative, while the benefits (according to the one lying) are definitely positive (to a point). So, in a certain light, good and evil are subjective realities.
Yet in another light they are not. They are subjective only as far as the benefit (or positive effects), or cost (negative effects) upon the acter and affected person(s) go. However, they are definitely objective, since despite who is acting and who is being affected, the very nature of the quality is unchanged. It is simply a matter of weighing the positive against the negative, and for the one who sees greater position, or greater negation, the action will SEEM good, or evil. However, we all know that just because we see something, doesn't mean we see all that we need to.
What I mean by this is that we may perceive something to have greater position than negation, but in actuality, there may in fact be greater negation (and vice versa).
Yet, as I said, this doesn't change the very nature of a given act. In logic, one learns, according to Tautological structures, that if there is one falsity within a given set, the whole is false. Only a fully true set is a considered true. It is a perfect set (according to its nature). It is definitely true that humans are not perfect according to human nature, but only perfect according to individual nature (ie, I am perfectly me). One may act in a good way, in alignment to his own nature. For example, a person may learn best through reading, rather than vocally, and to learn that way is positive for that person. However, a perfect human being might be said to best learn by way of all learning capacities. Hence, while that person may be learning best according as himself (according to his own nature), he is not learning best as a human being (according to human nature). So, one must weigh carefully how he acts according to his own nature versus human nature. It would be most beneficial in this world to learn according to each individual's own nature because of the way our society is built, and because of scarcity, particularly of time (or one's lifespan). Hence, one must forego the greater good of learning through all human capacities, and hence becoming a more rounded individual, in order to meet the needs brought on my our society (quick education for a good job to support a living).
Likewise it is with lies. Humans are bore with the capacity to learn. This means we have an innate desire for truth, for how can we be said to be learning if we are only shown non-truths? Hence, as humans, lies are necessarily negative, since they belie our very nature. Yet, for individuals, lying may actually be said to be part of their nature. It may indeed be a tool for self-preservation. Hence, a different good is sought, and an evil forebore. That good sought is self-preservation (and is believed to be the greater good), and the evil forebore is the lie.
I suppose to sum up, and hopefully to clarify, good and evil are words that refer to position, or negation with regards to the nature of a thing, or specie, within the realm of actions or events. Moral good and evil may only be had by intellectual and free-willing creatures, and refers to good and evil that impinge guilt and responsibility. Other goods and evils are not moral, and are not as savory, or abhorrent as moral goods and evils. Existing things, objects, cannot be considered as evil, since evil, as I have asserted, is a negation, and no existing things is a negation. Only events can cause negations, and an action may be said to be evil if it causes a negation (or itself is lacking and incomplete). However, some evils must be forebore for the sake of greater goods.
Finally, and this is a matter of debate I suppose, all evils must be foreborne for the sake of a clear conscience. Guilt is the greatest evil. Actions that cause guilt must be avoided at all costs. BUT, our senses must not be deadened so that guilt may no longer be felt. If that is done, then one may altogether lose the sense of good and evil, and when that happens, the loss of truth is not far behind.