Philosophy Paper Example: Good Versus Evil and Morality

The phrase good versus evil has been in existence for hundreds of years. The context can be applied to individual people, classes of people and even societies. But what is interesting is that everyone defines good and evil differently. Often, the word morality is used when good and evil are discussed. Similarly, morality has a variety of definitions too, and people disagree on which morals are good and which are evil. Some overlap occurs, but the list is undefined. Nietzsche believed that people had a false belief in morality in that people felt morality was good for them. He felt the motivator of all creation is the will to power. During his quest, he discovered the distinction of master-morality and slave-morality. His interpretation of morals and values was skewed and oversimplified, and I think his views were ignorant of individual acceptance and personal growth.

The concept of master-morality and slave-morality involves using words such as higher or herd people. I believe Nietzsche was trying to describe the differences in what he saw in people. He saw that the noble people felt they were moral, good and powerful. It did not matter to them how they treated those who were below them. They felt they were the originators of value and morals; therefore, they revered themselves. And for them, weakness is despised, and harshness is respected. In summary, the noble people were the higher people and those below them were the herd. On the other hand, there is another type of morality called slave-morality, and these people viewed the noble person as evil. People who are the pessimistic, altruistic, pitiful, and uninterested or feel like a victim can be described as having slave-morality. For these people, good means to ease someones suffering and evil entail installing fear. They wish for equality and democracy, and that will make everyone feel good. To be above or look down on someone makes you evil. The virtues associated with the slave-morality include kindness, humility, sympathy, and empathy in which people who are independent and strong are perceived as evil. There has to be an acknowledgment that both types of morality exist in todays society. Looking at a CEO of a large firm confirms there are people who attain to be higher. There are also people who contribute little and pretend to be a victim who lives as part of the herd mentality. It would be neglectful to think that neither has values or morals. It would also be wrong to label either as good or evil. As easy it is for some to quickly assert someones heart and soul as good or bad, it is not right to do so.

The concepts of the master morality and the slave morality can be affiliated with the social construction of good and evil as illustrated by the illusory theory. The illusory theory views goodness as a construction that involves the application of good and evil. The construction may be influenced to us by biology or a concept that we can easily avoid. The construction may also be an aspect which is constructed from a social perspective that makes cultures perceive evil and good in their understanding. However, the good must be in the form of an artifact for it to be identified. Nonetheless, since it is not limited to any aspect, then it cannot be viewed as an example of a material artifact. In other words, both good and evil can be affiliated to abstract artifacts that include families, institutions, and languages. From an individual perspective, if the theory is correct, the possible assumption is that goodness is not a construct whose application requires to be stopped from a global perspective. In other words, if there is the need of ensuring a consistent application of goodness in the world, then there lacks the essence of stopping its application. However, we might be either wrong or right in applying it. The illusory theory is viewed to contain flaws particularly when it comes to the perception of evil. If the theory is viewed as true, the basic assumption is that evil is absent. Evil comes into place as a result of construction that enables it to exist in a particular manner. In other words, both evil and goodness do not exist unless their constructions occur. The same case applies to being right or wrong whereby they also do not exist. This makes statements such as God not existing due to the presence of evil to be meaningless or rather a confusing assertion. The confusion comes into perspective whereby, if the theory is firm, the assumption is that God is not affiliated with the presence of goodness or evil in the world and that moral duties cannot be applied to him unless he takes part in the social constructions of the concepts. Another problem associated with the theory entails rationality whereby an aspect is termed as wrong when it contradicts with what is constructed as good. Contradictions are viewed as wrong and hence believing in them is wrong when it comes to the goodness construct.

As mentioned, there are different types of people in the world, all individuals, and each has strengths and weaknesses. A persons values, instincts, and perspectives can affect our understanding of people, and it is hard to not pre-judge someone based on our own experiences and preconceived notions. However, I do not think it is a fault to recognize that some people have a strong will than others, and it is not an insult to say that a person may strive to be better at a sport, craft or task. For Nietzsche, he conceived this to be the will to power. And, in his view, he believed those that had the power were the people that were happy and did not try to live by any certain morals. These people did not value morals as much as they felt their lives created the morals in which others should attain. The master-morality had the will to power while the slave-morality did not. I concur that there are people who have a will to power. I believe certain conditions, strengths, and attitudes assist in a persons journey of growth. The journey may be towards sport, education, spiritual path, or corporate goal; but the will is there for each person, and some will coddle it and some will not.

You can look at our state or our government and see that both types of morality exist. There is a mixture of both in businesses, schools, and churches. We are all individuals with strengths and weaknesses. I believe people have morals, and although we do not all share the same list, I cannot judge those who do not believe as I do. It is good and evil in this world, and I think morals and values play a role in some of the evil acts seen. I also feel the moral distinctions play a role in our attitudes and beliefs. In recent years, it seems the slave-morality has become more prevalent with the constant stories about equality and democracy. While I can agree that equality and democracy are positive goals, I feel scared that our society wants us all to be the same. Equal does not mean same. And, in my opinion, it should not.

Master-morality can be a positive influence in that humans embody growth, competition, and self-motivation. And, often, good feelings can be felt when a person has attained power, whether that be as a parent, the President, or a teacher. I do not think good feelings should cause anyone to think his or her way is the only moral or right way. Everyone has distinct attitudes and feelings which can only be filled by the individual himself.

An interesting perspective regarding good and evil is the idea of evil affiliated to the religious construct. Can we view atheism as evil since the atheists do not believe in God? From an individual perspective, it would be wrong to term atheists as evil as they can also live good lives similarly to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and so forth. They can take part is significant activities in the society such as cleaning the environment, taking care of the elderly, and engaging in various community developments.

Evil and goodness can be viewed as flexible constructs in which it is inevitable able for any sane individual to engage in an evil practice. That explains why we have laws to control human conduct as immoral actions are bound to occur. Laws make it possible to distinguish between good and bad conduct. There exists evil which we are certain that they are veil irrespective of an individuals cultural background. In other words, one simply terms an evil as evil without being taught that the action is evil. The basic assumption is that the knowledge of such evil emanates from God as a way of enabling us to discern good from evil intrinsically. Goodness and evil can be viewed as significant parts of humanity in which they guide morals or conducts by establishing the right and the wrong.