Would there be good in this world if there was no evil?

Question

In a world where nothing is self-sufficient, where opposites work together to create a harmonious balance, it seems reasonable to argue that the negative side of life is fundamental in order for us to appreciate the good. Have far do you agree with this?

Answer 1

I do agree with you that evil does help us to appreciate the good.

From the philosophical point of view that Good and Evil are opposite forces, Goodness exists only because Evil exists; that they are balancings aspects of each other. If you eliminated Evil, then Goodness would not exist and there would be no need to discuss it. So, from this point of view, the answer to your questions is "No, there would not be Goodness if there were no Evil."

But another way to think about Good and Evil other than as opposite forces is to acknowledge that from the point of view of actual existance, Goodness is the given condition of the universe and that Evil is the "absence" of the Good, as has often been described throughout history. Though "evil" seems to be really visible throughout history, it is not the universal condition.

Where Goodness is not absent, it is present, and it is present much more widely than it is absent, because Goodness is the nature of the universe. You can see cosmic order and elegance in the universe, beauty in nature (aspects of Goodness), more acts of goodness and kindness where ever you go (though some debate the last point).

So the answer to your question from this point of view is "Yes, there would be good, if there were no evil."

I prefer the second way of thinking about it.

Answer 2

First.. Good from a Cristian POV is formulated around Platonism which makes Good the Really Real, fully idealized thing that is unattainable on earth, and Evil would then be the lack of the full-valued Good. So evil doesn't exist. It is lack.

Your idea is closer to Manicheanism. That there are two substance evil and good, each fighting each other.

We don't need evil to have good. We can use the obvious term bad to contrast with good. Or something EVEN less loaded like correct/incorrect, sufficient/insufficient. It's just a binary way of assing a situation.

From the Christian POV we DON'T have a grasp of what the Good is, it's in the other world-- we know God is supposed to be good, but he allows horrific events to unfold-- which seems patently NOT-Good. If it is not, then our concept of it is flawed, lacking formal reality. So the word becomes as useless at defining things here as the word "God" is to point at something we also Can't Know.

Answer 3

Are you suggesting that the world is in harmonious balance? You seem too smart to really think that.

But, suppose you believe the world is in harmonious balance between good and evil. Are you then suggesting that if it were out of balance we could not appreciate the good side?

Suppose everything was rosy except for the occasional rare natural disaster - no problems in life except for the occasional reminder that evil exists and can happen to people quite randomly and unfairly. Would that not be sufficient to make us appreciate how good we had it?

Put this another way. If good and evil were the colors white and black, would half the world-picture need to be black so that we could tell it from white?

I don't think I need answer that for you.

Answer 4

think about it for a few seconds... there will always be evil in the world some how. even if everyone got along, and shared, cared, and loved everyone. the world wouldn't seem right. because every good hurts someone and every evil helps others too. they are codependent on each other. say that you want everyone to give a piece of new fancy furniture to the their neighbors as a gift, yes some will be happy about getting something new, but some will also won't want the gift, or not want to give anything away. so though it'd make some people happy it makes others unhappy therefore there cannot be good without evil or verse visa.

Answer 5

I thought deeply on this long ago in a similar way.
I found:
- pure evil is a self-destructive force (not an entity);
- pure good is the simplest state of being
- excessive good provokes evil // excessive evil provokes good;

* yes, there could be good without evil, but it would be ignorant, nieve, unmotivated.
The world CAN do without evil and still can develop by the challenges of living in the wild as animals do. Life does not need evil in order to evolve.

I myself found, in the wild, healing of old wounds and personal development that was far more progressive than life in the city.
Growth & developement around evil people does rob your energy & resources (amongst other things), and often inflicts fresh wounds, destroying your potential.

Take care - thanks for the question. I needed a new perspective on that enigma.

Answer 6

Evil is a subjective word, depending on ideas that stem from human need and experience. But there would be exponentially more richness and diversity in life without evil. Just as there will be a term for the equivalent of evil in this sort of a world.
But without any evil how would we learn the rich variability in human emotion eg from Demonism to Divinity? The evil that we have now eg terrorism, has a definite underlying cause. I call it confusion. But it is not necessary, just a learning tool for our current conditions.

Answer 7

I don't believe this is true. We have an innate sense of good and evil (what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do). So if everyone started to do good things everywhere -- and evil was eradicated from the earth -- we could still recognize them as good things. Evil is not necessary in order to define good. There are also morally neutral actions which will never go away, and good can be compared to those.

Answer 8

Subjectively, if there was no evil, we would not be able to identify the good as being "good". We would not even need a word to describe "good". Therefore, as far as people are concerned, there would be no "good".

Objectively, the good actions would still be good, even though we wouldn't have a word to describe them and we wouldn't recognize things as being "good".

For example, if the WHOLE world was painted yellow, and there were no other colors, we would not have words for colors, not even the word "yellow". However, our lack of recognition of the world's yellowness would not change the fact that world is actually yellow.

So yes, we need evil to exist in order to recognize/perceive/appreciate good. But we do not need evil to exist in order for good to exist.

Answer 9

I agree with it all the way.

Even scripture says, where there is no law sin would not have abound, but where sin abounds, so much more grace.

Wherewith the law of grace has set us free from the law of sin.

Basically, if there was no law, there couldn't be sin and where there is sin, there is much more grace.

The law of grace has made us exempt from the law of sin.

So I believe that without one there couldn't be another, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that there is a balance. I'm a bible believer and so I believe that there is much more good in God than there is evil in Satan. Same with people who follow the ways of both example. I believe there is much more good in the world than bad. Unfortunately we focus so much on the bad that we don't allow room in our minds/knowledge for the good experiences in mankind.

Answer 10

In fact, with reference back to the medieval Scholastic philosophers and theologians, there is no absolute evil, only declining degrees of good. Evil is therefore a relative absence of the ultimate good and does not, in and of itself, exist. Those doing evil, for example, always do so out of a conviction that, for someone, themselves, their families, their nation, their God, that they are doing good. So you're question actually assumes the existence of something -- evil -- that may not exist at all. There is only good, but not all 'goods' are equal.
The short answer to your question is therefore: yes, because there is good in this world and there is no evil.