What if there is no such thing as the concept of good and evil?
What if, rather, all that exists can be divided between two sensations – love and pain?
Wishful thinking I would say – I’m sure it’s more complex than that. The purpose of this post is to organise these thoughts that have arisen in my mind, and I will enthusiastically point out that I have not delved into this topic at all outside of this. But on we go…
I’m slowly making my way through Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, and I was struck by a single passage in book four:
“Change: nothing inherently bad in the process, nothing inherently good in the result.” – Meditations, Book 4.42
The issue of change, and its seeming omnipresence within modern society, has been on my mind for a long time. I’ve often been in support of change – I think adaptability is necessary for survival and prosperity – but I’ve (somewhat more recently) been much more naturally wary of change.
So this was an interesting find in the book. Anyway, it got me thinking about what it means to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’, which is nothing new or original I know, but still it came to me – can we render these concepts in terms of love and pain?
In previous posts I’ve briefly mentioned Carl Panzram, the single-most terrifying killer I’ve read about in recent memory. Learning a little about him and his background has been a truly interesting experience, because he has become part of the bulwark that stands between myself and my understanding of what it means to be good or evil.
I should note, when I say ‘learning a little’ I mean, very little, and yes, I am aware that a little learning is a dangerous thing and I wholeheartedly agree (thanks, Alex Pope).
Pushing on though, his upbringing was one of extreme violence and abuse – where he experienced, presumably, a great deal of pain, both emotionally and physically. He wrote some memoirs on his experiences, which is how we know they’re authentic (I’ve only read the wiki page so far though, I’ll get to the memoirs themselves eventually).
What makes Panzram so fascinating is his unrepentant end; he brutally murdered his numerous victims, and went to his execution spewing and spitting vitriol both at his prosecutors and those sympathetic to his plight.
Such a man cannot in any sense be considered ‘good’ – he destroyed the lives of others without mercy or compassion, in a fashion similar to many who came before and many since.
If we then make the leap that Panzram’s actions resulted from the pain endured through his torturous past and resultant mental volatility, then could we surmise that in an environment of love and stability, people are more likely to develop the belief systems consistent with such an environment?
In my own experience, people I know who have had upbringings of relative calm and love are today relatively well-adjusted individuals who also demonstrate feelings of compassion and love, with far fewer inclinations towards violence and brutality.
So if we view Panzram’s actions as bad, and well-adjusted, compassionate individuals as good, then could we not relate these two concepts to pain and love respectively?
As a general rule: Love makes us feel good, while pain makes us feel bad.
All people experience pain to wildly varying degrees; but I’m not sure whether it’s fair to say everyone experiences love – I strongly doubt it.
The problem is, having broken this down, I’m left with an near-certain thought that it is not this simple at all, and while love and pain may partially explain good and evil in human nature, they must be far from the sole factors. I can’t hazard a guess as to what these other factors are currently, but in my experience, such a complex topic surely can only be answered with complex reasoning.
TJDempsey 