Post Your Answer
1 year ago in Philosophy , Philosophy & Ethics By Adithi
How do major philosophical traditions distinguish between the concepts of "good" and "evil"?
I'm studying the problem of evil and need a solid grounding in how different frameworks conceive of the good/evil distinction itself. Is evil a positive force (as in some dualisms), or merely the absence of good (Augustine)? Is "good" defined by pleasure (hedonism), virtue (Aristotle), duty (Kant), or well-being (utilitarianism)? How do non-Western traditions, like Buddhism with its focus on suffering and ignorance, or Daoism with its non-dualistic yin-yang, frame this dichotomy? I need a comparative structural analysis.
All Answers (1 Answers In All)
By Samaira Answered 1 year ago
The distinctions are profound. In Western theology, Augustine's privation theory dominates: evil is not a substance but a lack of due good. Kantian deontology defines good as a will aligned with the moral law, and evil as a subordination of the law to self-love. Utilitarianism defines good as maximal happiness/well-being, evil as suffering. Eastern traditions often offer non-dualistic frameworks: In Daoism, good (yin) and evil (yang) are interdependent, dynamic phases, not absolute opposites. Buddhism sees "evil" as actions (karma) born from ignorance (avidya) that produce suffering (dukkha); the "good" is the Noble Eightfold Path leading to liberation. Manichaean dualism posits two co-eternal principles of light/good and darkness/evil. The fundamental divide is between views where evil is a positive force versus a derivative absence or misalignment.
Reply to Samaira
Related Questions