Good and Evil

[AdamLOV]

It is highly debatable whether there is such a thing as essence. Even if there is essence, following the logic of essentialism, it belongs to the essence of the virus to destroy fellow beings. Should that mean that we accept the good of the virus? The natural essence of one being can often result in the disruption, even destruction of other creatures. Any restriction of the virus would be an egregious restriction of the "virus' potential". This absurd example highlights the fact that an ethics based on essence is no better than one predicated on complete relativism. Unless, of course, one complements this essentialism with a hierarchy as Plato did. But hierarchial ontologies are deeply problematic, for reasons I shall not elaborate here.

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to understand the nature of the things we observe. Without essences you don't get very far.

Your example misses the point entirely. That which is good for the virus is not the same as what is good for people. So while the nature of the virus is to propagate, to the extent that they are harmful, it is in human nature to resist and conquer. It is in the lion's nature to hunt gazelles. That is good for the lion, but not so good for gazelles. It is in the nature of the gazelle to flee in a herd. There is no relativism because both are acting on the same principle, i.e. to live according to their nature. That these natures are in conflict has no bearing.

I think my example hits the target exactly. If what is good for the virus is not good for me as a human, then there cannot be a greater good that connects both of us. There is simply no common ground between the good of a deadly virus and the good of a human individual. One who believes in some esoteric, hidden positive meaning, such as a Platonist/Neo-Platonist, Holist or whatever would counter that the "greater good" here would be "harmony", for example, the purported "balance" in nature. Except that balance, in negentropic systems and entropic systems alike, is the exception rather than the rule. As long as there are energy differentials among various existents, there will be imbalance in a system. Therefore, the good will be unevenly distributed in that system. In other words, there simply cannot be any overarching "good" that would transcend the individual interests of the components of the system. Actants strive to delay its own dissolution, to postpone entropy, and they routinely conduct this through negating the good and well being of other actants. Conflict, in other words, is the rule, and we cannot discern a "right" and "wrong" side in absolute terms. We can certainly have opinions on this matter, but truth seems to evade us if we look for any positive validation of it.