I've been discussing the concepts of Good and Evil within people recently, and I think I'm finally beginning to wrap my head around it.
The story versions of Good and Evil always seemed far too simplistic. People could not simply be Good or Bad; it simply didn't make sense. People were more multifaceted than that. There are reasons and motivations behind everything we do. The fact that someone could do terrible things, knowingly, for the sheer purpose of being evil, has always felt ridiculous to me. Such flat characterizations can't match up to real human beings.
For a while, I decided that Evil in humans just didn't exist. Evil, I decided, was a construct devised within fiction, as a way to create conflict without having to understand why people acted in bad ways. Evil in and of itself was an all-consuming, hilariously powerful personality that had no real rhyme or reason, much less any basis in the real world. People who did bad things in reality, I guessed, were simply misunderstanding the world in crucial ways, acting out of aggression made from lack of comprehension, or victims of a burdensome mental affliction. These people probably thought they were acting in the right, believing themselves to be Good while following their misguided set of values.
I created this set of beliefs primarily because I was stuck in my own worldview. I could not believe that anyone would willingly be a bad person. I had only seen myself, and inside of me, kindness, compassion, and understanding was key. I believed in the good in everyone.
Since then, I have realized that Evil People really do exist, although they exist in a much more complicated way. It is almost similar to the Alignment sistem of D&D, although maybe even more simplistic than that model. It exists as follows: there are Bad People who do Good Things, Good People who do Bad Things, Good People who do Good things, and Bad People who do Bad Things.
For example, Beck's father is a Bad Person who does Bad things. He's an abusive asshole who shows little if no regret for his past and present actions, with a lack of guilt for what he knows are terrible thoughts and actions. His motivation as still complex, and stem from ignorance as well as a need for respect, etc: but no matter what the reasons, he is a Bad Person. He may do the occasional Good Thing, but it is not an overwhelming part of his character.
In comparison, Beck's mother is Good Person who does Bad Things. She's an alcoholic who can be terrible while drunk, but she is always genuinely upset about it later, and strives to get better. She loves and cares for others sincerely, and fights to improve herself when she has the strength. Her Bad Things are not necessarily indicative of her character.
Evil, as commonly seen in stories, is few and far between. Most people who do Bad Things, I hope, are Good People who Do Bad Things, and attempt to get better when they are able to. This might be much later, but they are capable of redemption and feel sincere guilt over their actions. But there are some people that, in a D&D sense, are Pure Evil (Bad People who do Bad Things), and they surprisingly follow many of the same tropes and simplistic narratives as actual cartoon villains. For example, people who resemble Pure Evil often seek out people than are Good, and feel an irrational urge to hurt the lives of those people. I have no clue why, but I believe seeing Goodness might just irritate nasty people. Thus, Good naturally attracts Evil, with unfortunate consequences.
One reason I have always struggled with the conceptulization of Good and Evil is because of my inability to define John. Was he a bad person, or a good one? Did his bad actions or his few, interspersed good actions define him? Is he misguided or a victim of something he couldn't control, such as a warped worldview created by his work environment messing up his head, or is he just a terrible human being? I always struggled with giving him the benefit of the doubt, thus unwilling to let myself hate him despite what he had done to me; I was unsure which of his faces qualified as the Real John.
Aimed with this new understanding of Good and Bad in defining character, I was asked to have a talk with John today, perhaps our first conversation in over a year. He made it clear that it may very well be our last. The conversation was short and had one main message (don't hurt Mom), but I gleaned many things from what he said to me.
1) He is perfectly aware he hurt me, how it affected me, and that it was wrong of him.
2) He "literally does not care".
3) He is aware something is wrong from him, that he will "self destruct on his own"; in fact, that it is "inevitable".
4) He genuinely cares about my mother.
And so, finally, without my memory picking out only the good moments or my prior weakness and trauma magnifying the bad, I can safely define John's character with clarity. He is perfectly aware that something is wrong with his worldview, and that this causes him to hurt others. However, he feels no regret for the actions caused by this. In addition, he has practically given up on finding help, or trying to be a better person than his mental state allows him to be. He does not care about the hurt he has caused or will cause in the future. He also does not care about himself or of how I think of him (or whether I think he is a Good Person): but he does care about my mom.
He is a Bad Person who loves my mom. That is it. Whatever things he says or does for my mother, it is not indicative of his overall character. It is simply a good trait he has within a whole slew of bad. He is a terrible human being; and he doesn't mind others knowing it. He is completely unrepentant.
Now, I can finally allow myself to hate him without feeling bad about it.
(During our talk, I told him it wasn't his fault. I wish I hadn't.)
Life is good.
The story versions of Good and Evil always seemed far too simplistic. People could not simply be Good or Bad; it simply didn't make sense. People were more multifaceted than that. There are reasons and motivations behind everything we do. The fact that someone could do terrible things, knowingly, for the sheer purpose of being evil, has always felt ridiculous to me. Such flat characterizations can't match up to real human beings.
For a while, I decided that Evil in humans just didn't exist. Evil, I decided, was a construct devised within fiction, as a way to create conflict without having to understand why people acted in bad ways. Evil in and of itself was an all-consuming, hilariously powerful personality that had no real rhyme or reason, much less any basis in the real world. People who did bad things in reality, I guessed, were simply misunderstanding the world in crucial ways, acting out of aggression made from lack of comprehension, or victims of a burdensome mental affliction. These people probably thought they were acting in the right, believing themselves to be Good while following their misguided set of values.
I created this set of beliefs primarily because I was stuck in my own worldview. I could not believe that anyone would willingly be a bad person. I had only seen myself, and inside of me, kindness, compassion, and understanding was key. I believed in the good in everyone.
Since then, I have realized that Evil People really do exist, although they exist in a much more complicated way. It is almost similar to the Alignment sistem of D&D, although maybe even more simplistic than that model. It exists as follows: there are Bad People who do Good Things, Good People who do Bad Things, Good People who do Good things, and Bad People who do Bad Things.
For example, Beck's father is a Bad Person who does Bad things. He's an abusive asshole who shows little if no regret for his past and present actions, with a lack of guilt for what he knows are terrible thoughts and actions. His motivation as still complex, and stem from ignorance as well as a need for respect, etc: but no matter what the reasons, he is a Bad Person. He may do the occasional Good Thing, but it is not an overwhelming part of his character.
In comparison, Beck's mother is Good Person who does Bad Things. She's an alcoholic who can be terrible while drunk, but she is always genuinely upset about it later, and strives to get better. She loves and cares for others sincerely, and fights to improve herself when she has the strength. Her Bad Things are not necessarily indicative of her character.
Evil, as commonly seen in stories, is few and far between. Most people who do Bad Things, I hope, are Good People who Do Bad Things, and attempt to get better when they are able to. This might be much later, but they are capable of redemption and feel sincere guilt over their actions. But there are some people that, in a D&D sense, are Pure Evil (Bad People who do Bad Things), and they surprisingly follow many of the same tropes and simplistic narratives as actual cartoon villains. For example, people who resemble Pure Evil often seek out people than are Good, and feel an irrational urge to hurt the lives of those people. I have no clue why, but I believe seeing Goodness might just irritate nasty people. Thus, Good naturally attracts Evil, with unfortunate consequences.
One reason I have always struggled with the conceptulization of Good and Evil is because of my inability to define John. Was he a bad person, or a good one? Did his bad actions or his few, interspersed good actions define him? Is he misguided or a victim of something he couldn't control, such as a warped worldview created by his work environment messing up his head, or is he just a terrible human being? I always struggled with giving him the benefit of the doubt, thus unwilling to let myself hate him despite what he had done to me; I was unsure which of his faces qualified as the Real John.
Aimed with this new understanding of Good and Bad in defining character, I was asked to have a talk with John today, perhaps our first conversation in over a year. He made it clear that it may very well be our last. The conversation was short and had one main message (don't hurt Mom), but I gleaned many things from what he said to me.
1) He is perfectly aware he hurt me, how it affected me, and that it was wrong of him.
2) He "literally does not care".
3) He is aware something is wrong from him, that he will "self destruct on his own"; in fact, that it is "inevitable".
4) He genuinely cares about my mother.
And so, finally, without my memory picking out only the good moments or my prior weakness and trauma magnifying the bad, I can safely define John's character with clarity. He is perfectly aware that something is wrong with his worldview, and that this causes him to hurt others. However, he feels no regret for the actions caused by this. In addition, he has practically given up on finding help, or trying to be a better person than his mental state allows him to be. He does not care about the hurt he has caused or will cause in the future. He also does not care about himself or of how I think of him (or whether I think he is a Good Person): but he does care about my mom.
He is a Bad Person who loves my mom. That is it. Whatever things he says or does for my mother, it is not indicative of his overall character. It is simply a good trait he has within a whole slew of bad. He is a terrible human being; and he doesn't mind others knowing it. He is completely unrepentant.
Now, I can finally allow myself to hate him without feeling bad about it.
(During our talk, I told him it wasn't his fault. I wish I hadn't.)
Life is good.
