Is There a Universal Definition of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’?

Exploring the depths of morality

Today, I invite you to think with me about a question that has occupied many people for centuries. People like philosophers, poets, and other deep thinkers.

Is there a universal definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’?

Do you remember a situation when you did something you THOUGHT was good, but others saw it as bad? Or that time when you were convinced of the evil of a certain action, but others viewed it as a ‘necessary’ evil? This shows how complex and subjective our perceptions of good and evil can be.

I find the philosophical search for a universal or general definition of good and evil to be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Take for example the Greek philosopher Socrates, who believed that knowledge is the basis of virtue. He believed that if someone REALLY knows what is right, he will automatically do what is right. But is that always the case? Aren’t there times when we ‘know’ what is right, but still act differently? I think we all do.

Take something like ‘food,’ or perhaps I should say “consumable item that you decide to eat.” For instance, I’m walking in the supermarket for some groceries, and I spot a delicious piece of milk chocolate. I know this goes against my health goals. But that taste… Incredibly delightful. Knowing what the ‘right’ choice is for my physical health doesn’t eliminate the temptation.

The same applies to bigger moral issues. We know to some extent that things like conscious lying, stealing, or using violence are ethical problems. They still happen, though.

• Maybe you discreetly take dishwasher tablets from your workplace cafeteria so you don’t have to buy them yourself. It might sound innocent, but in fact, you’re intentionally taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
• Perhaps you tell a white lie for a good cause. However, it still isn’t the truth.
• It could be that emotions run high during an argument, and you decide to use violence. Was that justified? Probably not, right? I know words can hurt, but ultimately, it’s only your ego that experiences that pain.

Seeking universal truths sounds nice in theory. In practice, though, there seem to be a thousand factors that interfere with living up to even our own moral ideals — let alone a single shared standard for all people in all situations.

Nietzsche’s perspective seems therefore an interesting one to me. He completely dismissed universal morality. He saw morality as something created by society. Nietzsche believed that ‘good’ was something that made the individual stronger, and ‘evil’ was what weakened someone.

Doesn’t that make you think about how our own cultural and personal backgrounds influence our views on good and evil?

Think about the various cultures on a global level. What one culture considers highly moral, another culture may see as the opposite. In many cultures, you ethically may have one wife, in other cultures you may have multiple. I hear quite often of Polygamy, for instance.

Also, consider things like honor, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. What these mean to someone largely depends on where you come from and in which culture you were raised.

Some societies might teach that loyalty to family trumps loyalty to rules or laws. Take organized crime groups as an example. Refusing to rat each other out is seen as noble, EVEN if it means covering up horrible deeds. The same act that looks like misguided loyalty in one context gets praised as righteous in another.

Or consider a soldier diving on a grenade to protect his comrades. The willingness to give his life for others is almost universally seen as honorable self-sacrifice. But shift the context even slightly: a religious extremist suicide bomber who believes dying for the cause will bring honor and paradise. Their willing self-sacrifice seems similar on the surface — both are ready to die for something. But the bomber also extinguishes innocent lives and devastates whole families. That changes the moral calculation dramatically.

So while the soldier’s comrades view his actions as noble protection, the bomber leaves only loss and turmoil in their wake. Dying for one’s comrades can be heroic, but when your method disregards innocent life, belief becomes no justification.

Talking about justification — in the past, I have also justified some actions to myself because “the other person would never understand me anyway.” Are you familiar with that?

Instead of talking about it to understand the other person’s perspective, I made assumptions based on my knowledge of that person. At this moment, I don’t approve of this behavior because I firmly believe that we should never think for someone else. Making assumptions is one of the weirdest things we often do, consciously or unconsciously. And then, suddenly, something that could be ‘wrong’ doesn’t feel ‘wrong’ anymore. Ethically seen, this is not okay. Honesty is the most important, isn’t it?

And so we all have our own beliefs about right and wrong. Even so, I think there seems to be something in most of us that longs for clarity. A universal truth, perhaps. In fact, there is one universal truth because there can be only ONE truth. Not that I know it. What do I know? And heck, also about this, perspectives are different.

Finding a universal agreement is easier said than done. People come from such different backgrounds and influences that getting on the same page with everyone can feel as likely as spotting a real unicorn — impossible (at least while sober).

So what does this mean for our daily lives? Should we stop searching for common ground and just focus on what works for us as individuals? Or is there room to follow our intuition while staying open to others’ perspectives?

I think about times I’ve clashed with someone over values. In those moments of uncertainty, it’s easy to feel defensive or superior. Who is actually really feeling defensive or superior? Yes, that’s right — the Ego. It cannot be anything else. What do I mean by that?

The Ego is that part of our mind that thinks in terms of “me vs. you” — crafting a story where I’m right and wise, while you must be ignorant or ill-intentioned. It’s all about comparison and hierarchy. My Ego wants to place me at the top.

So when (moral) disagreements flare up, it’s actually my Ego kicking into high gear. It starts judging and reactive-ing in order to ‘assure’ itself of its own rectitude. “I know what’s right here, so you must be wrong and misguided.” It’s defensive and superior posturing stems from that core desire to be “right” as a means to feel safe and affirmed in my worldview.

But the wiser part of my mind knows better. It sees limiting myself to a single perspective leaves me ignorant. Rather than getting hooked by the Ego’s need to rank and dismiss, I can catch myself. “Ah, here’s that false superior/defensive loop again…” From there I can soften around truth and open up to understand the heart behind opposing views.

When I make space to listen and understand where the other person is coming from, it softens me. We may not end up agreeing, but the conversation brings us together in our shared struggle to figure things out.

I don’t have a conclusion to offer. But I wonder if the “truth” we seek emerges in the asking of questions more than the stating of answers. As we search together, couldn’t that be where we find meaning?

You know what? I leave you with these thoughts. Not to confuse you, but to invite you on your own philosophical quest. What do you think?

Is there a universal definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’?