Myriad of Questions

If you cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all. That's what I think anyway.
I've finished The Devil and Miss Prym and I liked it. However, it raised so many questions for me. Beckie, here's what I think...

The Devil and Miss Prym essays the perennial conflict between good and evil in our souls, and how we commit a crime a hundred times in our minds and are afraid to do it in real life. It is a novel that explores the concept of inherent good and evil, the nature of mankind and God.
The story itself is good, however, it is unlike his other book The Alchemist that has a magical and emotional ending, it has a rather tame ending. Which in turn, leads you to ponder about the contents.

Paulo poses the questions, “Are people good or evil?” and “Do circumstances change the way people look at life?”. I’ve been thinking about it for a couple of days and here’s what I have.

Let me start with good and evil.
Many philosophers hold the theory of relativity. They exemplify good and evil as necessary for the world’s beauty and charm. Every thing has its own benefits; that garbage itself has its own value. I find this a little ridiculous because it would seem that immoral acts are excusable in the guise that without them, you would not have morals. That with suffering and pain, comes forgiveness. That is how forgiveness exists. I don’t think so. I think eventually good finds a way, life finds a way, even out the most horrid of scenarios. I don’t think good exists because evil does. I think one appreciates good, when one has seen evil. So all those crap websites stating that evil is necessary, the evil one is necessary and technically good is what I call fiddlesticks (a really nice term though).

There are also philosophers who maintain that an act is neither good nor bad in itself but the intention makes it so. Mere intention cannot make a bad act good. At the most, a bad act performed in good faith can be excused but it cannot be classified as a good act or as right. Therefore, intention alone cannot be made the basis of determining good and evil. It is without rationale.

Other philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato considered good and evil to be independent. The foundation of both already exists in man’s nature. Sometimes, Man forgets his own moral laws and needs to be reminded and self-realisation is the real knowledge that guides man to the path of the highest good.

So what is evil? Is it a thing or a being that causes our actions or judgements? Or is evil the result of our ill actions? I think it is both, at least for me. Atheists would argue on this point, because in their beliefs evil or good do not have an ontological staus; meaning as a thing itself, it does not exist. There is no God and no devil, in their opinion. Evil and Good is merely a result of our actions.
I agree that our actions can produce good and evil. But I also believe in a God and a devil. Both are inter-linked but ultimately, we make the decisions to do good and evil.

Another question that I came across, Is evil the absence of good (or vice versa) or is it the antithesis of good?
I’ve heard of this theory to answer this question. I’m not sure I agree with it.

We talk about things being cold or warm. But coldness is not a thing that exists in itself; it has no ontological status. Coldness is the absence of heat. When we remove heat energy from a system, we say it gets colder.
"Cold" isn't a thing. It's a way of describing the reduction of molecular activity resulting in the sensation of heat. So the more heat we pull out of a system, the colder it gets. Cold itself isn't being "created." Cold is a description of a circumstance in which heat is missing. Heat is energy which can be measured. When you remove heat, the temperature goes down. We call that condition "cold," but there is no cold "stuff" that causes that condition. So this would prove that evil in indeed the absence of good. But if there’s no good, is there necessarily evil? Is there no neutral point?
It’s so hard to talk about such things using analogies like Light Vs Dark/White Vs Black
because white can be proven to be a combination of all of the colors of the spectrum while black is the absence of all color.

So I ask myself and place a scenario. If I’m a doctor on a holiday and I see someone having a heart-ache and I do nothing. Am I considered neutral? I’m not doing good, yet my act itself is frowned upon. I consider it wrong and a certain degree of ‘evil’, because it has caused harm to someone (death in this case), even though I’m not literally stabbing him with a knife. So there is an absolute good and varying degrees of evil. Neutrality is very subjective, depending on scenario.

Yet, I would also argue that evil is the antithesis of good, since in every person there is something good. Sometimes you may have to look very deep to find it, but it is there. For instance, just for the sake of the example, it could be argued that because Hitler (assumption) loved dogs, there was good in him, else he would not be capable of true love. This in no way is meant to diminish the evil he wrought, but to emphasize that in some way, there is some good in everyone, so there can be no true absence of good. On the other hand, if evil is the antithesis of good, both can be in one person, it is just a matter of which takes precedence, how often and to what degree?

While there may be clear line of what is good, I want to know more about how there is an unclear line of what is evil. Is lying evil? What if it is a "harmless" white lie, to protect someone's feelings? Say, for example if a guy is sitting in a bar, and a woman he finds less than attractive comes over to "make a pass". The guy tells her that he finds her very pretty, but that he is married, and "where were you 5 years ago?" He does not find her pretty and is not yet married, but she is going off to do something else feeling complimented, and "let down gently". Is this an act of "good", because you were kind and did not hurt her feelings unnecessarily, or "evil", because you lied? I do not believe that you can have such fine lines in determining "good" and "evil" actions, yet the important thing about actions is the motive, but only sometimes.
For instance, is it evil to kill someone? To me, sometimes (not always) depends upon why you killed them. If you show a short temper by walking down the street, come across some little old lady who is slowing you down because she cannot keep the pace, and you break her neck and keep going...I would vote that that is "evil." However, if someone draws a gun on your sibling, parent or loved one, threatening to kill her, and you fight with that person, and in the struggle, the gun goes off and kills him, which is done accidentally, and in the act of protecting a loved one from an aggressor. To me, that is "good."

Is man essentially or inherently evil? Or does he come into the world “neutral”, not knowing either good or evil? That he learns it from his surroundings and experience. But then again, do you honestly need to stab yourself in the chest to know that it is not a good thing to do? Do we honestly need to experience evil to know that it is not good? Can you honestly look at a baby and think that it’s neutral? A baby’s innocent yes, but is it good? I don’t know, I feel one is. I think one is.

I’ll sum up by saying that even the very wise cannot see all ends. I don’t know the answers to all the questions that may arise with this issue. So what it leaves me with is a journey, a path and maybe an attempt to understand. Eventually, I may not fully understand. All I can do is have faith and try to make the choices that are right and good.

Choice. I think that’s the keyword in all of this.
Maybe free will is a blessing and a curse. I believe God has given all of us the absolute ability to makes choices in life. We have the ability to choose good or evil, right or wrong, self or others. Forget history, what people have done and what not. What about me? What do I choose to do? Why did God give us free will then? Wouldn't it have been easier and nicer to create mankind as inherently good. I honestly don’t know, but maybe his purpose with mankind is to have eternal fellowship with those who truly love Him. Therefore, to create us as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, would not allow for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is TRUE LOVE. Voluntary choice is the key - love isn't genuine if there's no other option.

Any takers? All views appreciated.