This text examines Aristotle’s claim that humans only do evil because they are drawn to what they perceive as good, and that evil is not something people truly intend but rather a mistaken side effect. It considers two main defenses of this view: first, that evil is not a real, independent force but merely a corruption or absence of good; and second, that people who do evil actually hate evil and are fundamentally good but misguided. The discussion then critiques both positions, questioning whether they adequately account for the reality of evil actions and intentions. Finally, it reflects on the implications of these views for how we understand moral responsibility and respond to wrongdoing.
THE ARGUMENT
Is his notion that we only intend the good, and the evil is seen as a side effect that is not really desired or intended, correct?
His defenders may choose from these:
“Good is real and evil is merely a corruption of good and thus is really nothing and is not an opposite. Evil is not real but merely good in the wrong place, a distortion, an absence of good.”
Or is it rather, “We only let ourselves see the good because we actually hate evil. The person doing evil is a good person who is misguided.”?
Or both?
Comment on 1
It is thought that evil is not real but is an abuse of good, or good put in the wrong place and time. For example, it is good that you can reach for an apple but not if it belongs to another. This would mean it is possible that you are trying to do real evil but failing. You really are bad, but try as you might, the evil you do remains just a lack of good that will not last. Good cannot be abused forever; its goodness will be too strong.
This one seems to be a language game. "It is good that you can reach for an apple but not if it belongs to another." It remains good surely that you can reach for it and it is only what you are doing with this good thing that is wrong. "It is good that you can reach for an apple, so don't misuse this good by taking it if it is not yours." It is gaslighting.
Comment on 2
This one assumes we always mean to be good, so we need to let ourselves be deceived in order to do bad. It calls you good inside no matter what you do. This one is incoherent. You would have to know deep down that the act is bad, so it makes no sense that you are acting with a real good intention just because you are good. It would mean that no matter what the evidence that somebody is evil or doing evil, you have to treat them as well-meaning. You can even argue that, as morality says, you must assume the best about a person—that they are pretending to be evil or it only looks as if they are. Then you say that you cannot judge.
The idea is that you are reminding the wicked or perceived wicked of their goodness and helping it to grow. Isn’t that how soft touches think? Isn’t that going to make us worse bystanders when innocents are hurt than we already are?
It leads to this: if you see evil in another, then the evil is in you. If you point it out, then you are allowing others to call you evil for doing so. It will make you afraid to even suspect that somebody is doing evil. If there are no evil people, then making an exception for those who judge people as evil is a total contradiction. If there are no evil persons, there are no evil persons.
[If you are a person of faith who holds that one can really be or do evil, the fact remains that if you see that person as being in the hands of God, you may as well deny that they really can be evil. The evil is as good as irrelevant if one is created, sustained, and in the bosom of an infinite God of love who is greater than any creature could be.]
CONCLUSION
To say that evil is just good that we do the wrong way and that we always have the best of intentions is, in fact, emptying the word of any meaning. And why put murderers in jail if they are that amazing underneath it all? To think that and then go on as if evil merits opposition, punishment, and anger shows you are just a bully and a hypocrite.