John Hosper:
"If good sometimes comes out of evil,
evil also sometimes goes out of good - probably just as frequently. For
everything we thought evil at the time and later changed our minds about in
the light of later developments, there is probably another event we thought
good or beneficial at the time that in the light of later events we now
consider disastrous or regrettable. The fact is that the most usual tendency
is for good to produce more good and evil to produce more evil." Introduction
to Philosophical Analysis.
The Excerpt presents a nuanced philosophical
examination of the causal and perceptual relationships between good and evil.
It challenges simplistic, linear views of moral outcomes by introducing a
framework of reciprocity, retrospective re-evaluation, and inherent
behavioural momentum. Below is an evaluation of the core arguments presented
in the text.
1. The Principle of Reciprocal Causation
The
author begins by asserting that "if good sometimes comes out of evil, evil
also sometimes comes out of good—probably just as frequently."
POINT:
Evil is largely hidden no matter how well we think we see it. So we don’t know
if evil comes from good more than good comes from evil. There is no probably
about it. The line should be, "if good comes out of evil, evil also comes out
of good—nobody has an inkling which happens the most." In fact being confident
that good will plausibly come from good – more than the other way around – is
itself evil. It presumes too much and overlooks how evil thrives on smoke and
mirrors.
Anyway if “just as frequently” were accurate, then how good is
good really? The good is the enemy of the best. Good must have flaws or even
seeds for evil in it.
The author’s perspective establishes a moral
equilibrium. It suggests that history and human action are not directed toward
a singular moral destination, but are instead subject to an ongoing, cyclical
oscillation. His view successfully counters naive optimism (the belief that
all things ultimately work out for the good) as well as absolute pessimism. By
arguing that good and evil can actively generate their opposites, the text
highlights the unpredictable, complex nature of real-world consequences. For
example, a medical breakthrough (a good) might inadvertently lead to
overpopulation or resource depletion (an evil).
The text addresses how
passage of time and "later developments" alter human judgment. The author
links instances where our perception of an initial "evil" shifts to "good"
with an equal number of instances where an initial "good" is later recognized
as "disastrous or regrettable."
The Core Principle is that moral
judgments are rarely permanent. Rather they are continuously modified by their
long-term historical context.
POINT: This insight introduces a vital
element of epistemic humility into ethical philosophy. It recognizes that
human beings lack the foresight to judge the final value of any given event
immediately. What appears to be a tragedy today may set off a chain of events
that prevents a greater catastrophe tomorrow, and vice-versa. The strength of
this point lies in its acknowledgment of human cognitive limitations when
dealing with complex, unfolding timelines.
The passage concludes with
an apparent paradox, stating that despite these cross-currents, "the most
usual tendency is for good to produce more good and evil to produce more
evil."
That is a paradox in principle. It is also a paradox that we
make. The two overlap and are easily confused. If good makes new good and evil
makes new evil anyway then remember what would happen if it did not? We need
to repeat things and do the same thing over and over again while making it
look different. We would make good make new good and make evil make new evil.
Good or evil will involve self-replication anyway. And we make sure of
that.
These points about good making evil seem to lead into near or
complete moral relativism or nihilism.
But by asserting that the "most
usual tendency" is self-reinforcing momentum, the text affirms the following
social and psychological perceptions.
That acts of violence or
injustice often breed resentment and further conflict (evil producing evil),
while acts of systemic cooperation and altruism build institutions that foster
further stability (good producing good).
Conclusion
Overall, the
text provides a highly sophisticated model of morality. It balances two
competing truths: the chaotic reality that outcomes can invert over time, and
the structured reality that moral actions generally reinforce their own kind.
It suggests that while the long-term ethical trajectory of an event is
volatile and difficult to predict, the immediate imperative remains to
cultivate good, as it serves as the primary engine for generating future
positive outcomes.