Virtually all of us reason this way,
“Good cannot exist unless there is evil. We only recognise good when something evil happens to contrast it with, to compare it to.”
We do that though we may be unaware we do it. And not only do we reason that way, we definitely all FEEL this way. And that feeling dictates what we do and how we see more than reasoning ever could. We simply treat evil as a kind of default, a pointer to what good is. We don’t like admitting that. Religionists will lie that they are not that morally blind and decrepit that they need evil to be their spectacles.
Anyway, there are two statements:
1 “Good cannot exist unless there is evil”
2 “We only recognise good when something evil happens to contrast it with, to compare it to.”
One or both of these could be true. 1 can be false and 2 can still be correct.
1 makes good depend on evil. It tells you that the good side of being evil is that you allow good to happen. You may kick a dog for it gives his owner the chance to win the lotto that wouldn't happen unless the sequence of events falls a certain way. That is a small evil leading to a great good. It can be more equal. You may even slay Joan to give Edward a chance to avoid being murdered. Good needing evil does not fit the idea of an all-powerful and all-good God. Jesus even if he tried to be sinless would effectively still be the enemy of good.
2 is just a fact. We know it and see it every day in every way. It is the easy way out. We don't have time to analyse so it is short-cut.
We can be totally or largely or significantly unable to discern good
unless we have evil to compare it to. Good being real does not mean we can just recognise it. 1 + 1 = 2 is true even if we do not see it.
This view also needs evil people to exist otherwise there is no perception of
good at all. It will be a divisive view for while you grudgingly need evil
people, you also hate them. You will let many wallow in their evil because you
hate them and because you need them to show you what good would be.
It is a very negative and discouraging way to seek good.
The reasoning is, “Better to be a bit wicked and use evil people and suffering people to help you see what good is. You are breaking the rule that the end does not justify the means. Seeing good by such dark means is better than not seeing it at all.”
The good at the end of this is really a form of “better” evil. It is not good. It totally wrecks absolute morality, ie you never commit adultery not even to earn a million to save your ailing baby’s life so wrong is wrong no matter what good is aimed for. It does make way for abortion and assisted suicide and so on. What is the point of looking at the casualties if life is so hopeless that evil and good cannot survive without each other? It would be an irremediable mixture of helpfulness, hindrance and in-between? What is the point of treating opposition to them as anything other than mere opinion?
If religion is hiding behind, “God lets innocent suffering and terrible things and sins happen for a good purpose that is worth it” to cover up its notion and its feeling that there is no good without evil, then it is a disgrace.
The use of evil to work out what good is means that even if you imagine the evil that is all the better. Better to think John is a murderer than for John to be really one. It does not matter as long as it tells you that saving life is good. So nobody’s reputation matters.
The use of evil to work out good simply asks to be abused. It is an abuse in the first place.
Standpoint theory says that the person doing the evil is best qualified to discern and diagnose and even if they cannot prescribe any remedy they are still the best person. And it says that the victim is the best to diagnose the impact on her and find some kind of treatment. This is going to lead to conflict and re-victimisation.
Standpoint says you would have to be your rabbit before you can take seriously the suggestion that a rabbit does or does not suffer in the proper sense. Believers in God however say that while animals suffer it is not to be compared to us suffering for it is different. They are not interested even if they could do it in getting into the rabbit's mind to find out. This shows that a lot of empathy is not real but coming from our chemical and environmental conditioning. Their priority is avoiding suggesting that animals are suffering if they are not for that holds God to account.
Moralists who say that good is in inherently good, innately good, cannot get any use of their position if they cannot see good unless they contrast it with evil. It is only words. They parrot but do not really see moral good as inherently precious. They use the words and the preaching as a crutch to deal with the shortfall.
We all perceive that how we think and feel about others and about God shows what is in us. For example, you read your style of compassion into others and into God. Your God despite your protestations will like you, act and think as if there can be no good without evil. Remember that when you ask him to answer prayers!
We conclude that human nature wants to believe and acts as if there is no good without evil and that evil is needed to show us what good is. In this it deceives itself and shows its hypocrisy. Even if not all people were doing it, we don't know who is and who is not. Statistically we see the trend. Realistically we see that anybody denying they are like that and that they are that about expedience is a liar.