The article I chose to write about is a brief insight to how ‘good’ differentiates from ‘evil’. ‘Difference Between Good and Evil’ was written by Manisha Kumar. She starts the article by explaining it from philosophers’ point of view which to sum up is that good cannot exist without bad and the same is true for the other way round.
She then continues by shifting to show society perceives the difference. According to Manisha (2009), from a society’s point of view, whatever is beneficial to general mankind is considered good and whatever is not in the interests of the general mankind is considered evil so therefore, labeling any action as good or evil is clearly based upon one’s perception and judgment. She proceeds to explain this by saying that society has precedents of what the majority think is good/bad but these precedents are ever-changing. The example used to describe this how abortion was mostly regarded as blasphemous a while ago but now it’s more common and acceptable as time progresses.
She concludes the article by expressing that no one action or thing is considered truly good or evil. It varies under different circumstances and it is relative. While an action or a person may be considered good in a certain situation, the same action or person may be labeled bad in another situation (Manisha, 2009). An effective example she uses to elaborate her point is how fire provides warmth and comfort however it also has the power of destroying and killing.
Another interesting thing she mentions is that while a person might consider something good for them, it could be potentially malice to another person. She utilizes the example of how a soldier who has fought a war might be recognized as a hero of his country but at the same time be regarded as a killer in another country.
I think Manisha accurately presents the idea that there is not a textbook definition of good/evil and that it’s more subjective and changes depending on the situation. Like how a heavy rainstorm is considered a deadly thing sometimes while in another scenario it could help irrigate fields and provide food/water to people.
This article reminds me of the Chinese concept of yin and yang; the two opposing forces of nature. One is considered good while the other is bad and they exist in duality in every single thing we see around us.
However, one thing this report fails to address is that sometimes there’s a certain grey area on the spectrum of good and bad. Call it a neutral zone if you will. Where an action isn’t considered purely good or bad but just neutral. And of course, these neutral actions are subjective and depend of how differently people perceive things. For instance, person A accidentally killing person B in a car crash (in circumstances beyond his control). Person A didn’t intend to kill person B but due to an unavoidable scenario, it still happened. In my opinion I would consider this a neutral action.
In conclusion, I chose this article to help answer my main question for my research which is: ‘Is Loki considered a villain or anti-hero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe’. A villain by definition is someone who commits evil acts and is against the protagonist. While an antihero is mostly considered a protagonist who doesn’t possess the typical ‘good’ characteristics often associated with a protagonist. Villain would be regarded as purely evil while an anti-hero is on the spectrum of good and bad.
Reference
Kumar, M. (2009). 'Difference Between Good and Evil'.