Good, Evil, and Other

"Good" and "evil" seem like simple enough concepts to understand, and yet I have lately been perplexed by them. What exactly makes something good or evil? Sure, they are opposites, but what are they opposites of?

When I think of good and evil, especially when paired together, I can't help but think of super heroes. Most people will acknowledge Superman as good, so what does he do that deserves the title? One explanation is that he defends truth, justice, and the American Way. Of course, since truth and justice are part of the American Way (in theory), we can just stick with the latter term.

If Superman defends the American Way, then his opponents must be trying to destroy the American Way. In that case, "good" is the American Way and "evil" is anything that isn't the American Way. However, there are super heroes other countries who are considered good by those people, but do not defend the American Way. So what we are left with is that "good" is defending the status quo (or the establishment) and evil is trying to destroy that establishment.

With these rather broad definitions, a number of people can be put into categories we might never think of. Al Capone could be considered a hero because he defended the American establishment of drinking. Martin Luther King Jr. would be evil because he tried to destroy hundreds of years of established racism. In case you couldn't tell at this point, I am not arguing these things. No hate mail, please (at least not for this part).

I find that very few people consider themselves evil. Of those that do, most of them only half-heartedly say it (like people who download pirated music). I'm sure that Dr. King didn't think he was evil. I bet Adolf Hitler didn't think he was evil either. People who want to create a new establishment generally want to do it for a reason. They think they have the best idea ever, and they believe it enough to fight for it.

The only people who call themselves evil and truly mean it tend to be psychopaths and sociopaths. They are the people who commit a crime just to commit a crime. They aren't trying to build a new order, only destroy the current one. They are agents of chaos. I would agree that they are true evil, and yet, I hesitate to use that term, because I think that agents of chaos is far more accurate and descriptive.

Of course, when it comes down to brass tacks, it's all about the gray areas. Defending the status quo is good when it is positive and helps people. Creating a new status quo is good when the current one is destructive and harmful to people. Destroying things just to see them crumble is so wrong that the people who do it are considered more animal than man.

This doesn't have too much to do with the writing process, but it's a decent critique of character attributes. Every dogooder is boring until they get a streak of evil. Every villain is boring until they have a soft spot for something (or someone). Once you find out how your character can have that internal conflict, the story will write itself.