Good and Evil

Humans have evolved from lawless creatures whose daily struggle included getting food and staying alive, to people with culture and intelligence One thing remains the same; our nature. Are we naturally good, or evil? Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were on different sides of the spectrum on this, Hobbes thought humans were naturally evil; I believe this is more realistic than Locke, who thought humans were naturally good. Hobbes argues that not all humans are naturally selfish, cowardly and vain, but that some of them are, Not everyone is ‘bad’; people that we call heroes today, such as Mother Teresa, were good people who were neither selfish nor cowardly nor vain. At the same time, however, not everyone is ‘good’; people that we call heroes today, such as Andrew Jackson, also did bad things-he holds most of the responsibility for the Trail of Tears and the deaths of many Native Americans.

Good people have bad inside of them, but they tend to not use it, which is what makes them good. Bad people, on the other hand, have good inside of them, but they don’t show it, causing others to label them as bad, Either way, good and bad are both relative terms. Just because one person thinks another is good, doesn’t actually make them good. Without rules, more people will be motivated to do bad things, which is why we have them in place. Hobbes believes that without some form of government, there would be no order. Without rules-and consequences for not following them-people would tend to do whatever they wanted to. This could include stealing, lying, and even the murder of people in their way.

Hobbes states: “The wickedness of bad men also compels good men to have recourse, for their own protection, to the virtues of war, which are violence and fraud”, which means that bad people influence good people to do bad things in order to survive. Laws are put in place so that bad men don’t get away with doing bad things, and the good will be protected. Hobbes says that without government, humans will compete for necessities of life. In fact, even with government, this holds true. Although it’s against the law, people steal and cheat for things almost everyday! Laws don’t guarantee that everyone will obey them. If a person doesn’t have any food left, and their neighbor does, that person will likely steal so that they don’t starve Animal behavior shows just this; animals compete for food, territory, and matest Humans, though we may consider ourselves superior, are technically animals too, so we have that instinct to put our needs first Rightly so, for if we are not healthy, how can we help our families?

In airplanes, you are told to put on your air mask first before helping others. Itjust makes sense. So, people naturally put their needs first, and in doing so compete with others for resources In conclusion, I believe humans are not good by nature. Although not all humans are completely self-centered, most are, and even if they are not, they are capable of it if they so choose. If humans do not have some form of rules or government in place, it would be anarchy, and that is not good; humans would live in what Hobbes called his ‘evil state of nature‘ where there is no authority. Without those rules, humans would fight for the things they need, and the world would be chaos. Thankfully with our governments, the world is slightly safer.

God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe – Discuss The idea of God being responsible for everything within the universe is disputed both within religion itself and outside of religion. The Bible assures that God has onmiqualities, which suggest that nothing happens outside of Gods control. But it also states that some things happen which are not part of God’s will. If God is responsible, then why do we pray if God is in control of future events or have free will? In order to disagree with this statement, it could then God must be responsible or evil.

However for many Christians, this is not the case, as God is not capable of evil. In the Bible, God is considered to be eternally or perfectly good and the source of all goodness. Because of this, God is neither capable of bad or tempted by evil. Due to God being omnibenevolent and perfectly good, God cannot be responsible for any bad which happens. Many would argue that if God is omnibenevolent, he wouldn’t cause pain or suffering, because an all loving God, to cause such evil contradicts the benevolent quality of God.

However, it is often said that God causes suffering, such as the death of a loved one, in order to teach humanity a lesson. In this case it might be to make the deceased’s family and friend value life and encourages us to live life to its full and not take living a happy and healthy life for granted. By causing evils such as natural disasters, God could be seen to be teaching humans to care for the vulnerable. Pain and suffering makes for better people, which could be seen as God’s intention. Suggesting that God is responsible for everything hich happens, even evil, as the negatives only highlight the positives.

Another argument against this statement is free will, given to man by God. It’s impossible for God to be responsible for everything that humans do, if they employ free will. Free will implies that people make their own decisions, as to how to act. Therefore making themselves responsible for their own actions, instead of God. This however only makes God not responsible for humanitys actions and not animals, as they have not been given the freedom of choice, as they don’t have the ability to reason.

The creation stories in Genesis could be used in order to suggest that God is responsible for all that happens. This is because God is the ultimate creator. He is described as having created every aspect of the universe, including the land and sea. With regard to humans, in Genesis 2, God bring Adam into existence by breathing into his nostrils “breathed the breath of life into his nostrils”. By depicting God as the creator of the universe and everything in it, he is therefore responsible for everything in it.

Just a tailor would be responsible for anything which might happen to the suit he made, with regards to its design, God is responsible for what happens to humanity and the universe as the creator. Against the idea of God been the creator of everything is that there are several things in the Bible, which have seemingly not been created. For example the darkness, which was chaos before the beginning of time. So to presume that God created everything, could be viewed as somewhat contradictory.

The Devil is nother example ot something in the Bible which was not created. Theretore, it did not create everything, God cannot be responsible for everything that happens. In conclusion, for many Christians, it is reassuring to know that everything which has happened, has happened in God’s will. And that therefore there’s a reason for both good and bad to occur. But for others in disagreement, the argument of pain and suffering is one of the strongest in suggesting that God is not responsible for all that happens.

Frankincense: Methods and Techniques: Structure & Narrative Form From Top Notes – Patterson & Strangers Epistolary Narrative Form “Frankincense” Is written In an epistolary narrative form that was popular at the time in which it was written. The original publication was presented in three volumes and this emphasized the Chinese box structure of the story within a story within a story. This structural device adds a great deal to its stark drama as well as ensuring greater reader engagement.

The use of three narrators lends verisimilitude to an unlikely Tory since there is no one omniscient narrator. Our ideas are formulated by responding to multiple narrators and from being able to balance perceptions from one to the other. This method enables the author to maintain a certain objective distance between the text and the reader, allowing her audience to Judge and assess the moral worth of her protagonists. Flaws become evident but rather than the novelist casting aspersions on them; the characters condemn themselves In the reader’s mind by their very actions. Multiple Narrators

The novel is still able to Intrigue contemporary audiences because each of the three separate stories engage our sympathy with the narrator who presents them. This lends a personal voice in their fate. Each story fits neatly into the next. New contributions are made to our understanding which in turn colors our response to what is being recounted. The interlocutory bond between storyteller and listener Is maintained throughout even though the narrators alternate and often overlap. The reader is caught up in the storytellers magic, listening spellbound as different aspects of plot or character are revealed.

First person narration offers one perspective but when this is put up against a deferent version of events, out Interpretations shift on response to questionable moral efficacy. Both Walton and Frankincense are linked by their voluntary alienation from society whereas the Creature has been forced to wander the world as an outcast. The narrators are depicted as flawed Individuals and on the absence of any one, single or reliable storyteller, the reader Is forced to assume the mantle of Judge. We, rather Han the novelist, evaluate the narrators and their versions of the truth that are presented to us.

Well ? educated Walton seems the most reliable of the three and like Coleridge , is left alive to tell the tale that was in turn recounted to him. Shelley makes it clear however that these tales however have been filtered throughout his consciousness. Wallow’s sister, Mrs. Seville becomes a surrogate reader, serving narrative function of receiving the letters her brother writes. Dualism Dualism links Victor and his mother which is not given a name, having no identity there than that of being Frankincense’s doppelgänger shadow.

Constructed from the dead body parts of others, he is a grotesque parody of life. “My form”, says the monster, “is a filthy type of yours, made horrid even in the very resemblance. ” Both the scientist and his creation represent the duality of the human condition, the composite blend of good and evil; “Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous and magnificent, yet so vicious and base? He appeared at once time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived of noble and godlike.

Frankincense describes the fiend as a monstrous or supernatural devil – “l was cursed by some devil, and carried about with me mum eternal hell”. Linked by many features such as a desire to learn and extract vengeance and scarred by the emotional suffering that results, they become mirrored reflections of each other. Their identities fuse as part of the Doppelgänger motif, forging an ambivalent relationship between good and bad. This helps reinforce the central thematic concern of monstrosity, challenging the reader to ponder the nature of humanity and its evil twin.

During the Enlightenment great thinkers began to question all things. Rather than just believe in something because an authority (church, political authority, society) claimed it to be true, these men and women set out to find the truth through reason, to provide explanations for all actions and events. Both Alexander Pope and Voltaire discuss some of the more common questions posed during the Enlightenment: What is the nature of humanity and what is our role in the greater picture of the universe?

Pope argues that everything in the universe, whether it is good or evil, is essentially perfect because is a part of God’s grand plan. In essence, Pope believed in pre-determined fate, where no matter our actions, our fate remains the same as it was decided upon before you were born. Voltaire will critique this viewpoint by exploring the negative results of the belief that blind faith will lead to the best possible result and that man does exercise free will.

While Pope’s “Essay on Man” and Voltaire’s Candide are derived from polarized viewpoints and speak about a very different set of beliefs, they both use the same fundamental concept of reason to provide the basis of their argument. Alexander Pope set out to write his “Essay on Man” to use reason to justify his viewpoints of optimism, predetermined fate, and God’s use of both good and evil for balance in the universe.

Pope begins the essay by claiming that man can only reason about things in which he has experience with and goes on to illustrate that our limited knowledge is not capable of understanding God’s systems by questioning, “What can we reason, but from what we know? ” (17) He uses the reason that since man can only understand what is within the scope of his knowledge that he cannot expect to comprehend the greater systems that God knows intimately. Pope also believes deeply of in the Great Chain of Being and it is the foundation on which his arguments rest.

This chain is a concept derived from the classical period and is a notion that all elements of the universe have a proper place in a divinely planned hierarchical order, which was pictured as a vertically extended chain (Renaissance). In its most simplistic form God would be at the top of the chain, man would be directly beneath it, and all other beings that existed would be beneath man. In the 2nd section of the essay, Pope begins by mocking men who do not know their own limits within the universe. He exclaims, “Presumptuous Man!

The reason wouldst though find, / Why formed so weak, so little, and so blind? ” (Pope 35-36) He goes on to say that man is not created in a perfect state and that all men have limitations by nature. He continues with the claim “say not Man’s imperfect, Heaven in fault; / Say rather, Man’s as perfect as he ought: / His knowledge measured to his state and place; / His time a moment, and a point his space” (69-72). Pope is reasoning that the limitations and imperfections in man are necessary for man’s place beneath God in the universe and the Great Chain of Being.

Section III begins with Pope stating that God keeps the future fate of all creatures from them in order to protect them; that all beings are blessed to only be dealing with their present state. He reasons this by questioning if the lamb would happily ”lick the hand just raised to shed his blood” (Pope 84). This symbolizes the predetermined fate that is made from God regardless of our actions and that only God is capable of knowing what the future has in store for all of the universe.

In Section V, Pope reasons that God and nature have greater powers than man by speaking about the terrible effects that natural disasters, such as earthquakes, have with little resistance from man, “But All subsists by elemental strife; / And Passions are the elements of Life. / The general Order, since the whole began, / Is kept in Nature, and is kept in Man” (169-172). He is speaking of these horrific and evil events as being a part of God’s almighty cause, that evil is always balanced by good.

With an “Essay on Man” Pope uses reason to explain man’s role in the Great Chain of Being and that there is predetermined fate established by God. While “An Essay on Man” is a poetic verse which uses reason to justify the viewpoints of optimism, predetermined fate, and God’s use of both good and evil for balance, Voltaire’s Candide is a satirical critique of the essay, while using reason to argue against the belief system of optimism.

In Candide, the main character is raised in a home with a tutor name Pangloss who teaches Candide that “things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end” (Voltaire 356). Voltaire is using the character of Pangloss and his teachings to symbolize Alexander Pope and is mocking Pope’s beliefs as the novel continues. Through Candide’s story, Voltaire will provide the evidence that disproves the belief that all that is, is right.

The first of many terrible experiences that Candide goes through is when he is kicked out of the Baron’s castle for being caught kissing the Baron’s daughter Cunegonde. Upon being kicked out, a hungry, homeless, and broke Candide finds himself at a tavern where he is offered money and a drink from two strangers. Candide naively thinks back to Pangloss and that everything is for the best, that this is his fate, but is quickly transported into a cruel and violent military life where he is forced to endure physical hardships.

Here Voltaire shows that the military’s giving of money to Candide was irrationally thought to be for the better, while it was really a ploy to capture Candide into being a soldier where he witnesses cruelty, violence, and evil – all reasonable evidence against Pangloss teachings. These horrible events are not fate or God’s balancing act, but this is the beginning of Candide’s witness to man doing evil to another man with no greater good in sight.

Pangloss attempts to reason that catching syphilis is a part of the best of worlds by claiming that “if Columbus had not caught, on an American island, this sickness … we should have neither chocolate nor cochineal” (Voltaire 361). Here Voltaire again critiques the irrational use of reason to support the belief that all that is, is for the best. After witnessing Pangloss’ hanging and being flogged himself, Candide asks himself, “ If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others like? … was it necessary for me to watch you being hanged, for no reason hat I can see? ” (Voltaire 364) Here Candide is beginning to see these horrific tragedies as evidence that evidence and is using his reason to ponder that perhaps not all that happens in the world is for the best. Voltaire uses the experience of different characters in Candide to reason that evil is derived from mankind and freewill, not predetermined fate from God. One notable tragedy is that of the old woman who was born into a world of privilege and high class, but suffered through violence, rape, and slavery before meeting Candide.

When the old woman asks Candide and Cunegonde to “ask every passenger on this ship to tell you his story, and if you find a single one who has not often cursed the day of his birth, … then you may throw me overboard head first” Voltaire is reminding the reader of the importance of reason through investigation (373). As the story continues, Candide comes across an old and wise scholar named Martin. Voltaire uses this character to symbolize all the negative and pessimistic viewpoints that counter the optimistic ideal that all exists, exists for the best.

Martin uses the evidence of his travels and experience to argue that there is nothing but evil in the world, which serves no purpose: “ I have scarcely seen one town which did not wish to destroy its neighboring town, no family which did not wish to exterminate some other family” (Voltaire 389). The terrible history of Martin and his experiences are Voltaire’s evidence that not all that exists in the world is for the common good, which is contrary to Pangloss’ view that “private misfortunes make for public welfare” (Voltaire 361).

While Martin may be a pessimist, he does believe in predetermined fate and by the time Candide and he are together, Candide, through his own experiences of the world, has begun to believe in free will. Through Candide’s travels Voltaire has shown the reader that not all that happens in this world happens for the greater good or is predetermined by God. At the end of many journeys that result in unjustifiably cruel tragedies, Candide, with all of the other characters, makes the choice to live simply in a garden and mind to it. While this view that one can proceed through life and make their own choices and determinations in the world is ontrary to Pope’s idea of predetermined fate according to the Greater Cause, both writers attempt to validate their claims through reason.

From the moment you were born, good and evil did not matter to you. As a child, your journey was not determined yet. People develop their own perceptions of what is right and wrong, as they grow up, through their experiences. What a person sees as evil and wrong could be different than how others view it. A person cannot rightfully understand what it means to be good unless they can avoid evil. To truly avoid being evil, one must learn to stay true to their ideals, goals, and relationships.

The journey to good starts with the choices that will shape you for the rest of your life. An image of a new-born baby can be used as a symbol to represent good things such as: the untouched, purity, and innocence. Such description is titled under a new-born because when a baby is born, its sensory motors are heightened due to the incapability of sight. As from what I remembered, the inability of sight can also possibly symbolize another aspect of purity in a way where one is not able to see the impurities of another. A new-born child can also be represented as innocence.

Once a baby is born, people keep babies indoors and out of harm and danger. A baby also can resemble an awareness of the purity and innocence being able to be easily broken, because of the fragility of an infant. Therefore, a new-born baby can generally symbolize purity, innocence, and untouched; however, it can also emphasize the fragility of the nature of good in such a way where if a single influence is displayed, one can easily learn and assimilate rapidly and change. With the society in which we live in today, the mass media plays a big role upon how an individual thinks, dresses, and acts.

The media industry has become overpopulated by the dominance of men, thus demeaning women into several bad images. Women today are represented as sex symbols in music videos. If not, represented as a sex symbol, women are set on a high expectation to become model-like figures in order to gain acceptance of the society within the fashion industry; this expectation leads to the loss of one’s self through binging, dieting, and smoking cigarettes. Such dramatically terrible actions advertise bad images for the younger generation, encouraging them to become beautiful like one of the models on television.

In regards to commercialism, there are many advertisements that encourage the society to allow children to become obese. We as a society are feeding our children with unhealthy foods due to the high rates of poverty. In relation to poverty, it is one of the reasons why there are criminals who steal to survive. Going back to Charles Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest”, we strive to survive in such a chaotic world filled with injustice and evil to where we reach a limit when it is difficult to be good sometimes. It takes just as much energy to be evil as it does to be good and few people have energy enough for either course… Evil isn’t what one does, it’s something one is that infects everything one does. ” This quote, stated by Davies in Rebel Angels, exhibits the role of society. All of these industries believe that they are doing justice to the economy and the people (for example, to make people look or dress better, etc); however, in reality the products they are advertising are unhealthy for the public. We, as a general public, are solely attracted to what looks appealing, and are not really drawn to what it really does for you.

This emphasizes the corruption of the society, thus revealing the nature of evil. “The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. ” This quote means that we are evil because we are ignorant of the good things in the world because we are selfish. And we are selfish because we refuse to understand such things. For example, when it comes to advertising, the industries advertise products for popularity and for more money without really caring about the outcomes of the public.

They are ignorant of the outcomes the public. “The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear sightedness. ” Going back to the resemblance of one not being able to see, a blind man symbolizes purity because he is unable to see the imperfections of someone else. Camus explains that it is impossible for one to remain good, once an individual is evil; he or she has no representation of consciousness or guilt because he or she is only thinking about themselves.

The nature of evil is thus, represented as the ignorance and selfishness of the people. It is said in Asian cultures that the good balances evil and vice versa and that one cannot do alone without the other. In Chinese philosophy, Yin-Yang describes “shadow and light. ” It represents the polar opposites or the different forces that are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they work with each other in turn in relation to each other. Without the balance of good and evil, there would not be any balance within the earth’s core.

Yin is like the moon, and Yang is like the sun. Without each other, one would not exist. For example, if the sun did not exist, there would not be such thing as “night” nor “day”. To paraphrase everything, the good becomes corrupted by the evil. However, the natures of good and the natures of evil intertwine to become a regular human being. There is an equilibrium between saints and Satans, somewhere in between the immortals, which is also known as us, human beings. There is Satan, because there is God.

Human beings are made of good and evil. One cannot just be good, and one cannot just be evil. In some form, they are both good and evil, because one cannot be without the other. You need evil in the world, for there to be good. The way one sees evil may not be evil for the other but also, he might see good in it. Even though Davies says evil takes as much energy as good and people barely have energy to do either, but evil is not what someone does, but he is evil himself from how he infects everything from what he does.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil becomes so famous not for the awards that are bestowed on it (both the book and the film version) but mainly for the remarkable story that it presents on public since its premiere.

The book is written by John Berendt, a columnist from New York. His idea to work on the Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil came about when he went to Savannah. George for “some capricious adventure” and found himself so hooked with a “strange news” that he heard during his stay at the place (Kovington). This inspired him to create a novel, a book.

The thesis of this paper is focused on the roles that are played by the different characters in the novel which also come from the different levels in the society. In addition, the novel gives the reader the image of how the people of and the place itself, Savannah are structured during the tragedy. Such thematic approach gives more volume and quality to it, particularly in the book version.

As a Non-Fictional Account

As mentioned earlier, Berendt’s novel is drawn from a true story which he obtained during his stay in Savannah. The story revolves on the mystery in the murder of a local hustler named Danny Hansford and a revered antique art broker Jim Williams which happened in May 1981. The two protagonists in the novel are said to have a prior “intimate relationship before Hansford’s death (Berendt).” The murder happened at the home of William. The mystery of Hansford’s murder became the focal point of the story. While the novel develops through the court proceedings against Williams, Berendt made himself a character of the story as if he was really there when the incident took place.

The novel is about Berendt’s factual encounters in his journey in Savannah, though he recognizes that several of the conversations found throughout the novel is less than valid. The novel is an anthology of narratives of different people he met. “The remoteness of Savannah implies peculiarities are on no account permitted to escape (Berendt).” In its place, they became concerted. The first part of the novel vibrantly gets the unusual character of the town.

He describes the characters that he employs in the story. Joe Odom leaps from one house to another with no intention of paying his bills, providing frenziedly bashes and offering momentous excursions. Luther Driggers seeks to devise “glow-in-the-dark goldfish” to amuse intoxicating wits, however he is dreaded for he hands a venom that is 500 times more lethal than arsenic (Berendt). The Lady Chablis, who is one of the most celebrated characters in the story (which is also portrayed in the film version), is an arrogant “drag queen” who is in no way devoid of a devious comment (Berendt). Jim Williams is the suave antique broker who lives as how true-blooded aristocrats live.

The second part of the novel entails a more definite plot account.  Williams is charged of killing Hansford. On the other hand, the latter is the conventional agitator, yearning for affection and consideration, yet with excessively callous wall to let someone recognize it. Williams argues that he shot the victim just to defend himself, however the evidence is profoundly alongside him. He uses all his money to pay for his lawyers to make out for the trials and proceedings. Nevertheless, he does not simply depend on what money can do. He also thinks that being focused on making out victoriously with the trial will bring success tom him.

Criticism and Comments on the Novel

There is just something that is obvious throughout the interpretation of the novel – that is, it is deficient in ethical rationale. This novel bears ingenious discourse, “goose-bump-inducing character” outline, and that popular talent to draw the reader feels like he or she is really there in the novel as a part of every spectacle (Kovington). The novel does somewhat which could not be done by merely visiting the town; it depicts the novel as if it is alive as how the reader progress in reading it. The town captivates the reader. To name it as appealing is to go amiss. To describe it astonishing is to exaggerate. It is purely animate.

The novel is put up freely just about the assassination of Danny Hansford by Jim Williams and the succeeding four murder court proceedings that ran for more than eight straight years. Towards the end of the novel, Williams, the alleged murdered of Hansford, was found to be not guilty. Nonetheless, the chief concern of the account for most of the readers has been “the affluence of delicately strained minor characters from every societal rank and the craftily established yarn that makes a wall-hanging of Savannah (Porter).”

Appraisals of the novel roughly commonly commended the excellence of the writing. “Even the Savannah Morning News labeled it as a forceful, morbidly captivating, marvelously written novel despite the fact that the critic found the abundance of characters and story —nonetheless masterfully provided— awe-inspiring and pathetic (Porter).” The similar critic also grieved over the inadequacy of a tough plot to push the action, and became disappointed by the ultimate uncertainty of “whether the shooting was really a murder or simply a self-defense (Kovington).”

Awards and Recognitions

The success of the publication of the novel did not only bring honor to John Berendt but also give overwhelming advantages to the setting of the story. “Tourists across the world travel to visit the historical setting of the novel (Writers & Books, 2007).” Such visits boosted the economy of the entire Savannah starting from the hotels and motels which accommodated number of tourists and visitors. Special memorabilia for the novel were also sold out thus heightening more the economy of Savannah.

Such progress paved the way for recognizing the author of the novel for employing such very significant contribution not only to the history of Savannah but also on its economy. Berendt was honored by the Savannah Economic Development Authority on April 22, 1996 and was given a special award by no less than the town’s mayor on April 26, 1996 declaring that date as the John Berendt Day.

The novel also bagged the Southern Book Award and became a finalist in the prestigious Pulitzer Prize Awards. However, the novels’ most notable achievement was when “it topped the New York Times best-seller list for over 216 weeks (Writers & Books, 2007).”

Conclusion

To end, Berendt’s Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil becomes successful. Though originally the novel’s purpose is to give an account about a true story which happened in Savannah, the prize of the novel extends more than recognitions for the author but also for the setting of the novel itself.

The novel’s success is not merely due to the fact that it conveys a mystery-like theme but more because of the appealing way of how the novel presented the different characters that Savannah has. The novel interests the reader to go through the novel by the creation of such fascinating characters. Thus it can be said that the novel leads the way for catching the attention of the people to go and see through the entire Savannah.

Works Cited

Berendt, John. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Modern Library, 2005.

Porter, Darwin. Midnight in Savannah. First ed. Georgia Literary Association, 2000.