Does Evil Need to Exist to Appreciate Goodness?

Evil exists. And as long as humans decide to grab a shotgun and go into McDonald's or an Amish schoolhouse and start blasting away at innocent people, evil will continue to exist. However, evil isn't necessary. Many folks (usually left-wing philosophy majors who chit-chat with each other while standing in line at the unemployment office) believe that if evil did not exist we would have no way to define moral goodness. They contend: Evil must exist to comprehend the Good.

Well, once again, the intellectuals are mistaken. Goodness CAN exist without evil thank you very much. Allow me to prove it to you.

Let's define our terms first. A lot of folks have a different idea of what is evil: Hitler, Stalin, Jaws, Tom Cruise....

For the sake of argument, let us define evil as acts of extreme cruelty, and that doers of evil find delight in the emotional misery and physical agony of others (especially "innocent" others).

Let us define Goodness as acts of compassion. Doers of good would then be those willing to give up anything, even their lives, in order to help others.

Now, think back to 9/11...

The terrorists, at least in my opinion, exemplify evil in its extreme. Moral relativists might argue against this point. But these are the same folks who would withhold judgment even while studying a tribe of cannibalistic pedophiles from Borneo. A moral relativists would say, "Well, in the mind of the so-called terrorist, he is doing an act of goodness. He is doing something he believes to be selfless and in the name of his god." But let's not forget, before that tragic day, many of these terrorists blew over a 100 Grand on Lap Dances in Las Vegas. Was that too in the name of Allah? It's hard to swallow the view of the moral relativist.

So, hopefully you'll agree with me on this one....

9/11 terrorists = Evil

Now, the men and women who ran into the towers in order to save lives, many of them perishing in the attempt, exemplify the ultimate act of moral goodness.

Some skeptics might say, "Hey, that's what those fire fighters and policemen get paid for!" I humbly say to them, "Shut up you skeptical bastard!" And now that I have logically refuted any opposing side, we can see the next part of our equation...

Heroes of 9/11 = Good

Now, let us imagine a different scenario. Suppose instead of hijacked airplanes, a meteorite struck the towers on that fateful day, causing the same level of destruction and fatality.

This meteorite collision is a terribly unfortunate event, but it is not an act of evil. (Unless some James Bond villain arranged the disastrous event... Damn you Goldfinger!!! Damn you to Hell!!! But I digress...

Imagine the heroic men and women who run into the asteroid-pelted building, still risking their lives, still dying in the attempt to save others.

Is their act here any less noble? Any less courageous? Any less an act of goodness?

Therefore:

Meteor Strike = Random Act of Nature

People risking their lives to help others = Good

See how goodness is found in the above equation, but evil is not present? Why? Because even without evil, there is still hardship in the world. Lightning still strikes us, cars still slip off the sides of frozen bridges, cancer cells perform kick-lines in our lymph nodes, ships still sink, tsunamis will continue to sneak up on unsuspecting sunbathers, and trees will occasionally crush humans when no one else is around, just to see if they still make a sound.

It takes compassion to help each other through all of these nature-induced calamities. We do not need human created evil to comprehend goodness.

Evil isn't necessary. Therefore, let's not put it on such a high pedestal. Let us not place it at the same lofty level as we do with the concept of goodness. Evil serves no purpose. We should strive to obliterate it. Let us cast evil down to the floor, let it try to scurry away like the cockroach it is,