Philosophical Survey in the Morality of Spinoza in the Light of His Evil and Good
Chapter One
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
For the fact, that many philosophers of different epochs have dwelt on good and evil with different mindsets and came out with misconception of what good and evil are, Spinoza as against these views conceived the idea of good and evil in a different way.
However, the purpose of this work is to expose and appraise the conception of good and evil in the morality of Spinoza. To show how his conception of good and evil differs from that of other philosophers.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Having x-rayed the general notion of what we are to see in this long essay in the previous chapter, let us now in this chapter dwell on the views of different thinkers of different epochs from ancient period to the contemporary era.
ANCIENT PERIOD VIEWS ON GOOD AND EVIL SOCRATES
In the light of Socrates, goodness and knowledge are related. To know good is to do good. On the other hand, evil, which he called vice, is the absence of knowledge. For Socrates, evil is as a result of ignorance, hence evil or wrong doing is not done voluntarily since it is the product of ignorance: “When people commit evil acts, they always do them thinking that they are good in some way.” 4 For the fact that every human being has the inescapable desire for happiness or for the well-being of his or her soul, whatever will bring us happiness (good) should be sought for and whatever that can lead to vice (evil)should be avoided.
Then from the above explanation, it can be deduced that since it is human knowledge that distinguishes what is good and what is evil, no one deliberately does evil.
To say that evil is ignorance and involuntary is to say that no one ever deliberately or willingly chooses to damage, disfigure and to destroy his or her human nature – to do evil, but deliberately chooses to do good.5
PLATO
Plato situated the soul as the root from which evil comes from. He thus described evil as being caused by the inherent possibility of disorder of the soul. The soul for Plato is the product of ignorance and forgetfulness of the vision of reality. He thus asserted:
“Evil is not a positive thing but it is the characteristic of the soul where the soul is ‘capable’ of forgetfulness. And it is those souls only that do forget the truth that in turn descend, being dragged down by the attraction for earthly things” 6.
It is this aspect of the nature of the soul (capable of forgetfulness), which is its possibility to lapse into disorder because it contains the principle of imperfection as other parts of creation.
ARISTOTLE
Aristotle, one of the ancient philosophers, based his good on teleology – a distinct end to achieve. According to him, the supreme principle of good was separated from the world of experience and from individuals and was to be arrived at by the mind’s ascent from the visible world to the intelligible world.
For him, good is tied to the special function of a thing. This implies that when one is able to fulfill his function, one automatically becomes good. An instance is that a hammer is good if it does fulfill its function.
Plotinus
Plotinus being a Neo-Platonist maintained that evil is not a positive destructive force. Evil for him is simply the absence of something, the lack or privation of perfection. He then posited that evil is no being, but rather negation of order.
Moreover, he arrives on the scene some centuries later affirming that matter is the cause of evil and denied that it is co-eternal with the good. Evil he believes is the formlessness of matter as darkness is the absence of light.
CHAPTER THREE
SPINOZA’S CONCEPT OF GOOD AND EVIL
DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF GOOD
This chapter brings us properly to the Spinoza’s concept of evil and good. It is in this chapter that Spinoza delineates the different ways he understood evil and good as can be seen below.
“By good I shall understand what we certainly know to be useful to us.”10 Good here for Spinoza serves as whatever that appeals to us and whatever that pleases us. Thus he further elaborates that
“whatever conducts to man’s social life or causes men to live together in harmony is useful and is said to be good.”11 Good in the light of Spinoza implies what is useful, helpful and whatever interests us. Obviously speaking, goodness of something depends on the interest in it. Such a thing which interests, which is helpful and useful to man must be said to be good no matter what such thing is, where it comes from, how it came about and who ever it may come to.
However, whatever conduces to man’s way of living and whatever accords man harmony in his daily living is good. To live together and in harmony according to Spinoza, is to live according to reason, and to live according to reason is good. A practical instance is seeing in man as a social and political being who lives in an environment or in a society whereby he interacts and socializes with each other. In such an environment, man cannot make it when he lives in opposition with one another. Hence, he should live in harmony and in unity with one another. If it is so, there are certain things that cause man to live in harmony with each other in a society, and such things Spinoza called good. Good is useful and helpful to man bearing in mind that what makes something good, useful and helpful to us is its capacity to enable us to approximate the model of human nature.
CHAPTER FOUR
UTILITARIANISM IN SPINOZA’S GOOD AND EVIL
The utilitarianism in Spinozistic good and evil can be seen clearly in our judgments of good and evil. This can be observable on how advantageous things are to us.
It is well to know that it can sometimes be advantageous to bind oneself to an exceptionalness rules rather than to allow oneself to assess the merits of individual cases.36
For the fact that man by nature desires good and naturally has aversion to evil, he now passes judgment to both good and evil in accordance to how good and evil benefits him. Good as it were serves man better, is useful, helpful and leads man to attaining the height of the model he sets for himself. However, evil on the other hand serves him not but hinders, falters, alters and prevents man from reaching the proposed good of man. However, Spinoza did not see good and evil as objective but as subjective.
He sees both of them not on the bases of common use but on the basis of individual idiosyncrasies. Obviously speaking good is what is benefitable to man and as well what is advantageous to man. The utility here lies on how man gains from things that befit him. A brief look on the aforementioned nature of good and evil will x-ray the utility properly. Spinoza says that something is good because we desire it. As such, human beings tend to move towards the advantageous side and reject the disadvantageous side.
CHAPTER FIVE
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
The controversy posed by the issue of good and evil has insolvably remained mysterious despite the efforts of eminent thinkers of different epochs. It is obvious that many thinkers have in one way or the other tried to reconcile the problem at stake, hitherto, no effort has proved itself worthy of such reconciliatsion. As a result, one may be tempted to pose this question: should we continue to inquire into good and evil since it has proved insolvable?
However, for the fact that the main purpose of this thesis is to appraise Spinozistic concept of good and evil, let us then make a conclusive appraisal of it. As earlier stated, Spinoza defined good as that which we certainly know to be useful to us and evil as that which we certainly know to be a hindrance to us in the attainment of any good. Evil in this perspective stands as negative where as good stands as positive. He conceived whatever thing that is helpful as good and whatever that constitutes hindrance to human daily living as evil. Evil has constituted to a greater extent discomfort, misery, anguish and so on to man. However, if each one were to consent to good, bearing in mind that it is useful and helpful to human race, there would not be evil in the world. Instead, in so far as, man continues to experience pain (evil) in life, disorderliness and chaos must continue to abide.
On his philosophical enquiry into good and evil, he maintained that avoidance of evil paves way for a better and perfect relationship in the world.
He imagined the world that is devoid of evil as the ultimate world where human beings should live and express themselves as social beings. From such Spinozistic conception of good and evil, one can be carefully brought to the foot of morality.
Man by nature desires good and averts to evil. He (man) does not remain at the bottom line of life but pushes further due to his insatiability. According to Spinoza, man is not satisfied by attaining the stage of truth but looks for a better and highest good. He thus asserts: “The minds highest good is the knowledge of good.”41
The above question signifies the mind’s highest utility and good as God. Knowledge of God places before man a strong ethical and moral guidance. From the onset, it is believed that to know God tantamounts to behaving well. For Spinoza, to seek the highest good is to know God, and to know God is the best way to life.
Hence, if all in the world can actively be involved in such orientation of Spinozistic understanding of highest good, the world would have been a better place where the idea of God rules. Nevertheless, when the human mind fails to rise and scale over the difficulties facing him, he remains at the bottom line and evil cannot but abide in the world.
Moreover, Samuel Enoch Stumpf has it that such knowledge of God leads one to happiness. As far as man remains in bondage of passions, knowledge of God accounts for his liberation from bondage. He thus says: “We are enslaved by passions when our desires are attached to perishable things and when we do not fully understand our emotions. The more we understand our emotions, the lesser excessive will be our appetites and desire.”42
The above portrays the fact that we are always enslaved whenever we lack knowledge. However, when knowledge surfaces, pleasure which is accompanied by the idea of God as cause arises. There is liberation from passive emotion to active emotion.
Furthermore, Spinoza has it that anything can accidentally be the cause of pleasure, pain or desire. It depends on ones psychophysical condition, which at any given time causes pleasure, plain, or desire. Whatever that brings about pleasure at any given time becomes good and whatever that brings about pain is evil. In human beings, it is the human emotions that differentiate on whether one is to be good (pleasure) or evil (pain). As such, it should be clear that there is no place for moral judgment. Hence, we are free to determine freely our judgments of good and evil.
The true choice of judgment of good and evil, exposes man to the stark reality of treating others, as we would like them treat us. For one to know something as good and another as evil implies that there are certain things to be done and others that should not be done. If man can be able to grasp or know what is good and carry it out for his own life preservation, one should be able to preserve other people’s life by according them equal right of good. In addition, avoiding evil for oneself removes not only the hindrances to the preservation of life but encourages it (life). According to Spinoza, to preserve life means attainment of good and absence of evil.
Once more, the subjectivity of Spinozistic good and evil could be lucidly encountered in as much as each person has the impetus to judge good and evil the way one wants. Bearing in mind that what is good for one at a given time could be evil for another at the same time. What pleases one at times can also displease one at another time. For instance,
Dancing at a given time, may be a source of pleasure to one who is excited and can likewise be a source of pain to someone in anxiety.
On the other hand, it is obvious that there are certain things when done, remains good and evil respectively. There is no doubt that one does good when one lends a helping hand to the needy and evil when one maliciously maltreats ones neighbor. Good when properly viewed, makes a way for peace in the society where man finds himself. But evil on its own negative aspect hinders the progress of man in his social life with one another. In the society of man today, any behaviour that launches an attach on the morality of man becomes questionable and is seen as evil. Hence, it is not only in the Spinoza’s view that man desires good and averts evil. Good promotes man in his relationship with one another in this world but evil the other way round hinders man’s progress in this world.
Above all, Spinoza has made a tremendous effort to resolve the problem of good and evil. The general conception of his good and evil remains that good pleases man while evil displeases him. Man as far as history is concerned has never hankered for pain but has great aversion for evil. It is in the nature of man to yean and quest for good.
A virtuous man who knows that to tamper with his life does not please him is bound to promote other peoples life. An attempt to do away with other peoples live makes him evil. He thus writes: “The good which any man who follows after virtue, desires for himself, he will also desire for other men and so much the more in proportion as he has a greater knowledge of God.”43
A virtuous man seeks for the good of others in the same proportion with himself. For him to help oneself is to help others.
It is at this juncture that I give a greater applause and appraisal to Spinoza. To do to others what one would like others to do to one is a great measure to morality. It checks on evil and advocates for good. Imagine how the world would be unified when this style of life is achieved.
BIBLOGRAPHY
- ALLISON, C., The cruelty of Heresy, United press London., 1994.
- ALLISON, H., Benedict de Spinoza, New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1987.
- AUSTRYN, W., The philosophy of Spinoza, unfolding the latent process of his reasoning. New York: Shockean publication 1969.
- COPLESTON, F., A history of philosophy, United State of America; Image books publication; 1963.
- ELWES, R., The Chief works of Benedict de Spinoza, New York; Dover publications; 1951.……………, The rationalist, New York: Dolphin books edition; 1960
- GARRETT, D., The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, United State of America; 1996 Cambridge press.
- INAH., O., A Theses on the problem of evil, Bigard Memorial Seminary, Enugu., 1981.
- STUMPT, S., Philosophy: History and problem, United State of America: McGraw Hall book company London; 5th edition., 1994.
