Good and evil. The essence of good and evil, the idea of ​​these two concepts, their relationship in life. Concepts of good and evil Why there is good and evil

Introduction

1. Concepts of good and evil

3. The problem of the struggle between good and evil

4. Justice: victory of good and evil

Conclusion

Glossary of terms

Bibliography

Introduction

In a broad sense, the words good and evil denote positive and negative values ​​in general. We use these words to mean a variety of things: “kind” simply means good, “evil” means bad. In V. Dahl’s dictionary, for example (remember, what he called the “Dictionary of the Living Russian Language”), “good” is defined first as material wealth, property, acquisitions, then as necessary, suitable, and only “in a spiritual sense” - as honest and useful , corresponding to the duty of a person, citizen, family man. As a property, “good” also applies to Dahlem, first of all, to a thing, livestock, and then only to a person. As a characteristic of a person, “kind” is first identified by Dahl with “efficient”, “knowledgeable”, “skillful”, and only then with “loving”, “doing good”, “kind-hearted”. In most modern European languages, the same word is used to denote material goods and moral goods, which provides extensive food for moral and philosophical discussions about good in general and what is good in itself.

Concepts of good and evil

Good and Evil are among the most general concepts of moral consciousness that distinguish between moral and immoral. Traditionally, Good is associated with the concept of Good, which includes what is useful to people. Accordingly, something that is useless, unnecessary or harmful is not good. However, just as good is not the benefit itself, but only that which brings benefit, so evil is not the harm itself, but that which causes harm, leads to it.

Good exists in the form of a variety of things. Books and food, friendship and electricity, technological progress and justice are called blessings. What unites these different things into one class, in what respect are they similar? They have one common feature: they have a positive meaning in people’s lives, they are useful for meeting their needs - vital, social, spiritual. Good is relative: there is nothing that would be only harmful, as well as nothing that would be only beneficial. Therefore, good in one respect can be evil in another. What is good for people of one historical period may not be good for people of another period. Benefits have unequal value at different periods of an individual’s life (for example, in youth and old age). Not everything that is useful to one person is useful to another.

Thus, social progress, while bringing certain and considerable benefits to people (improvement of living conditions, mastery of the forces of nature, victory over incurable diseases, democratization of social relations, etc.), often turns into equally considerable disasters (invention of means of mass destruction, wars for the possession of material wealth , Chernobyl) and is accompanied by the manifestation of disgusting human qualities (malice, vindictiveness, envy, greed, meanness, betrayal).

Ethics is not interested in any, but only in spiritual goods, which include such highest moral values ​​as freedom, justice, happiness, and love. In this series, Good is a special type of good in the sphere of human behavior. In other words, the meaning of goodness as a quality of actions is what relation these actions have to good.

Good, like evil, is an ethical characteristic of human activity, people’s behavior, and their relationships. Therefore, everything that is aimed at creating, preserving and strengthening the good is good. Evil is destruction, the destruction of that which is good. And since the highest good is the improvement of relations in society and the improvement of the individual himself, that is, the development of man and humanity, then everything that in the actions of an individual contributes to this is good; everything that hinders is evil.

Based on the fact that humanistic ethics puts Man, his uniqueness and originality, his happiness, needs and interests at the forefront, we can determine the criteria of goodness. This, first of all, is what contributes to the manifestation of the true human essence - self-disclosure, self-identification, self-realization of the individual, of course, provided that this individual “has the right to the title of Human” (A. Blok).

And then good is love, wisdom, talent, activity, citizenship, a sense of involvement in the problems of one’s people and humanity as a whole. This is faith and hope, truth and beauty. In other words, everything that gives meaning to human existence.

But in this case, another criterion of goodness and, at the same time, a condition ensuring human self-realization is humanism as the “absolute goal of being” (Hegel).

And then good is everything that is connected with the humanization of human relations: it is peace, love, respect and attention from person to person; this is scientific, technical, social, cultural progress - but only in those aspects that are aimed at establishing humanism.

Thus, the category of Good embodies people’s ideas about the most positive in the sphere of morality, about what corresponds to the moral ideal; and in the concept of Evil - ideas about what opposes the moral ideal and prevents the achievement of happiness and humanity in relations between people.

Goodness has its own “secrets” that should be remembered. Firstly, like all moral phenomena, goodness is the unity of motivation (motive) and result (action). Good motives, intentions that are not manifested in actions are not yet real good: this is, so to speak, potential good. A good deed that is the accidental result of malicious motives is not fully good. However, these statements are far from certain, and therefore we invite readers to discuss them. Secondly, both the goal and the means to achieve it must be good. Even the most good, good goal cannot justify any, especially immoral, means. Thus, the good goal of ensuring order and safety of citizens does not justify, from a moral point of view, the use of the death penalty in society.

As personality traits, good and evil appear in the form of virtues and vices. As properties of behavior - in the form of kindness and anger. What does kindness consist of and how is it manifested? Kindness is, on the one hand, a line of behavior - a friendly smile or a timely courtesy. On the other hand, kindness is a point of view, a consciously or unconsciously professed philosophy, and not a natural inclination. Moreover, kindness does not end with what is said or done. It contains the whole human being.

When we say about someone that he is a kind person, we mean that he is a sympathetic, warm-hearted, attentive person, capable of sharing our joy, even when he is preoccupied with his own problems, grief or is very tired, when he has an excuse for harsh word or gesture. Usually this is a sociable person, he is a good conversationalist. When a person has kindness, he radiates warmth, generosity and generosity. He is natural, approachable and responsive. At the same time, he does not humiliate us with his kindness and does not set any conditions. Of course, he is not an angel, not a hero from a fairy tale, and not a magician with a magic wand. He cannot always resist an inveterate scoundrel who does evil for the sake of evil itself - simply “for the love of art.”

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of such not just evil, but evil people. With their evil, they seem to take revenge on others for their inability to satisfy their unjustified ambitions - in the profession, in public life, in the personal sphere. Some of them cover up base feelings with beautiful manners and pleasant words. Others do not hesitate to use harsh words, be rude and arrogant.

Evil includes such qualities as envy, pride, revenge, arrogance, and crime. Envy is one of the best “friends” of evil. The feeling of envy disfigures the personality and relationships of people; it arouses in a person the desire for another to fail, misfortune, and discredit himself in the eyes of others. Envy often pushes people to commit immoral acts. It is no coincidence that it is considered one of the most serious sins, for all other sins can be considered as a consequence or manifestation of envy. Arrogance, characterized by a disrespectful, contemptuous, arrogant attitude towards people, is also evil. The opposite of arrogance is modesty and respect for people. One of the most terrible manifestations of evil is revenge. Sometimes it can be directed not only against the one who caused the original evil, but also against his relatives and friends - blood feud. Christian morality condemns revenge, contrasting it with non-resistance to evil with violence.

Ideas about good and evil have changed among different peoples from century to century, while remaining the cornerstone of any ethics. Already ancient Greek philosophers tried to define these concepts. Socrates, for example, argued that only a clear awareness of what is good and evil contributes to a correct (virtuous) life and knowledge of oneself. He considered the difference between good and evil to be absolute and saw it in the degree of virtue and awareness of a person. No one does evil on purpose, of his own free will, he said, but only out of ignorance. Evil is the result of ignorance of truth and, therefore, good. Even knowledge of one’s own ignorance is already a Step on the path to goodness. Therefore, the greatest evil is ignorance, which Socrates saw not in the fact that we do not know something, but in the fact that we do not realize it and do not need (or believe that we do not need) knowledge.

Science (real) is then science when it produces something that no one has read about in any dictionary or in any classic. This is new! It was received for the first time! We do not have the right to deprive ourselves of the opportunity to receive a new scientific product. This is precisely the purpose of the seminar and our heated debate. For example, I am happy when a certain result of the work of our team or those who speak here raises a puzzling question: “Where can I read about this? We haven’t read about this anywhere and haven’t seen it anywhere!” What is presented, proven using the criteria of truth, scientific methodological criteria, and no one has read about it - this is the most valuable thing that can be imagined in science.

This is the meaning of a scientist’s life - creating something new. And this new thing will undoubtedly appear in reference books, dictionaries and textbooks for first-year students in a month, a year, ten years, when the new results obtained will be discussed by the scientific community, will be double-checked by other independent research groups, and will be generally accepted in scientific circulation as reliable results . Of course, this will end up in all educational annals. And if you can read about “this” in a textbook, then why talk about it at a scientific seminar? This is the subject of lectures for students, nothing more.

A huge challenge lies in the question: to what extent is the nature of the concepts of the categories of good and evil relativistic or, on the contrary, to what extent is it absolutist? Today we have received confirmation that this is an absolute position. Even opponents of this point of view involuntarily confirm it, because they say: “the concepts of good and evil are not universal, but they are cosmopolitan, they are binding on everyone.” Although contradictory, this is a position of absoluteness! It is only half a step to say that they are also always obligatory. This logically follows.

The absolutism of the concept lies, firstly, in the immutability of the criteria for attributing good and evil to something. It is imperative to talk about the criteria. Secondly, it arises when the question is seen from a certain point of reference in the universe. Let me explain my point. I mean the biggest one, the Hamburg account, because that's the challenge.

The apparent relativity of the categories of good and evil deceives us because its manifestations and embodiments in life are very multiple and complex. Let me give you an illustration. Killing a person is almost undeniably evil. What about killing a villain who is going to kill 10 people? What is this already? What if you kill a villain who is about to kill a villain who is about to kill 10 people? Kill a man in a gateway or kill a man - your enemy - at the front, fulfilling your duty? There is no need to develop this understandable idea.

The above illustration shows that in each specific situation, when it is difficult to determine whether it is good or evil, if you rise to a certain height in the universe, using an unchanging criterion, you can always attribute a specific manifestation to good or evil.

The discussion quite rightly said that a semantic structure is not built if there is no goal, starting from which criteria are developed. Only then do assessments become possible. In a whole series of works by our Center, in publications - still, however, preprints - in collections of works, in the first volume of a six-volume set, this is more or less systematically presented.

What is the systemic criterion of good and evil? The discussion revealed the following approach: good is that which in human activity gravitates toward “image and likeness,” if we use a religious formula that has concentrated in itself the wisdom of the searches of the ancients and our ancestors. You cannot a priori treat this as not true. At least in this case it is necessary to prove that this is not true. I ask a question regarding the concept of “in the image and likeness”: what does the image consist of? An image of what? What is he like? You can say “square and white” and that’s the image. And in this case, what does it look like - this image? Let's write him out. But there is a problem with the relationship between description languages. On the one hand, allegorical and fictional, on the other - scientific. It is precisely this difficulty that must be overcome in determining the criterion of good and evil. Let me give you an example of such a difficulty.

The following expression is known and widely known: “God is love.” From the point of view of a scientific dictionary, this is a semantically incorrectly constructed phrase. It's meaningless. It is used for lyric poetry, for art, for the conversational genre. But without saying that there is God, to say that he is love... Love is a feeling, love is a process, something else. It turns out that God is a feeling? Is God a process? Of course not. Therefore, the scientific language, the methodology for determining what is “image and likeness” requires a rather strict approach. This approach was proposed in the work of the Center. We conventionally call it “rheostatic”. 12 dimensional scales have been proposed that characterize thoughts, actions and results. The measure is methodologically provided by sociological measurements and quantitative expert assessments (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Space of characteristics of human opinions, intentions, actions and their results

On the right is “image and likeness”. The 12 characteristics at the right end of the scales form an ideal picture, an ideal image of what a person can approach or move away from. Moreover, the goal of this movement (another message of the logical-philosophical model) lies at the basis of the entire conceptual structure of good and evil.

The goal of the living is “to be,” in biological nature it is simply “to be.” And in social nature - to be human. Which one? It is here that the categorical (essential) person appeals to a certain image. What image should you strive for? A person embodies himself in reality when he has an opinion, a worldview, still concentrated within him, when the opinion is transformed into an intention, which is transformed into an action leading to a result. All this is recorded and can be assessed.

Therefore, when we talk about the absolutization of the categories of good and evil, about the search for an absolute criterion, the definition that was given for good and evil is precisely an assessment, a characteristic.

Good and evil are not a fact, not a phenomenon, not a process, not a result. It is an assessment of opinions, intentions, actions and results. Good and evil are subjective. Without a person (his opinions, intentions, actions and results), the concepts of good and evil disappear. The most important definition. Good is everything that makes a person human. Evil is what removes him from the human condition. And this can be measured and assessed. Everything that moves in Fig. 1 person to the right is good. Everything that moves to the left is evil.

The terms are actually very difficult to find. I share the critical criticism of the speaker in the discussion regarding the classification of values, because this has not yet been fully worked out. Yulia Alexandrovna gave her version, which still needs to be improved. But the principle itself is that it becomes possible to see where a person or community or state is truly human. An assessment of opinions, intentions, actions, results, by which we generally judge anything, which shows that a person is moving to the right, allows us to say: an act of good is being carried out. If the same assessment indicates that a person or community is moving to the left, then this means an act of evil is being carried out. Brainstorming shows that the proposed absolute criterion covers all life situations and that it is universal.

Is it possible to declare that biological man is the eternal essential purpose of man? No, and this is another of our logical-philosophical positions, which is that man evolves (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Space of potentials of human biosocial megaevolution

Once upon a time, a person did not exist, his social, cooperative qualities did not exist, his biological qualities did not exist. At some point, biological qualities arose, and the proto-man, the bioprecursor, began to develop. The time parameter directed along the curve is specified. Protosocial forms of behavior arose - swarm, flock, pairing, “swan love”.

At some point, something arose that was not yet very understood or explained in materialistic language - mind, or animation, or consciousness. There has been a sharply accelerated evolution of social measures. But if we say that there is a limit, an ideal to which a person will strive asymptotically, never achieving it, because it is an ideal, then this is, first of all, a distinctive property of a categorical (essential) person.

Essential man is ideal. The vertical asymptote will never be crossed, because this is precisely the “image and likeness”. Religion speaks of transformation when a person reaches this state. How can he come to him? It is clear that he can asymptotically approach this limit, but what does this require? The fact that his biological evolution will paradoxically accelerate. But there is no other assumption other than that it will be inverse evolution.

A person will be freed from his bioconstruction. He has already learned how to replace organs. He will someday discard the material, physical, chemical, biological basis measured in kilograms and cubic decimeters. But he won’t disappear as a person! He will remain a categorical, essential person who will approach the ideal. Therefore, when we came to the idea that a person is categorical, he is on the right on the scale in Fig. 1, biological man is in the center, it turns out that social evil throws man to the far left, anti-human state. This is, of course, an anomaly. Very important conclusions follow from the logic of this thought experiment, up to the point of logical construction, which is based on axiomatics, in particular, the axiomatics of definitions.

The conclusion is this: humanity will progress unstoppably. There is nothing to indicate that people will again turn into an animal herd. Attempts to shift humanity towards it are a countermovement.

Everything that is a counter-movement of a person from a categorical person is evil.

Last and most important. From this fundamental theoretical and methodological picture flow absolute, specific, relevant (this is another requirement for real science - it must be practically applicable in its recommendations, results and must be useful) constructs for the creation of social shells and the state as a moral state.

This is not fiction, but a completely operationalizable approach in legal, constitutional language to the construction of modern Russia, but not liberal, today’s, but post-liberal.

In the state, in the country, there must be institutions of upbringing, socialization, propaganda, education, built on the principle of good and evil, and not on the opposite - not on the TV show “Dom-2” and the glorification of a socialite or hooligans, or anyone else. There must be control, supervision and moral censorship, which in information flows allow a person and society to shift to the right, and prevent movement to the left. The practical projection of the approach presented at the Center has been developed in sufficient detail.

Report by S.S. Sulakshina “The meaning of a scientist’s life is to create something new”, presented at the Center's seminar“Fundamental issues in the development of complex social systems”

What is, what is and in general, are these concepts real or abstract - these are eternal philosophical questions that remain extremely relevant for modern man and society. And despite the fact that religions, many esoteric teachings and even the modern criminal code tell in detail about Good and Evil (in fact, these are partially the principles of Good and Evil), many people continue to ignore the manifestations of Good and Evil, and some do not even believe into their existence. Science, in particular the traditional part of science (materialistic science), also, instead of studying the issues of Good and Evil and their impact on human life and society, blatantly ignores these issues.

What can I say, even Psychology (the science of) - philosophizes slyly, without calling anything by its proper name, namely, Good - good, and Evil - evil. Instead, psychology often teaches a person to live with a problem rather than solve it. In this sense, there is a well-known joke when two friends meet and one asks the other:

- Well, have you already cured your enuresis? And the second one answers:

– No, after visiting a psychologist, I learned to be proud of him.

So do Good and Evil exist or not?

This Not good a funny example only confirms that the issues of Good and Evil, understanding of shortcomings, vices, weaknesses, negative qualities and all other manifestations of evil have not been properly studied by science. Accordingly, in science, psychology, education, there are practically no effective methods for changing a person and eliminating any shortcomings, various kinds of negativity.

And one more thing, skeptics or would-be philosophers philosophize and claim that there is no good and evil, only until they get hit on the head with a stump of a pipe in a dark alley. And when the negative impact of such people catches up, they, as a rule, immediately begin to demand justice and punishment for the (very specific) Evil caused to them.

For skeptics! Think about it, if there is no good and evil, then the Criminal Code, punishment of criminals, elimination of vices are meaningless? Or is the need for a Criminal Code, the judicial system, security forces, law enforcement agencies and places not so remote (prisons and colonies) - this is a direct confirmation of the fact that Good and Evil are not abstract concepts at all, but very specific and close to every person . And if there is no Good and Evil, then maybe all these conventions can be abolished? And what kind of society will we find ourselves in then? And I will answer you - in a society of criminals, vicious and fallen people, ultimately, in a world of chaos and lawlessness. This is where the world will end its existence, because it will be destroyed by uncontrolled Evil.

We will provide more precise definitions of Good and Evil in the following articles, with examples and justifications. Now let’s reveal the essence of the difference between Good and Evil:

– this is what brings benefit to a person and society, reveals, strengthens, leads to success and happiness. Moreover, it must be done with a long-term perspective and without negative side deviations.

- this is what destroys a person and his destiny, ultimately leading to suffering and death not only of the body, but also of the Soul of a person.

There is a more artistic and spiritual definition of Good and Evil that captures the essence of the differences between them: “Good is that which at first may seem like poison, but then turns out to be a healing nectar, and Evil is that which often begins as nectar, but in the end turns out to be a deadly poison.”.

This definition perfectly illustrates the effect of alcohol, nicotine, drugs, laziness and other vices, which at first supposedly give pleasure, but all this “joy” ends in complete destruction

Evil is one of the main ethical categories, evil is the opposite of good, it suppresses our well-being and improvement, all this is expressed through the humiliation of others for the sake of one’s own benefit, as well as in order to satisfy one’s immoral and moral needs.

Evil leads to various conflicts in society, to alienation from each other, it causes negative emotions such as fear, anger, envy, injustice and others.

Evil and good are eternal rivals, this struggle is in each of us, and only we decide which side to be on. The actions we do always raise us, or make us low and distant from future development. Good and evil cannot exist without each other, thanks to these categories we have the right to choose behavior and actions. They do not exist objectively, as substance, materiality, good and evil exist as phenomena of the moral world.

In real life there are both evil and good, people who do both bad and good deeds. This struggle between the “forces of evil” and the “forces of good” is the fundamental idea of ​​the entire history of culture.

An important problem in the history of ethics is the substantiality of evil, its essence, its role in our world. And the question arises: is evil by its nature only something negative and the destruction of good? Is it necessary or impossible to destroy evil?

In the history of culture, in our everyday life, we encounter various concepts of the essence of evil. In different eras, good and evil were understood differently. Let's give some examples.

In the era of antiquity reigned syncretism: the ordered cosmos appeared as the embodiment of good, and the personification of evil was chaos - a state of violation of order.

Another example is ancient religion Zoroastrianism, which comes from the definition of the independent existence of evil, according to its ideas, next to Ahuramazda, the good god, there is the evil god Ahriman.

If Ahuramazda did something good, then Ahriman responded with something evil: death, illness, and the like. Zarathustra spoke about the moral duality that underlies the structure of the world, that is, the good god created everything reasonable, good, pure, and the evil god created everything bad, unclean, unreasonable.

Therefore, at this stage of history, the struggle between light and dark, good and evil deities reigns everywhere, and there is an eternal war between them.

A striking example the substantiality of evil is Gnostic teachings (Gnosticism is a philosophical movement of antiquity and the Middle Ages). The Gnostics said that the world in which people live was created by an evil creator - the demiurge.

Christianity claimed that the basis of our world is good: evil cannot be at the center of what God created. And the existence of evil was explained through the angel Lucifer. Evil appears as pride. Pride is the main trait of Lucifer, who rebelled against God and therefore ended up in hell. The punishment and rebellion of Lucifer is an example for every person who is capable of taking the side of evil. Also, the increase in evil in the world was due to the sin of Adam and Eve.

IN The Renaissance was considered evil laziness and inaction Age of Enlightenment- irrationality and misunderstanding, in the 18th-20th centuries - disrespect, unprofitability, in the 21st century - ignorance.

And now we will move on to the real life of recent centuries - the Marxist concept of moral evil. This concept states that a social class of people creates positive moral values ​​as long as its thoughts and interests converge with the general interests of the development of society. When the harmony between interests disappears, everyone begins to focus on their own self-affirmation. And this leads to a halt in further development and to the growth of evil.

Let us turn to modern ordinary life, we call an evil person a cold egoist who is indifferent to the suffering and problems of his loved ones; such a person is able to use the weaknesses of others for the sake of his own self-affirmation.

Of all these concepts we can create one general image of evil. Its features include:

— Violation by an evil person of measure, order, consistency with people who are equal to him (this is how chaos destroys the ancient cosmos, Lucifer stands up against the divine order, the social class, according to Marx, goes against the development of humanity, the egoist violates the harmony of relations between people).

— Focus on oneself (in all the cases considered, the subject of evil is the center of his own world, but the interests of other people are not important to him).

— Self-affirmation at the expense of others (elements of disorder want to assert themselves in the ancient world, Lucifer rebels against God for proud self-affirmation, and the ordinary, narcissistic egoists we see around us also assert themselves.

The fight between good and evil has always interested famous thinkers.

The philosophers of Ancient Greece: Plato, Aristotle, Socrates understood evil as something purely negative. It appears mainly as a violation of the order and harmony of existence. Socrates argued that evil is the result of ignorance of truth and goodness. If we understand this ignorance, then we are already on the path to good. Democritus believed that goodness is inherent in human nature and depends only on himself.

The problem of evil has been considered by many philosophers: B. Spinoza, I. Kant, G. Hegel, F. Nietzsche and others. The idea of ​​evil differs in different cultures, eras, and generations.

For example, for the modern generation, independence and the ability to do everything according to one’s own will is a real good, but once upon a time it would have been considered evil, because one always had to obey one’s elders and act according to their stereotypes.
Science, on the one hand, is a great benefit for people, but on the other, it is a source of evil, because it creates weapons of mass destruction and technology that destroys nature.

People may think that they are doing good, but at the same time their actions turn into evil. For example: parents love their child very much and wish him only the best, they want to completely protect him from problems. They succeed, but then their child will grow up completely unadapted to the realities of life. But there are parents who want to make their child independent very early, and then he ends up in a company that has a bad influence on him.

Evil always moves us away from the ideal. A person understands evil because he already has an idea of ​​good: he appreciates good when he knows from his own experience what evil is. In understanding the nature of good and evil, it would be wrong to look for their everyday basis.

Good- human quality, that is, kindness, manifests itself in love and mercy, and evil, that is, malice, in violence and hostility. Evil and good are inseparable, and influence the further development of events in the life of each person and society as a whole.

So, as long as humanity exists, in different eras, millennia, generations, the question of the substantiality of evil will arise. And instead of fighting evil, it is better to pay attention to good.

Topic: “Good and evil in human life” Completed by: Alevtina Pavlova 3 “E” class MBOU Secondary School No. 85, Ulyanovsk Consultant teacher: Evgenia Vasilievna Novichkova, primary school teacher of the highest qualification category

Introduction I was interested in the lines of V. Mayakovsky’s poem “What is good and what is bad”: A little son came to his father and the little one asked: - What is good and what is bad? I thought about the questions: what do the concepts of good and bad mean, is it so important for children to know how they differ, how can one measure the power of good and bad, and what is more in the world?

From the very beginning of his life, a person experiences both good and bad. Even kids ask this question: “What is good and what is bad? " Good and bad are, first of all, good and evil. Currently, more and more often we hear that modern children do not distinguish between the concepts of Good (good) and bad (evil). People have always thought about the problems of good and evil: philosophers, writers, poets, musicians, painters. Socrates once believed: “People act badly only because they do not know what is considered good and what is evil.” This is how the topic of our research arose: “Good and evil in human life.”

In my research, I set a specific goal - to consider the relationship between good and evil in human life. In my hypothesis, I assume that if the guys know about the concepts of good and evil, they will be kinder.

To find out what good and evil are, we turned to the library. In the library we learned the following: Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, ed. D. N. Ushakova KIND: The ancient name of the letter “d”. ; Explanatory Dictionary, ed. S. I. Ozhegova and N. Yu. Shvedova GOODNESS: Something positive, good, useful, opposite to evil; Kind. EVIL is everything bad that opposes good. Modern explanatory dictionary GOOD AND EVIL are the most general concepts of moral consciousness, categories of ethics that characterize positive and negative moral values.

GOOD IN RELIGION In Christianity, the most important representative of GOOD - or even the source of this very concept - is considered to be God. GOOD AND EVIL are antonymous concepts and thus deny the other. In some religions, good and evil are viewed as forces waging an eternal struggle for the right to rule the world. Christianity views evil not as an essence, but as a diminution of good. Believers say that religion is the support of virtue. Only it makes people decent, honest, kind, respectful

So what is the basis of the definition of good and evil? Where is it? You will not find it in the world around you, it is in a person, that is, in you. The ancient sages said that every person consists of two parts: good and evil, white and black.

Parable “Two Wolves” Once upon a time, an old man revealed to his grandson one important truth of life: - There is a struggle in every person, very similar to the struggle of two wolves. One wolf represents evil: envy, jealousy, regret, selfishness, ambition, lies. The other wolf represents goodness: peace, love, hope, truth, kindness and loyalty. The grandson, touched to the depths of his soul by his grandfather’s words, thought for a moment, and then asked: “Which wolf wins in the end?” The old man smiled and answered: “The wolf you feed always wins.”

Symbols of good and evil From early childhood, the older generation explains to children the concepts of good and evil using various examples. Goodness is represented by: the sun, grass, blue sky, mother’s smile, a kind word. Evil takes on the dark and gloomy coloring of storms, bad weather, heavy rain, lightning, darkness, gray clouds.

Research I decided to compare the ratio of good and evil that exists in the world around me, for this I conducted a study.

good and evil in fairy tales? Title of the fairy tale Positive hero Negative hero Good wins Evil wins “Marya Morevna” Ivan Tsarevich Koschey the Immortal + - “Magic Ring” Martynka the Royal Daughter + - “The Sea King and Vasilisa the Wise” Ivan Tsarevich the Sea King + - “The Firebird and Vasilisa . Princess" Sagittarius King + - "Cinderella" Cinderella Stepmother and Evil Sisters + - "Snow White" Snow White Evil Queen + - "Goldilocks" Irzhik King + -

Goodness in oral folk art (proverbs, sayings) Often proverbs and sayings call on a person to do good, to do it selflessly, from a pure heart. The significance and benefits of good deeds are emphasized in every possible way by the people: the durability of good deeds, a calm conscience, mutual assistance and understanding. This can be seen in such examples as: n n n A kind person takes someone else’s illness to heart. The evil one cries out of envy, but the good one cries out of joy. Honor the good, but do not spare the evil. A good deed lives for two centuries. It’s good to grow, or crawl through holes. Don't do to others what you don't want to do to yourself.

Evil in oral folk art (proverbs, sayings) The concept of evil in Russian proverbs and sayings is much less common than the concept of good. In the dictionary we found the following examples of proverbs and sayings about evil: n n n To be angry is a human matter, but to remember evil is a devilish thing. Do not repay evil for evil. It’s hard for those who remember evil. To live in evil is to walk through the world. Evil Natalya's people are all crooks. In the examples we see that the concept of evil is accompanied by other negative traits: anger, rancor, revenge, cunning. In such proverbs one can hear condemnation of people possessed by anger.

Poll “Which person would fly with you to the planet of good? » 22 people took part in the survey. good 18 people angry - 0 caring 11 selfish - 0 fair 12 proud - 1 attentive 13 rude - 0 polite 14 deceitful - 0 sensitive 11 greedy - 0 humane 3 reliable 18 loyal 16 sincere 8 compassionate 2 sympathetic 7 n Conclusion: from the answers it is clear what people want so that the companion has good qualities, and no one would take an evil one with him.

Tree of good deeds We wanted a tree of good deeds to “grow” in our class, on which each leaf represents a good deed we have done. To decorate the drawn tree with paper leaves, the children first had to remember what good deed they had done recently? And soon the mighty oak acquired a luxurious crown”... How many leaves on a tree - so many good deeds! The guys were surprised how many good deeds they did. It doesn't come cheap. Happiness comes from difficult roads. What good have you done? How have you helped people? Doing good things for people means making yourself nice.

The relationship between good and evil Of course, there is more good on earth, but despite this, people constantly have to deal with the manifestation of evil. But only goodness creates and moves the world forward.

Conclusion: This study found an answer to the question of what the concepts of “good” and “evil” mean, and examined the relationship between good and evil in human life. After monitoring, we learned about the place of evil in human culture. We were convinced that people not only want to see kind people around, but also do a lot of good deeds themselves. Summing up the study, I would like to believe that it will be of great benefit, because Aristotle said: “We reason not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good people.” My classmates looked at the world around us with different eyes, became more attentive and kinder to each other.