“So be good for goodness’ sake…”

I do not believe good should be rewarded, or evil punished. To explain this belief, I must establish my ideas on the nature of good and evil. How do we know whether something is good or evil? God? Humans? So what if anyone decides they are right? If one were to say that God would know better simply because they are all powerful would be to say that might makes right. We cannot know what God thinks however (if god exists,) and so we are left to our own devices. If we still go with the assumption that might makes right, we come up with a dilemma. Suppose a society in which slavery is in practice. The enslaved people have been wronged; their freedom taken away, the fruit of their forced labor taken from them, stripped of their rights.  In this relationship, the slavers have all the power. In this society, it would be considered wrong for slaves to run away, and those who do, or those who defend their people from abuse would be considered by the more powerful group to be evil. Yet in the eyes of the slaves, their oppressors would be party to the wrongdoing at place, and that wrongdoing would be their enslavement. So if one day, one of the slavers attempted to take a child from a family of lower social standing than them, and the slaves were to attempt to defend themselves from harm, in the eyes of the more powerful group they would be considered to have been guilty of wrongdoing. And yet, neither group would be entirely wrong. In order to defend themselves from harm, they would have to commit harm themselves. Does this make them evil because they have less power? 

In a world where no concept of good or evil can be determined to be right or wrong, punishment and reward must be applied indiscriminately to all. All would be good, and all would be evil. All must be rewarded, and all must be punished. This does not work. If righteousness is determined by power, such a system might work. There is the saying “history is written by victors”. This implies that how things are remembered are determined by the winners, but human perception would not be what decides the truth. History is an interpretation, and as such is subjective.

To reward good and punish evil, and for it to be an equitable and just system, it would necessitate the existence of an objective truth, a true good and evil. But as this truth remains unknowable, this leaves us with a world where what is ethical and good cannot be determined by humans. How does one live in such a world? We all come to our own conclusions, and people will always have different ideas on what is ethical, and what is not. These ideas being on what is good and what is not, will inevitably lead to a belief in people that they are right, and as such, everyone else must follow the same rules and beliefs they do, because of course in their head they are right. They will attempt to impose their ideas on others, even if the others have different ideas. 

Given that no moral or ethical system has been determined to be objectively correct, they would only be suppressing the will of another person. Those who impose their ideas on others will one day wrong those who disagree. To defend themselves, the opposition will do the same. The side that has committed the greater of the two wrongdoings will have won the battle (whatever type of battle it may be: political, physical, social, etc.) The victor, in their own eyes, will have been righteous and done an act of good. The defeated party, in their own eyes, will have also been righteous and done an act of good, having defended their idea of justice even in the case of defeat. If no objective good is determined, they are both correct. Who then, has committed the greatest evil of all? It is in such a world where I believe the bystanders have committed the greatest evil, as they have wronged themselves. Instead of living with their beliefs and ideas, they did nothing and allowed someone else to impose their own ideas and beliefs on them. The bystanders, in their own eyes, will have done nothing to defend what they believe to be good. At this point, they will no longer be living their own lives, but be living the lives of their conquerors. They will not think for themselves, or choose for themselves. To not live for yourself is to strip yourself of your own will, and makes you no different than an animal or a tool. To erase one’s own humanity and become no more than a cog in the machine is the greatest evil of all. 

This brings to mind “original sin,” or the story of genesis. Adam & Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, and came to know good and evil. With knowledge, we have ideas on what is right, and what is wrong. We impose those ideas on others and create rules, and we end up with societal norms. These rules do not always encourage free thought and action, and restrict our will. This is because after a long enough time living with any rule, people will eventually no longer even think to break the rule, or consider that it may be broken. Even from a young age, we are taught to respect authority, and obey orders. To listen to teachers, to parents, to not break the law. In following blindly without thinking, we nullify the value of our own humanity. Another thing brought to mind is the Milgram experiment. The purpose of this study was to understand the effects of authority on people’s willingness to follow orders from those perceived to have authority or prestige. The experiments were designed to explain the psychology of genocide. How could seemingly normal people, most of whom would consider killing to be bad, take part in genocide? They measured the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts against their personal conscience. They were led to believe they were assisting a learning experiment, where they had to apply shocks to a learner. These fake electric shocks went up all the way to levels that would have been considered to be lethal. They found that all participants went up to 300 volts, and 65% of participants went all the way to 450 volts when in the presence of an authority figure. In their own eyes, the participants have committed evil, going against their conscience. (until they are told of the true nature of the experiment) If people were this willing to have such a direct part in following unethical orders, why then would anyone taught to respect authority refuse orders as a much smaller part of something larger, such as an army? That is how genocide became possible. Lack of critical thinking, and allowing someone else’s will to be imposed on them.  This is what permitted the occurrence of many of what are widely considered some of the most evil actions in history, throughout the history of civilization. People should act ethically even if they will be punished because the majority of people do not believe in harming others, and a safer, more peaceful world would be possible if everyone acted towards that goal. It is not about being right, but it is about not being blind.

God may seem to punish a good man in the case of Job, but I do not believe it is a punishment. Punishment is the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense, but God himself does not consider Job to have committed any offense and this means that applying the term ‘punishment’ to Job’s suffering is inaccurate. It only seems like a punishment to our eyes, as we attempt to apply our ideas of good and evil to the situation, where it is commonly thought that evil should be punished. But God had a larger, different purpose in all this that is not understood or known by humans. In a way, God is a stand-in or equivalent to the universe. In this world, sometimes unfair things happen, where the good may suffer, while the evil may enjoy luck and good life. In this random world which does not always fit neatly into our preconceptions and beliefs. God’s beliefs are unknowable, so, too, is the universal objectively true definition of good and evil may be. Suffering and reward are applied indiscriminately, randomly, and to all people. There is no punishment or reward for good and evil, and only the value we put into them.

“Les gens ont des étoiles qui ne sont pas les mêmes. Pour les uns, qui voyagent, les étoiles sont des guides. Pour d’autres elles ne sont rien que de petites lumières. Pour d’autres qui sont savants elles sont des problèmes. Pour mon businessman elles étaient de l’or. Mais toutes ces étoiles-là se taisent. Toi, tu auras des étoiles comme personne n’en a…

Que veux-tu dire ?

Quand tu regarderas le ciel, la nuit, puisque j’habiterai dans l’une d’elles, puisque je rirai dans l’une d’elles, alors ce sera pour toi comme si riaient toutes les étoiles. Tu auras, toi, des étoiles qui savent rire !

Et il rit encore.

Et quand tu seras consolé (on se console toujours) tu seras content de m’avoir connu. Tu seras toujours mon ami. Tu auras envie de rire avec moi. Et tu ouvriras parfois ta fenêtre, comme ça, pour le plaisir… Et tes amis seront bien étonnés de te voir rire en regardant le ciel. Alors tu leur diras: “Oui, les étoiles, ça me fait toujours rire !” Et ils te croiront fou. Je t’aurai joué un bien vilain tour…

Et il rit encore.

Ce sera comme si je t’avais donné, au lieu d’étoiles, des tas de petits grelots qui savent rire..”

– Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

The little prince has a special place in my heart and is one of my favorite stories. It is a story where after the motor stalls, a pilot lands in the Sahara desert and tries to fix his plane. The pilot was a case of the author inserting himself into the story. After he crashes in the sahara, he is woken up by a little boy asking him to draw a goat. Surprised, he complied with the boy’s request but couldn’t satisfy him. The little prince then asked if goats eat flowers, and this caused him to worry for his flower. Then, the pilot draws a muzzle for the goat. The majority of the story from that point on, is the little prince recounting his story to the author. He talks about his planet first. The little prince lived on an asteroid which the grown ups called asteroid B 612. It was barely bigger than a house, and he took care of his planet. He prevented bad seeds from growing, so that it would not be overrun by baobab trees. Then, a rose sprouted on the planet and he fell in love with the rose. However, when the rose lied to him, he stopped trusting the rose and wanted to leave the planet because he was lonely. So, he set out to explore other planets and stars. 

On his journey, he for the first time, meets with the world of grown ups. First he meets a king, then a vain man, a drunkard, a businessman, a lamplighter, and a geographer. They all live alone and are totally absorbed by their chosen jobs. The little prince was both amused and disturbed by their behavior, and did not like them very much. He did not learn anything of use either, with the exception of learning from the geographer that flowers do not last forever. As a result, he starts to miss the rose. Then, the little prince visits earth. He lands in the desert, and does not find humans. He meets a snake who speaks in riddles and hints that their poison can send him back to the heavens, a three petaled flower, and he climbs a mountain where he mistakes echoes of his own voice for conversation. Then, he finds a rose garden, which surprised as well as made him sad as the rose told him she was the only one of her kind. Then, he befriends a fox, who tells him the important things in life are only visible to the heart. He realizes that even if there’s many roses, his rose’s place in his heart made her unique and therefore he was responsible for her. He remains lonely because he left his rose. Then, after the prince finishes his story and on the 8th day of the pilot’s time in the desert, they go to look for a well. They agree that people do not see what is important in life, but the prince makes up his mind to go back to his rose. After the narrator fixes his plane, the prince is bitten by the snake, and falls to the sand. The next day, the pilot cannot find the prince’s body and believes the prince returned to his planet. 

What I love about this story is the sense of adventure it conveys and the little prince’s innocence, through which he looks at people with curiosity and impartiality. But most importantly, the story is about being willing to dream, and not take things for granted or too seriously. The quote I chose from this book is from the penultimate chapter, where the little prince says goodbye to the pilot and lets the snake bite him so that he can go home. To make the pilot feel better, the prince says he won’t tell him where exactly he lives, so that when he looks up at the sky, it could be any star, or even all the stars. He also says that he will be making a gift to the pilot; the gift being laughter.

“ People have stars, but they aren’t the same. For travelers, the stars are guides. For other people, they’re nothing but tiny lights. And for still others, for scholars, they’re problems. For my businessman, they were gold. But all those stars are silent stars. You, though, you’ll have stars like nobody else.

What do you mean?

When you look up at the sky at night, since I’ll be living on one of them, since I’ll be laughing on one of them, for you it’ll be as if all the stars are laughing. You’ll have stars that can laugh!

And he laughed again. 

And when you’re consoled (everyone eventually is consoled), you’ll be glad you’ve known me. You’ll always be my friend. You’ll feel like laughing with me. And you’ll open your window sometimes just for the fun of it… And your friends will be amazed to see you laughing while you’re looking up at the sky. Then you’ll tell them, ‘Yes, it’s the stars; they always make me laugh!’ And they’ll think you’re crazy. It’ll be a really nasty trick I played on you…

And he laughed again.

And it’ll be as if I had given you, instead of stars, a lot of tiny bells that know how to laugh…”

– Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

This is why it is my favorite story, and why it has also been a “guiding star” to me. The point the prince is trying to make is that since nobody can really reach the stars, they can be anything for anyone. It is part of how I grew to believe that the meaning we find in life is that which we choose for ourselves, and that no one view matters more than another, as long as we value it ourselves. The story taught me it was ok to dream, and so now when I look up at the stars, I don’t just see a distant ball of nuclear fusion in space, but possibility.

“Don’t ask why. It’s not a question, but a lesson learned in time.”

– Green Day

A life’s value is subjective. This decision is something I believe can only be made by the person whose life is in question. Life has no inherent meaning or purpose, and so that value is only determined by ourselves. Thus, I believe that the purpose of life is to live as we wish, and to fulfill our own goals and desires. So long as we feel our own lives were worth living, that is enough. This decision can only be made by the person in question, and can take place either during the course of one’s life or at the end. As for what I believe would bring value to my life, there are some goals I have. I wish to travel the world and experience many different cultures, to learn new languages, to write a book and create a fictional world with even its own languages, to see the stars and night sky free of light pollution, and to learn to play the guitar.

In my life, there are many things I wish to do and see, but none nearly as much as I wish to travel the world. This is important to me because I want to have a better understanding of the world, and also just because I think there’s so much about this world which is interesting. To see the different types of plants and animals, the different foods, cultural values, mannerisms, and ways of thinking unique to each part of the world is something I want to do. This idea of better understanding the world is also valuable to humanity, as people learning more about each other and how to understand each other could help to create a more peaceful world.

My wish to travel the world is also deeply tied to another one of the things I wish to accomplish, which is to learn more languages. This too, ties back into the idea of better understanding this world and the people who live in it, and is also something that is personally important to me. Moving from France to somewhere that has a different culture and language (the United States) when I was younger is something that sparked my interest in learning about different cultures, and since then it has been of great interest to me. With this love of the world’s natural beauty and the curiosity I have comes with a certain sadness. When I look up at the sky at night, I see a ceiling, and often find it suffocating. It is hard to look at what we as a civilization are doing to our planet. The most glaring reminder of this is in my face constantly, every night looking at me through the window. The brightest lights I can see in the sky are often just reflections of light from satellites or planes flying overhead. So few of those lights still visible through the light pollution are stars, and so I dream of seeing what the sky really looks like, without all the light pollution. While this may stem from the same place from which my desire to travel the world and learn more about it does, this dream serves no purpose beyond my own satisfaction.

Lastly, I wish to create something of worth, and to me nothing is more valuable than a good story. There is much which we can learn about any given period in time by looking at the stories that were written during that time, even if its events are fictional. I read a lot of books, as I often have plenty of time to myself, and stories are how I learned to see the world. Even when I was younger, I knew I wanted to write stories. I’ve written some small ones before, but something I have wanted to do for a long time is to create a fully lived world complete with its own languages and believable characters living in it. I also have a love for music, and think it would be great to be able to play an instrument in order to make some of my own. 

People will not remember me for being selfless, or even a good person. I will be remembered for my curiosity and my desperate attempts to see the best in people even if I only seem to focus on the worst. I will be remembered for my love of books and possibly unhealthy music listening habits. Ultimately, what I really will be remembered for is of no significance to me. I believe that the way others value your own life is irrelevant, as we determine our own worth and whatever the living think of the dead isn’t really the business of the dead anymore.

“There is no permanence.”

– Utnapishtim

The statement “There is no permanence” is illustrated throughout the world we live in, our societies, and even the very fabric of our universe. Against the winds of time, no idea will survive. People do not live forever, and if no one lives to remember an idea, does the idea still exist?  Civilizations form, scatter, and reform, often in a cyclical nature. Even this, however, is just a speck of dust to the winds of time, and will cease to continue with the eventual death of the universe. Most of the theories predicting the behavior of the universe at the end of its life predict that no information in this system will survive. The time scale of the eventual “death” of the universe however, is far too large to compare to our relatively very short human life spans. Bringing it back down to earth, the weather, while cyclical, is constantly changing. The landscape, with enough time, also is in a constant state of change. We are all fated to die, and yet we are biologically wired in our brains to survive. 

How do we, as emotional beings logically reconcile the overall meaninglessness and impermanence of life with our aims to survive? We do this by trying to create a sense of order and permanence in a constantly changing world of ever increasing chaos. This sense of order and permanence is achieved through the creation of religions, institutions, and communities. We also do this through our pursuit of immortality. We organize ourselves into societies, forming civilization as we know it. First, we may look at the interpersonal relationships and communities we form to give meaning to our lives. Gilgamesh’s relationship with Enkidu grows to give meaning to his life, and is lost without it, when Enkidu dies. This loss is heavily emphasized through repetition, describing Gilgamesh’s appearance and current state after his journey to find Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh says this to Utnapishtim in response to his question regarding his purpose in looking for him:

 

“Why should not my cheeks be starved and my face drawn? Despair is in my heart and my face is the face of one who has made a long journey. It was burned with heat and with cold. Why should I not wander over the pastures? My friend, my younger brother who seized and killed the Bull of Heaven and overthrew Humbaba in the cedar forest, my friend who was very dear to me and endured dangers beside me, Enkidu, my brother whom i loved, the end of mortality has overtaken him. I wept for him seven days and nights till the worm fastened on him. Because of my brother I am afraid of death; because of my brother I stray through the wilderness. His fate lies heavy upon me. How can I be silent, how can I rest? He is dust and i shall die also and be laid in the earth for ever.’” 

p. 105-106, The Epic Of Gilgamesh

This demonstrates Enkidu’s importance in Gilgamesh’s life. After Enkidu’s death, Gilgamesh was lost and no longer had purpose in life. Enkidu’s presence allowed Gilgamesh to not fear death, and and to fight on. 

Another example of how people look for permanence and order is civilization and legacy. This is demonstrated in the epic of Gilgamesh near the end of the story. When Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, after failing to gain immortality. He says this to Urshanabi, the ferryman:

“Urshanabi, climb up onto the wall of Ururk, inspect its foundation terrace, and examine well the brickwork; see if it is not of burnt bricks; and did not the seven wise men lay these foundations? One third of the whole is city, one third is garden, and one third is field, with the precinct of the goddess Ishtar. These parts and the precinct are all Uruk.” 

p. 117, The Epic Of Gilgamesh

This demonstrates Gilgamesh’s understanding at the end of his journey that while he may not have achieved eternal life, he achieved a different type of immortality, by having him and his name live on through his legacy. Even now, 4,000 years after this story was written, he is remembered. To the universe, it may be a blink of an eye. But to humans, this is a very long time. 

We give meaning to our lives through the people we do so with, how we live our lives, and create permanence and order through civilization. However, we also give meaning to our lives through creating our own understanding of the universe, its creation, and its end. This is done through religion. Religions typically have an explanation for how the universe was created, and also have a belief in some sort of afterlife. This afterlife is a form of immortality, and how one will live in this afterlife is determined by how one lives their life. This allows people to give greater meaning to their actions in life. 

Through the attachment of meaning to our actions, and our seeking satisfaction through our interactions with others, we create a sense of permanence sufficient to allow us to go on, despite knowing that we will die and that nothing is permanent. The absence of absolute meaning outlined in the world for us, allows us to create that meaning for ourselves.

“Unhappy the land that needs heroes.”

– Bertolt Brecht

All of the works mentioned have several aspects in common. They all follow the commonly used Hero’s journey. First, the characters are going about their lives normally, but then are called to some greater purpose or some series of events is set in motion. On this journey, they are tested, meet different varieties of people, then face a final ordeal. Ultimately, in the end they complete their journey and then return to their starting point in one form or another, yet things will have distinctly changed. The protagonists of these stories are considered by many to be heroes; people of outstanding achievements, or noble qualities, and who deserves respect. But I do not believe this definition is a healthy one to have. These “heroes” all have their own flaws, and what would be considered an achievement or a noble quality is not objectively consistent throughout all lines of logic or all cultures. Since a definition can vary depending on perspective, I think the term “hero” should be defined as “a person who according to the values of their society, are considered to have noble qualities or outstanding achievements.” We cannot look at the hero without looking at the world in which they exist. In all these stories, the heroes are demonstrated to have changed the world in which they exist through their journey, and yet their journey and their becoming a hero cannot happen without the world being the way it is. Women can be heroines, but in the listed stories there are none that would be considered to be the heroic protagonist of their story, despite their presence within the stories. This could be interpreted as a reflection of the more common values throughout the different times at which these stories were written. They typically depict the hero as a man (although not always), and women are mostly supporting characters who serve various purposes within the story. Due to the relevance of what is culturally considered noble and an achievement, heroes serve a purpose as a guide. They are stories used by people to show what would be considered the ideal in their society. Heroes also oftentimes face great adversity. Bertolt Brecht’s saying “Unhappy the land that needs heroes.” reflects the purpose of a hero. A story to shine a light in the dark, a beacon of hope in a time of struggle. That is the purpose a hero serves. Why would we need a light in the dark if we were not lost? This is the line of reasoning that would draw the conclusion that for a society to need a hero, there must be a struggle.