There is a common metaphor that compares the good to the warmth or the light, and the evil to the cold or the darkness. Physicists tell that the cold is the absense of the heat, and does not exist. By analogy, people claim that the good is something that really exists, but evil is just the absence of good.

Why they think that the darkness and cold is the evil? A stone cannot be evil, but can be dark and cold. A chair cannot be evil. No inanimate object can be evil because of the lack of will. And everything that's not evil is good.

Inanimate objects have no ability to do good things. Still, they're good, so doing anything isn't required to be good.

Unlike inanimate objects, humans has the ability to do. I'm taking an assumption from the Bible that humans know good and evil. So a human can do evil things. All above means it's enough to not to do evil to be good, doing good isn't necessary.

The most of the universe is inanimate and cold. So, the good is much more common than evil, and less noticeable. And the cold is much more common than the warmth. You need to be close to the star to actually notice its heat. The cold is as common as the good. The heat is as rare as the humans, only the humans can be evil, thus, the heat is as rare as the evil. By the logic above, good does not exist, but evil does. So why does the metaphor compare the good to the warmth and the evil to the cold? People are burning in hell, after all. And devil is called Lucifer.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Frank Hubeny, curiousdannii, Bread, Jishin Noben, Eliran May 3 at 16:44

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


I'd say inanimate objects are neither evil nor good. They just are: the mean is neutral, or 'lack of morality'.
There is no morality in inanimate things, because they have no will (although someone better versed in philosophy might challenge me on that last part).

To conclude that anything that is not evil must be good is a false dilemma - something is not either good or evil (although, again, I presume, this is debatable).

That good is considered warm is because warm has a positive connotation, just as cold has a negative connotation - and like almost all words, the ones with negative connotations are linked to evil (e.g. fire and the devil, or hell).

Besides, warm and cold are not each other's opposites, but warm - cool, and hot - cold would be. As you might notice, here, the associations are already shifting.

  • Who speaks about the connotation? I've batch-normalized good-evil and warm-cold. And I spoke in terms of binary classification. If there's neutral, that's a categorical classification. That means something can be both good and evil, or good and neutral, or evil and neutral, or good, evil and neutral at a time. There is tertiary classification where neutral is at 0 and the good and evil are at 1 and -1. – Денис Колесников May 3 at 12:44
  • But that does not go along with the Bible which does not define neutral. So Christians would disagree. Also I personally disagree. Imagine this "how can I help - stay away". Doing nothing is always good while doing something may be treated as evil by someone. You may argue that some will count that as good but the fact is good is more common and any attempts to classify would detect evil with much more probability than good or your "neutral". – Денис Колесников May 3 at 12:44
  • My point is "pure evil exists, pure good does not" – Денис Колесников May 3 at 12:46
  • Also I've changed my opinion. The unchanging temperature is neutral, getting warmer is positive and getting colder is negative. But that means neutral doesn't exist. I understand your point. You are speaking about relative good and evil while I've been speaking about absolute. – Денис Колесников May 3 at 12:51
  • Also, when the neutral exist, good for one side is evil for another. – Денис Колесников May 3 at 12:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.