Throughout numerous human cultures, contemporarily and historically, there has been a fascination with the knowledge of good and evil. It is if the human species is insistent that good and evil are more than simply relative value judgments. Rather, humans seem to hold the notion in their minds that we can arrive at a fully articulated knowledge of good and evil.
Indeed, humans can generally find broad agreements that certain actions are good, and others are evil. This seems to act as a form of encouragement for humans to attempt to fully articulate the knowledge of good and evil by classifying each action as either good or evil.
"Attempts to produce the knowledge of good and evil" extend into systems of knowledge that may or may not use the specific words "good" and "evil." Rather, my essay critiques all systems of morality and ethics that seek to demarcate actions as good or bad.
However, far from fully articulating the knowledge of good and evil, this Epistemological endeavor seems to be a manifestation of what I consider "folly". Here, folly is used to indicate foolish actions that work against the apparent intent.
For example, if we want to fill up a cup of water, but we intentionally and foolishly choose a glass that has a small hole in it, our behaviors work against our apparent intent.
The folly found in attempts to produce the knowledge of good and evil is found in the cultural climate that is created among humans when each one of them feels justified to categorize actions as either good or evil. Put simply, the moment that humans attempt to categorize actions as good or evil with specificity, a milieu of conflict is created.
Sure, we may be able to find broad agreements on some actions. It is this temptation that requires us to apply wisdom and prudence, so that we do not engage in folly that affects the entire species.
Let us now use this folly to understand Applied Epistemology a little better.
Scope, Method and Result: A Simple Epistemological Formula
The most significant elements of any epistemological process can be understood as the scope of information, the method of organizing, that information, and the intended result (what specific knowledge are we speaking to produce and have we accomplished that?).
We can express this as a simple formula: Scope+Method=Result
We can then examine this formula to better understand the process of proper knowledge production.
It appears tempting to produce the knowledge of good and evil. However, when we use the aforementioned formula to guide this epistemological process, we can better understand why this never works in practice.
If we look at the scope of information and define it in this scenario as the actions of living creatures then we can move on to the second step in this epistemological process.
Our method for organizing this particular set of information will be to demarcate specific actions of living creatures as either good or evil.
I say that this is tempting because on its face Humans can generally find broad agreement on some actions being obviously good, or obviously evil.
However, the scope of the information in this epistemological process are all actions not just the ones that appear easy to categorize. Indeed, we could not fully articulate the knowledge of good and evil if we intentionally left numerous actions of living creatures outside of the scope merely because we found them somewhat challenging to categorize.
Thus, we will inevitably find ourselves attempting to label all actions with specificity as either good or evil.
This is where we find the folly of attempts to produce the knowledge of good and evil. As a species, humans will inevitably arrive at actions within the scope of information being organized that lead to disagreements on how to categorize.
There will always remain actions that we find difficulty in categorizing. We cannot successfully produce a fully articulated knowledge of good and evil. However, We have successfully created a milieu of conflict in that process.
This is exactly where we find the folly. We contribute to conflict and division within the human species through attempts to produce the knowledge of good and evil.
Furthermore, for those who remain interested in attempting to produce the knowledge of good and evil in the face of its very own folly, it begs the question, "should attempts to produce the knowledge of good and evil be categorized as evil in themselves?"
Indeed, actions that lead to unnecessary suffering of living creatures can be categorized as "evil." In this case, the suffering is made manifest through the milieu of conflict that arises from disagreements on how to categorize specific actions as good or evil.
Thus, in order to attempt to promote good by producing the knowledge of good and evil, so that we can encourage the good and discourage the evil, we must first create a milieu of conflict. Too much unnecessary suffering occurs in this milieu as individuals and groups attempt to vie for control over whose version of good and evil is correct. Folly at its best!
Moreover, the first book of one of the most often referenced holy books, the Bible, advises humans against attempts to produce the knowledge of good and evil. Apparently the wisdom articulated in this essay has gone overlooked by religious advocates for too long.
Knowledge production is integral to civilization. If we expect our civilization to endure, we have an evolutionary responsibility to produce knowledge properly as well as to be aware of unintended effects of the knowledge production process.
Perhaps relinquishing human-centric narratives will help the species to prepare itself to engage with other forms of life in this universe.
Thank you and have a content day