The definition of justice and evil in the second essay cannot fully correspond to moral judgments between individuals. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce good and evil to judge whether actions between individuals conform to morality. I believe the standard of good and evil lies in whether one harms the legitimate rights and interests of others. Harm refers to acts of theft, destruction, or attack. Legitimate rights and interests, in my view, are those obtained through one’s own efforts or cooperation with others, under the premise of not oppressing others. Rights and interests include physiological and psychological aspects, as well as all external possessions of the individual.
An individual’s rights within society belong to the relationship between the individual and the collective, and thus fall within the scope of justice and evil. Does a solitary individual then have no rights? It is simply that such rights are not granted and maintained by society—for example, the right to education, religious freedom, freedom of marriage, or the freedom to choose one’s occupation. Robinson Crusoe on his deserted island had none of these, because there was no one to interact with. Therefore, I define rights and interests as things possessed and maintained by the subject.
Some concepts are often confused with good and evil. “Good or bad” depends on whether a goal is achieved. “Right or wrong” depends on whether rules are followed. “Noble or base” depends on the degree to which one conforms to ethics. None of these are equivalent to good and evil.
As stated in the second essay, justice is a phenomenon that benefits survival. Once good and evil are defined, virtues are those qualities that promote good, while sins are those that promote evil. Together they form moral standards, from which ethics arises. Justice and evil, on the other hand, concern the maximization of collective benefit.
Ethics and Power Ethics is inevitably distorted by power.
Good and evil, as the foundation of ethics, carry the shadow of power but also have a biological basis. Modern science has discovered that when people see others suffer, mirror neurons in the brain are activated. These not only enable imitation but also empathy. Empathy is thus the biological foundation of good and evil. As groups grow larger, ethics begins to emerge—first within families, then in tribes and clans, and finally in civilizations and states.
Ethics, as a set of rules, is established according to purpose. It is therefore different from good and evil, which have a biological basis. I believe good and evil are not directly equivalent to ethics; more often, ethics borrows the language of good and evil to provide legitimacy. In essence, ethics is the consensus of the collective. And collectives inevitably generate power—or rather, they rely on power to maintain themselves. Ethics, being the most basic set of rules suitable for collectives, is inseparable from power.
As stated in the fourth essay, the power of rulers originates from the obedience of the ruled, and the ruled are in a game-like relationship with rulers. Therefore, ethics that serves power cannot lean entirely toward rulers; it must also provide benefits to the ruled. The most fundamental benefit for the ruled is the maintenance of order and the provision of security in daily life. Rulers, in turn, require stability to ensure their continued rule. Thus, ethics, as the foundation of law, provides a complete set of moral standards for both sides to reach consensus.
The evolution of ethics often occurs in this way: when a set of ethics no longer conforms to the standards of good and evil, it provokes dissatisfaction, conflict, or corruption within the group. This allows external or internal forces of justice to emerge, leading to a change in power. The ethics attached to that power changes along with it.
Religion as the First Systematic Ethics Religion was the earliest form of systematic ethics, and it sanctified those rules. Often, it was enough to attribute certain moral principles aligned with good to the gods in order to form ethics. In this way, people were spared from questioning the rationality of ethics, since it was decreed by a being higher than human wisdom and ability. Public doubt thus became unreasonable.
Religion has always been tied to power. Whoever controls the interpretation and revision of ethics can consolidate authority. Later, divine power came to serve royal power. Many religious concepts are related to the maintenance of authority.
The afterlife—heaven and hell—teaches that the good ascend to bliss while the evil descend to torment. Reincarnation teaches that karma determines whether one enters higher or lower realms. These ideas often merge with the afterlife: judgment first, then rebirth. Original sin, for example, means that humanity is indebted to God.
Applied in the secular world, these concepts encourage fear of death, increase tolerance of suffering, ensure abundant labor, discourage the lower classes from criticizing unreflective reproduction, and prevent them from questioning the fairness of class boundaries or treatment. Especially pernicious is the idea that all suffering is one’s own fault—an irrational attribution that suppresses reflection and demands, greatly stabilizing society and reducing the distribution of resources to the lower strata, in line with the interests of those in power.
The Dual Role of Religion Of course, religion is not merely a tool of power. It also has positive functions:
Helping people face death
Encouraging moral behavior
Providing a degree of social welfare
Offering psychological comfort
These functions both support authority and benefit the masses.
In my view, religion is a transitional product in humanity’s path toward modernity. The benefits religion provides can also be found elsewhere, but the harms it produces are not necessarily replicated elsewhere.