Ethics as “Practical Philosophy”

Categories of Ethics and Concepts of Moral Consciousness

The Categories of Good and Evil as Absolute Coordinates of Morality

The essence, peculiarities, and content of higher moral values are explored through the primary categories of ethics and the concepts of moral consciousness: good and evil, freedom and responsibility, duty, conscience, honor and dignity, the meaning of life, love, and happiness.

Good and evil are universal concepts of moral consciousness, notions of a high degree of generalization, representing the ultimate characteristics of the human world, expressing the fundamental orientations of moral awareness. These categories serve as the absolute coordinates of morality, and the opposition between good and evil is realized through human decisions, actions, and evaluations. Good and evil, as moral concepts, are intimately tied to the inner and spiritual experiences of the individual, existing through this very experience. The presence of good and evil as alternatives of human choice testifies to the individual’s capacity for decision-making, revealing the significance of human life and the ability of the person to discover their own self.

Good and evil are the most important categories in ethics. Good is the primary moral value, often associated with the notion of the summum bonum—the highest good. The highest good is understood as the perfection of both societal relations and the individual self, meaning the development of humanity and human nature. Thus, any action that promotes this development is considered good, while anything that hinders it is deemed evil. The highest good is an ultimate end, one that cannot serve as a means to anything else.

The generic terms for good and evil are the positive and the negative. At a first approximation, good is associated with life, flourishing, fullness of being, and harmonious interaction with the surrounding world. Good is what is beautiful, worthy of praise, and admirable. It also relates to the concepts of kindness and virtue.

Kindness expresses itself in practical life, in a person’s behavior, and it characterizes an individual as a person. We call someone kind who brings good to others, understood as love, assistance, and benevolence. A kind person is never aggressive and never imposes goodness by force, always allowing others the freedom of choice. Thus, it is impossible to be "kind" in one’s heart while acting cruelly, harshly, or authoritatively in practice—such behavior destroys the essence of kindness. Kindness is linked to the capacity to sacrifice one’s own interests and ambitions for the good of another; it is fundamentally unselfish.

Virtue, however, is not identical to kindness. Virtue refers to morally praiseworthy human qualities, and these vary significantly across different cultures and eras. Within a particular moral system, virtues express different facets of "the good." Virtues are not simply innate but are cultivated within individuals. Every society and culture develops mechanisms for fostering highly valuable moral qualities necessary for the survival and development of the community as a whole.

At opposite poles of embodying the good, we find the philanthropist and the ascetic.

Evil, as the opposite of good, presents itself as an absolute contradiction to it. The very understanding of evil shapes the definition of good. Evil, in the broadest sense, is that which opposes the good and is thus evaluated negatively. If the key components of good include pleasure, truth, utility, beauty, and moral right, then evil unites suffering, falsehood, harm, ugliness, and immorality.

Evil is what destroys life and human well-being. It manifests through destruction, oppression, and degradation. Evil is destructive, leading to disintegration, alienation between people, and separation from the life-giving sources of being, ultimately resulting in death.

If we consider the empirical side of human existence, the evil present in the world can be categorized into three types: 1) physical or natural evil; 2) evil in social processes; and 3) moral evil.

Physical or natural evil refers to natural disasters that destroy our well-being (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, epidemics, and common illnesses). Historically, natural evil was beyond human will and consciousness, as biological and geological processes occurred outside human desires or actions. However, even today, there are teachings that claim negative human emotions, such as anger, hatred, and malice, create subtle vibrations within the cosmos, provoking and triggering natural disasters. In this sense, the spiritual world of humanity is closely linked to natural evil. Religion has long echoed this belief, asserting that physical calamities are manifestations of divine wrath, a punishment for the misdeeds of humanity.

In the modern world, however, many instances of "natural evil" are increasingly tied to human activity, particularly through ecological imbalances and environmental degradation. Nevertheless, natural disasters are not always directly related to individual human behavior or will.

Evil in social processes, though carried out with the participation of human consciousness, often transcends it. For example, social alienation, manifesting as social stratification, breeds hatred, violence, envy, and disdain. Likewise, the objective conflict of interests, such as competition for land and resources, results in aggression and wars, drawing many people into its vortex beyond their will. One can be a morally upstanding, virtuous person and still, through the vicissitudes of fate, find themselves in the midst of social evil—at war, in revolution, or in slavery. Yet, some thinkers attribute social evil to deeper human failings as its ultimate source.

Moral evil, in the strict sense, refers to the evil carried out with direct human intent and will. It occurs through a person’s choice or through their avoidance of a crucial decision when they are expected to act in a humane manner.

Contemporary researchers identify two primary forms of moral evil—hostility and depravity, which unfold in human vices.

Hostility includes aggression, violence, anger, destruction, hatred, and the desire for another’s downfall or oppression. This form of evil is active, energetic, and directed outward, seeking to destroy another’s life and well-being. A hostile individual consciously aims to cause harm, damage, suffering, and humiliation to others. Depravity, on the other hand, encompasses a different set of human weaknesses, such as cowardice, laziness, servility, and the inability to control one’s impulses and desires. This kind of person easily succumbs to temptation. Depravity also includes greed, lust, and an insatiable desire for various pleasures. In essence, the entire history of moral development is a relentless struggle against depravity.

It is generally believed that individuals are neither inherently good nor evil. By nature, humans are equally capable of both good and evil. What is ethically valuable is the act of choosing good over evil in any given situation, but always by free choice.

Nevertheless, when we assess actions and intentions in the coordinates of good and evil, we encounter certain nuances. As R. Apressyan emphasizes, from a moral standpoint, the harm caused by evil weighs more heavily than the benefits of good. Preventing injustice, morally speaking, is more crucial than performing acts of mercy; the evil of injustice is more destructive to society than the good of mercy is creative.

There is a difference between committing good or evil and allowing evil to occur (whether by others or by circumstances). In moral consciousness, enabling evil is equated with creating it, while merely "permitting" good is viewed as morally neutral. By contrast, "promoting good" is perceived by moral consciousness as a moral duty.

In situations of conflict, an individual sees their task as making the correct and worthy choice. Often, the decision does not fall within a simple opposition of good and evil; rather, one must choose between a greater and lesser good or a greater and lesser evil. It is easy to choose between greater and lesser goods, but the choice of the lesser evil is especially difficult and tragic, as it inevitably results in some degree of harm.

Thus, good and evil characterize intentional actions realized through free choice—that is, moral actions. Good and evil denote not just free actions, but those consciously aligned with a certain standard—ultimately, with the highest good, the ideal.