Final answer:
The portrayal of GOOD vs EVIL is often complex and situational, involving an understanding that these concepts may be human constructs, which can vary over time and place. Philosophical perspectives complicate the definitions, arguing that what is considered morally evil may ultimately contribute to the 'good' in an all-perfect deity's creation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept of GOOD vs EVIL is addressed in literature, philosophy, and religious texts, generating deep and nuanced discussions about morality and ethics. In examining good and evil, philosophical inquiry often refuses to accept simplistic definitions, pushing for a deeper understanding beyond deity perspectives or mysterious realms. One perspective sees moral evil as part of a grand totality that ultimately contributes to the "good," an idea largely beyond human comprehension. Transforming the Idea of Evil, a concept suggests that what we perceive as evil may actually be a necessary aspect of the best possible world as seen by an all-perfect deity. This viewpoint implies that good and evil are human constructs and that, from a divine perspective, what is termed evil could be essential to a greater purpose that we cannot perceive.
Furthermore, the philosophical discussion considers whether actions typically regarded as evil are truly so if commanded or executed by a deity, referencing challenging scenarios from biblical stories. Additionally, thinkers like Nietzsche have posited that the notion of evil arises from the negation of natural merit, leading to moral good being defined as the avoidance of evil. This lends the perspective that good and evil are contingent on societal norms and psychological processes rather than absolute truths.
Ultimately, it is suggested that what is labeled as good or evil may vary over time and place, and understanding this can be likened to the process of scientific modeling—helpful for human comprehension but not necessarily indicative of inherent universal truths. Therefore, notions of good and evil can be seen as dynamic and human-centric abstractions, subject to change and interpretation.