The notions of “good” and “evil” are intimately linked to the notions of “life” and “death”. In olden days, when human activities were simpler, edible mushrooms had to be picked, that was “good”, while poisonous ones were “evil.” You had to kill the bear rather than be devoured by it. These notions of “good” and “evil” were clear, although subjective. Killing Pyrenean bears is the very example of what must no longer be done today if one is striving for the common good.

In the Middle Ages, monks would clear the land left and right. They would cut down trees to prepare the soil and cultivate it. What they did was “good.” Today, critics abound against the Brazilian deforestations which upset the rainfall regime. The ensuing droughts starve the small Northeast farmers. Clearing the land is “bad.”

Are the notions of “good” and “evil” fluctuating, or subject to temporary fashions? Actually, these notions also depend on which referential system we choose. When we judge situations subjectively, in relation to ourselves, when the bear is seen as a threat to our life or property, we kill it. On the other hand, when we judge situations objectively, in relation to what IS, in relation to an unbalanced nature, the concern for bringing balance back to nature demands that we protect the bear. Therein lies the entire difference between a “subjective” or self-referring system and an “objective” one. The subjective referential system generates tensions between individuals and even between nations. It encourages a spirit of competition. However, there are situations wherein the individual must take care of himself to survive and to maintain his autonomy as long as possible, so as to avoid being a burden to others. The choice of an objective or subjective referential system depends on the context and, in some cases, “Freedom of conscience” – albeit subjective – assumes its full meaning for individuals.

On the other hand, a national or international institution whose declared objective is a form of common good needs an objective ethical system; a subjective ethical system such as that used by millions of individuals has no place. An institution must define for itself an objective ethical system meant to serve the community. It needs not concern itself with its reproduction; its own survival should depend solely on its ability to promote the common good.

In human and international relations, failure to respect the principles of “equality to be”, of reciprocity, proportionality, and responsibility, leads us from symmetry to dissymmetry. It is a natural slope which creates tensions. These increase as we move away from symmetry; thus, suffering, hate, injustice, even violence, increase in the same proportion. It is the beginning of evil.

Generally, I note that good spreads out around symmetry, while evil grows on the path of dissymmetry and eventually ends up spitting its venom into the asymmetry of relations and force ratios.

Suffering and shame allow people to become aware of an asymmetry, and therefore to react. Doing good is first and foremost choosing a coherent referential system, and then deciding to reduce tensions by moving towards symmetry, even if one never reaches it. Doing good is a path one follows, an impulse one gives, a direction one chooses. A certain well-being immediately results from this tension-reducing impulse. This well-being appears as soon as the tendency towards dissymmetry is reversed, which marks the rebirth of the hope to recover balance, peace, justice, health, happiness, pride.

As with truth, the principle of non-contradiction applies. One cannot do good here by doing evil elsewhere in the name of efficiency. That would be incongruous.