Breathe
By Marilú Acosta
Are human beings naturally good or evil? Immanuel Kant (Prussia, 1724 - 1804) contradicts the tradition of good and evil as opposing and equal forces that constantly struggle, by proposing evil as a negative principle (it lacks something in order to be), not autonomous (it does not exist by itself). What it lacks is free will. If evil were an autonomous positive principle that could determine humanity, Kant thinks, free will would lose its raison d'être. That is to say, if evil existed by itself, then the human being could not choose evil, evil would be choosing him. Therefore, evil is exclusively in the realm of morality and morality can only be generated within free will. Without freedom there is no morality. Without morality there is no evil. On the other hand, Kant's good is an essential principle, unique, positive (it does not require free will), and autonomous (it acts by itself). They are not absolute, because they cannot exist one without the other. Evil cannot be conceived, understood and observed except from good. For Buddhism, they are not absolute qualities either, but relative, and it goes further than Kant, because Buddhism lacks a moral code, good and evil are also relative because they are not given a value to the person, nor to the actions, but to the consequences and the origin of the decision. Yes, also in Buddhism free will is essential, because when a decision is made from a conscience of selfishness, lack of respect for life, or to break the social fabric, the consequences can be judged as bad. If it is done from the four immeasurable attitudes, like the enlightened, then the consequences are good. Returning to Kant, if this were a coin, on one side is good and on the other side is evil, as an opposite reflection; for good is a universal regulator of human behavior, ethics, morality and logic allow him to discern good from evil. Evil is an incomplete, limited good, chosen through free will.
