How do films deal with these questions?

Films deal with these questions similar to how literature does. The way film portrays good and evil characters in every movie is different from each other. In some movies, they show the evil character as the “good” in the beginning then reveal the evil side by the end of the movie. For example in the movie “Bloody Valentine”, there is a certain fascination in the irony of the show which twists the idea of a pristine, lovey-dovey valentine into a disturbing pornographic gore fest of fear and dread. In the movie, it was shown that Tom is a good person, but at the end of the movie, we find out how he is the murderer that killed a lot of people and that was the horrid truth.

The term one-dimensional is frequently applied to characters that show little variation in their actions and little depth in their personalities. Classic examples of one-dimensional are the characters in the Dudley Do-Right series that played during The Bullwinkle Show, namely, Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties, the evil Snidely Whiplash, and sweet Nell Fenwick. Dudley always did good; Snidely always did evil; and Nell was always sweet. This is the typical setup of many mellerdrammers with good versus evil scenarios. In films, they create characters with depth, so that the audience can identify characters that elicit sympathy because then the audience can relate and say, "I know that person," or "I met a person like that once," or "I am that person."

Films create different types of mood when someone is doing an evil or a good act. For example in the movie Dark Knight, whenever the good character showed up, the use of light was brighter, the music sounded like a heroic theme, the camera angles to show good characters are always different. However, when they show an evil character, the evil character usually talks with a lower tone of voice, or uses more exaggerated facial expressions and the setting seems more dull and darker. It’s a universal subject when it comes to portraying good and evil in films. In essence it is made clear who is the evil character or the good character in films just like in literature.

How does literature deal with these questions?

Good versus evil is a very common theme in many different types of literature. The conflict between good and evil is one of the most common conventional themes in literature, and is sometimes considered to be a universal part of the human condition. There are several variations on this conflict, one being the battle between individuals or ideologies, with one side good, the other evil. While certainly not as widely seen as the direct good vs. evil conflict, the concept of "individual vs. self" is often much more compelling to a reader/watcher, especially if it is the protagonist. In literature it requires well-written character development in order to truly succeed. The most of the novels, the main character is the “good” one and the protagonist is the evil one. It depends on what kind of conflict it is for example a person versus another person or a person versus the society and etc.

In literature the characters are clearly portrayed as evil or good, usually by the end of the story the reader knows which character is evil or not. For instance the Harry Potter books’ dramatic portray of a fight between good and evil gives general outline of what evil is, particularly moral evil. The books portray evil by using three main concepts, evil is privation or a deformity parasitic on something good, evil due to this weakness, must accordingly mask itself by deceit; and moral evil can only really exist as the result of free choice. However many people might view it differently for example they might think that potter books show that evil doesn’t really exist. Evil does not really exist in itself, but is a privation, a lacking in what something is supposed to be. It is a lacking of what is good.

Many people believe simply believe evil characters are the ones that makes the story interesting. Unlike much of modern literature and media, Tolkien attempts, and succeeds, in portraying goodness as interesting, and evil as boring. Many young people in modern society have a tendency to view evil as interesting and exciting, and good as dull and boring. All that many young people know about evil is what they see on TV and in the movies, or read in novels. Tolkien, however, has captured the minds and hearts of many modern youth, and has succeeded in making them see the interesting side of goodness. How Tolkien accomplishes this is essentially very simple. Tolkien portrays good and evil accurately rather than how they are often portrayed in the movies. In modern movies, even heroes have a "Bad side". It is the portrayal of evil as "cool" in the media that leaves many youth with that false impression. For example, the most recent star wars movies create this view of evil. Darth Vader is evil, but he has "cool" powers such as lightning bolts that the good Jedi's do not have. Tolkien, however, exposes evil for what it truly is, boring, repetitive, and miserable.

How do various religions/philosophies deal with these questions?

Good and evil are based on people’s opinion and what type of environment they grew up in. Every religion and philosophers have their own views with many differences and similarities. Some philosophers believe that there is no such thing as good and evil. Plato believed that in reincarnation there were no eternal rewards or punishments except for an evil few who were not allowed out of Hades. All the others had to face the prospect of their next life, and they were given the opportunity to choose the character of their next life from a variety of alternatives. Also another philosopher, John Locke said people were born as good. However Thomas Hobbes was against that idea and said that people were born evil.

In my limited studies of religion, I have discovered that the Eastern religions have a similar view of evil and view it as a duality of good. Evil has no real existence, being part of the illusory world of phenomena. Hinduism sees evil in a light similar to that of Taoism, that it is part of the continuity of life. It is understood that all that is created, including life and this earth, must inevitably be destroyed. In Buddhism, there is no particular dealing with evil. Rather it is just another aspect of suffering. Once one is aware of oneself then one will recognize that one is capable of evil only in ignorance. Suffering and pain can be ended through the pursuit of truth and self knowledge. Like Hinduism, Buddhism sees evil in light of the whole of creation. We are not individuals, but rather a part of a whole and as such it does behoove us to understand evil and to attempt to eliminate it from our lives and that of others in general.

Similar to the eastern religions, the monotheistic religions share a common view of evil as they are borne of a common history. A main tenant of Islam, Judaism and Christianity is that of God’s gift to man of free will. God is understood to be all benevolence and any evil that may arise on earth is a manifestation of humans’ wrong decisions. The problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is used as the basis for atheism. Because God and evil are incompatible, and evil surely exists, there must be no God. Overall, though different religions and philosophers deal with good and evil differently, they also have many similarities.

Can good characters engender judgment?

Yes, good characters can definitely engender judgment. Anybody can be judged for their evil behavior. The word evil refers to the idea some people entertain that there is some extra-human type of force that guides humanity to act in a manner that harms other people. All our "good" motivations are based on carnality, materialism, selfishness and therefore rely on evil.

If a “good” person is doing wrong, then people will definitely judge their evil behaviors. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist, conducted an experiment at Stanford University during 1971 to offer a setting where good individuals become bad, as described in the quotation, “Zimbardo conducted a now-famous experiment at Stanford University in 1971, involving students who posed as prisoners and guards. Five days into the experiment, Zimbardo halted the study when the student guards began abusing the prisoners, forcing them to strip naked and simulate sex acts”.

Overall we must recognize and accept that we have some evilness in us for example being selfish or greedy. When we accept this and understand how this works then the good within us can become all the more greater and expressible. Without this embrace of our evil sides we are imbalanced and not capable of fully realizing our "good" potential. More worryingly without accepting our evil side we will not perceive accurately what good itself is and stray.

Can evil characters engender sympathy?

Every individual can engender sympathy, even if they are the most evil person in the world. B.F Skinner believed that people are the way they are because of positive and negative reinforcement. For example if Max says hi to Mike and Mike gives Max a friendly smile, Max will likely to say hi the next time he sees Mike. However if Mike ignored Max and walked away, Max would act differently. An evil person can engender sympathy if he/she gets positive reinforcement and will realize what he has done wrong.

Every person has their good and bad side in them. For example in the game Fallout 3 it’s possible for an evil character to turn good. To turn the evil characters into good character, you just have to gain back good karma for instance by giving purified water to those who ask for it outside of large cities like megaton and rivet city, and just in general doing the right thing when you complete quests. Like what Buddha said, if you do good and give out positive energy then automatically you are considered ads good.

When an environment is negative enough, people try to seek for the good which is why many individuals are considered as evil. There are many cases when an evil character realizes what he/she is doing is wrong and changes his/her behaviour. For example in the movie Troy, Achilles falls in love with the virgin girl and realizes that he wants to live and have a family instead of dying as the greatest war hero that will be remembered timelessly even though Hector kills his cousin which leads him back into the war. Also in Iron man, the main character stops making war weapons because he realized what they do when they are in the wrong hands.

Are there clearly defined roles?

There are no cleared defined roles of the good and evil. Nobody is 100% evil and 100% good. Every individual has its good and the evil side. Every individual has their own view of how they look at doing good or evil as.

There is no conscious knowledge of good and evil and of the difference between them and their behaviour is like that of their primitive ancestors. Their behaviour is stated and condemned as evil. For example the comic books we read about watchmen and the batman book, there weren’t the evil or the good characters. It was hard to portray which characters were evil. Every character can be looked at as an evil person or a good person. For instance when Rorschach was searching around to find out who killed the comedian, it seemed as if he was doing the good. However the scene when he went into a bar, he overheard a guy talking about him so he twisted his index finger. This scene could be seen as evil because he harmed another person, but it can also be seen as “watch out what you are saying” which is good because he is teaching that man a lesson.

Overall, there are no clearly defined roles of good and evil. Good can be seen as evil and evil can be seen as the good. It’s really up to how an individual portrays the character or a situation. For example if a person grew up in an hostile environment when he has been tortured and beaten all his life by a group of people, and he takes revenge later on when he is grown up. This can be seen as the good because it is karma and the group of people deserve the punishment but it can be also looked as the “evil” since he is harming that group.

The nature of evil

Evil is the opposite of the nature of good. It’s a subjective matter when it comes to the nature of evil. Everyone thinks and looks at things in different ways. To some people, what might be “evil”, to another person it might be the good. Freud believed, we have three parts to our mind, the ego, the Id and the superego. Ego is what we are aware of such as what’s possible and what’s impossible to do. The id is an important part of our personality because as newborns, it allows us to get our basic needs met. In other words, the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. When a person is hungry, he/she will get food as soon as possible in any way. For example when it comes to a poor person trying to steal something, it’s the id that controls his actions. It can be seen as “evil” by others, but for that individual it’s a need (something that will make him feel good).

In psychological terms, evil is an aberration of the ego. An evil ego has a strong desire to control other egos. An evil person knows that fear is the most effective way to rule other people because terror induces unbearable fear. People who are stricken with fear cannot take effective action to defend themselves and while they are in that state, an evil person can do anything they want to do to them. This aberration of the ego can be termed "sick" because the ego will inflict pain and suffering in order to experience the joy and thrill of being in total control. When someone is doing something “evil”, they are fully aware of what’s going on and very careful so they don’t get fail to do a bad deed. For example in 911, when Osama Bin Laden planned the terrorist act, he planned it very carefully and trained numbers of people to make sure the plan is successful.


Evil can be also defined as having a harmful intent. Knowing an action is wrong but wanting to do it anyway is also evil. In law, people still get charged if they have the intention to kill someone or to steal something. Having the motivation to do something and doing it, is the same. Sometimes if one particular thing of a group is evil, the whole group is “evil” as well. Germany can be considered "evil" because of Hitler. America can be considered "evil" because of bush helping with wars etc. England and France can be considered "evil" because of their many wars in the past.
Evil is a subjective term. It means different things to different people. China thinks the west is 'evil' because to them, individuality and even individual needs should take a back seat to the needs of the community and society. In china, conformity is prized while individuality is not very important. The West finds this strange and could not imagine living that way so we look down on them and when we examine the more dramatic examples of this way of thinking; we are shocked and call them an 'evil country.' It goes both ways.

In the end, we each define what we consider to be evil and who we think is evil. In most cases, we share most if not all of our ideas of what is evil with our peers and that is how we get a social understanding of evil, but regardless of if you are talking about individual ideas and concepts of evil or 'evil' countries and groups, the term itself is subjective and open for interpretation. In my personal opinion, evil should be defined as: Actions and inactions resulting from intentional and unrepentant ignorance, indolence, gluttony, bigotry, profligacy and cowardice.

What is the nature of good?

There have been debates over this topic for years and years. Everyone thinks differently and have a different opinion on the nature of good. However to me the nature of good is to not harm anyone in any way. The nature of good is to simply when you make another individual happy. Also, if an individual does something fairly, or that’s justified, it’s considered as good. Many views value unity as a good: to go beyond eudemonia by saying that an individual person's flourishing is valuable only as a means to the flourishing of society as a whole. In other words, a single person's life is, ultimately, not important or worthwhile in itself, but is good only as a means to the success of society as a whole.

In some cases, good is when you don’t go against something. For example not going against the law is a good thing. If you ask anybody is helping a good thing or bad. The answer would be a yes simply because it’s a cause that won’t harm but make the other individual happy. Good in other words to make someone else happy by doing the “right” thing.

Subjective or universal

It’s mainly subjective that constitutes evil and good simply because everyone thinks differently on this planet. Good and evil are quality judgments, just like hot and cold, light and dark, and near and far are quality judgments. Quality judgments are evaluations that we humans make relative to our own experience as human beings. Hot is what is hot to us. Far is what is far to us. Good is what is good to us. Evil is what is bad to us. Good and evil are quality judgments that we make relative to ourselves and our experiences here on Earth.

In some cases something that may seem good to us, may be wrong to someone else. For example, in western countries it’s seen as a good friendly relationship if a girl were to hug a guy. However in the Middle East if a girl was to give a guy a hug, the society would look at it the wrong way. It depends on how a society has been brought up and how their culture view good and evil as.