Internal Definition and Circumstance

Is a person good or bad? Can a person inherently be a good, or a bad, person? This paper - this thought - was an attempt at answering the question. The basic premises of the thought are two things: internal definition and circumstance. First, to define the concept of internal definition. Internal definition is the moral definition of “good” and “bad” in a person’s mind. This shows not only their judgement but their thought process with respect to the world of morality. As most things in the world of philosophy are, this is a large hidden variable we can only infer things from but never truly see. Internal definition grows and matures within the subject and is a result of their upbringing, interactions, thoughts, beliefs, and, funnily enough, circumstance. Thus, it is possible to say internal definition is a subset of a larger set that is circumstance. However, solely at this point (let it be noted), this wouldn’t be entirely accurate because the circumstance this paper discusses is not an internal circumstance that produces a particular internal definition; it is circumstance that determines a particular mindset that influences internal definition to come into play in the first place.

Now, to define circumstance. In the case of this paper, circumstance should be defined as an event, or a series of events, that affect or alter the mental state of the subject in question. More often than not, it is human nature to be affected by events in life - be it positive or negative. I would not usually be so quick to resort to examples but human behaviour is best described with modern human life. Taking a one-line example of a high- school going child who fails a test, gets in trouble with the principal, and loses a football game all in the same day. The demeanour of that child in the foreseeable, albeit temporary, future will be negatively charged and perhaps unpleasant.

Moving onto a fictitious case study, we can explore the moral dilemma humans can encounter whilst trying to categorise other humans as either good or bad. Imagine the following scenario and empathise — a man is the victim of a hate crime and his family is the target. He is the sole survivor and this is his punishment. This man seeks vengeance as his redemption. Living alone with the memories of his family’s voices still in their house and the laughs of his enemies ringing in his ears. What is justified? Is there sufficient justice at all? Would this man be considered bad because he wishes to commit a crime to avenge another crime? Or would he be understood because his loved ones were snatched from him and he would be gifted the right to avenge them? Could he, perhaps, be considered noble in the eyes of people who believe that “justice does not descend from its pinnacle”? This debate lies in the eye of the observer - the unofficial judge of character and circumstance. Here is where internal definition lies. According to the observer viewing this situation, the matter rests on the ledge of their internal definition. What lies within their sphere of good until it spills over the edge into evil.

Simply where internal definition lies, circumstance lies too. If the observer has been in a position even remotely relatable to the subject in question, he/she will empathise to the situation and understand it, leaning more closely towards good or neutral as compared to bad. On the contrary, if the circumstance of the subject is lost on the observer, they are more likely to see the crime in the plainest sense anyone could: a crime. Thus, they would lean towards deeming it bad. Put concisely, internal definition and circumstance plague both the subject and the observer with respect to a moral dilemma. In the case of the subject, circumstance is first in the order of causality in order for internal definition to exist or be triggered. This internal definition causes the self to determine whether what they are doing would be categorised as good or bad. In the case of the observer, the subject’s circumstance must, again, occur first. If circumstances do not occur, the position to use internal definition is voided entirely. Hence, in this case, it is fair to say the use of internal definition is dependent on the occurrence of events, or circumstance.

In my personal opinion, I believe the definition of good and bad to be fluid based on the above two-pronged theory. No person comes hardwired with a static personality that is immune to change due to circumstance or thought processes. Thus, it is up to internal definition and circumstance in a human’s life that distinguishes between an impractical universal model of good and bad.