Are morals just a societal norm? It’s amazing how the values of what is considered righteous have persisted for thousands of years, almost being embedded in our nature. It is common for people to assume that it is solely due to divine guidance that we have developed an understanding of what is inherently good. But I suppose, logically, we can conclude whether something is “good” or “bad” based on the consequences it yields. Yet this gives rise to another question—what makes the consequences considered virtuous?
Well—virtuous consequences mean that they objectively satisfy someone's need or desire—make them happy and fulfilled—and, in a bigger picture, foster harmony. And since the majority of us find similar joys in life, it was easier for us to come to the same page on virtues.
But this makes me want to ask something controversial—we can’t ignore the existence of beings who find pleasure in torture, in murder, and in other unspeakable acts—so what about them?
Let’s say we have a new world that was inhabited solely by the sort—what would that look like?
A world inhabited solely by those who delight in cruelty would quickly collapse into chaos. Without even the illusion of compassion or trust, every being would turn against the other in an endless pursuit of dominance. Pleasure would become meaningless, swallowed by constant violence and betrayal. In a place where agony is the only currency, even the tormentors would eventually become the tormented, trapped in a grim cycle of self-destruction.
Perhaps that is the true irony: when evil stands alone, it devours itself. Without goodness to oppose, darkness has nothing left to define it—and the world crumbles into a void where even suffering loses its taste.