Abstract

Change dictates adaptation. Through changes, more advantageous traits are selected, while other traits decay and fade into oblivion. Humans exhibit a remarkable capacity for adaptation, often considered the pinnacle of evolution. They are simultaneously fragile and resilient, growing stronger through collective efforts and any challenges that don't annihilate them. Humans learn from their mistakes and those of their fellow beings. The most significant distinction between animals and the human species is thinking. Humans possess a long-term perspective. When ensnared, an animal might sever its limb to escape, while a human endures the pain to eliminate a threat to their species. This is why dehumanization stems from the inherent "human" nature; any individual solely seeking personal gain is akin to an animal. In the grand scheme, a single organism is a mere fraction of a blink, thus selfishness epitomizes short-term thinking, dividing humanity into animal and human stock. But, where does the selfish nature of humans originate? We distinguish ourselves from animals due to our egocentric tendencies. Let's continue with this analogy: selfishness is not exclusive to humans; it's also observable in animals. Both stocks share this intrinsic characteristic, unmanufactured by humans. This raises the question: how did selfishness exist in animals from the outset? This inclination results from the perception that entity A is more advantageous than entity B, leading A to take actions against B to hinder its progress. This brings us to the origin of kindness and "good values," which do not simply emerge on their own but are rooted in fear. If entity B fears entity A, B will attempt to persuade A not to harm it. This mechanism evolved into what we now recognize as "good behavior." Fear instilled manners in living beings from the beginning, and through generational experiences, they discovered that fear-induced kindness was more effective than malevolence. This approach became the prevailing norm among humans and animals, categorizing those who didn't follow suit as "evil." The origins of good and evil can be elucidated by posing a simple question: if human and animal nature were inherently good, where does evil come from? Though it doesn't provide a definitive answer, it offers a plausible explanation. Within a community, an evil disposition proves disadvantageous. Early organisms and humans recognized this, prompting a shift towards excluding "evil" individuals from the community. Humans realized that "good" behavior was valuable not only in counteracting evil but also in facilitating peaceful interactions. Peaceful trade became prevalent, leading naturally born "evil" individuals, who sought personal gain, to be ostracized from the community. This compelled them to conceal and regulate their innate malevolence. In this manner, the origin of evil is fundamentally natural, a trait shared by a certain percentage of all beings, humans and animals alike. With their intricate minds, humans transformed the concepts of "fear" and "selfishness" into "good" and "evil," respectively. In conclusion, both good and evil are intricate concepts, and so are their origins. The question of whether humans are born with these traits or molded by them is explored in this article. It presents the notion that evil predates good and that good is a socially constructed concept designed to counterbalance evil within a community.