nuntius wrote:However, I'm reversing the concept by saying, what if our society took "evilness" or "badness" as a main direction in life, if it is soiled with goodness, isn't the "evilness" no longer evil? Why can't the reverse in logic work for evil, why just good? Or can it be argued?
That's an interesting line of thought.
nuntius wrote:If a good tree produces bad fruit, then is that tree actually bad and not good, for a good tree would never produce bad fruit to begin with, and so, the tree itself is evil.
fruit goes bad eventually.
The problem with this reasoning is that it is too simpleminded, "good" and "bad" are not binary opposites.
Why should I call a tree "bad" just because it doesn't produce any fruit that I can eat? As if the tree were put here just for me. My lunch tree!
Whales don't produce any fruit that I can eat, either... does that make them bad?
All joking aside, it's interesting that foods are used as metaphors for good and evil. Distinguishing good food from bad is a terrifically important survival skill, now and in the past.
Nowadays we would never call a rotten apple "evil" in the moral sense, but perhaps in earlier times people were not inclined to make this distinction. A bad apple was an evil apple, perhaps. In fact I'm not sure where the metaphor here is, originally -- is food a metaphor for morality, or is morality metaphor for food?
(Note that I am not questioning the reality of morality -- I am just speculating idly about the use of metaphor in language.)
It's certainly true that one bit of bad food in a pot of soup will generally spoil the whole pot, and it doesn't matter much how good the rest of it is.