In the Eye of the Beholder: Good vs. Evil

True benevolence is impossible. Even the wonderful Leah Kleppinger charitable gesture is not an act of pure selflessness. Why? Because even if it is not tangible, humans seek rewards and abhor discomfort. I challenge anybody to find a supposedly "selfless" act that contains no incentive for doing whatever it is they did. If Ms. Kleppinger didn't return the wallet, she may have experienced that gnawing feeling of guilt that coincides with it. So instead she did return it, treating herself to a healthy serving of internal gratification.

But now, the question is one that lies in the realm of morality. Does the idea that a charitable person is actually doing it for some personal gain make the action less good? I wouldn't say so. It is a generous effort regardless of the presence of a reward. Or so I think. Another might use the notion that altruism is impossible to argue that good and evil are also impossible since both heroes' and villains' actions lie in self-gratification.

So where can the line be drawn, if one person cannot be wholly good or wholly evil? Can said line even be drawn at all? Here's an analogy: a theocratic authoritarian ruler is persecuting nonbelievers, sending soldiers to find them one-by-one to execute them. Being an atheistic libertarian, I obviously would see such a person as incredibly evil. Keeping my perspective in mind, look now at the situation from the ruler's point of view. He believes that he is doing the right thing, that he is doing only good. His god will be pleased with what he has done by ridding the world of those blasphemous naysayers. Am I wrong, or is he? Neither. We're both right, and therefore we both view ourselves as good, and we view the opposite as bad. Good and evil are in the eyes of the beholder, and as such, one cannot make an objective distinction between whether somebody is one or the other.