Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
March 12, 2022
As I wrote in the Epilogue of The Essential Aesop, “The Wolf just wants to eat dinner, and the Lamb just wants not to be eaten for dinner.” [1] Perhaps it is rather Nietzscheish, but the Lamb is not “good,” and the Wolf is not “evil.” Each is simply furthering its own natural self-interest. [2]
Living sentient things tend to have natural inclinations of self-interest: survival, reproduction, comfort by attraction to pleasure and avoidance of pain. We can provide more detail to these things as baggage on the essential concept, and yet the core essence remains. [3, 4, 5]
It is appropriate to characterize the Wolf as “predator” and the Lamb as “prey” by common definition. [6] And, with a more humanly socially aware legal context, it may be appropriate to say the Lamb is a “victim” of the Wolf’s self-interested “aggression.”
But, to be secularly intellectually analytically correct, the Wolf is not “evil.” [7] Calling something “evil” is not a construct in nature—nature simply implements rules of attraction and aversion, with consequences. The construct of something “evil” is one perspective of social morality relative to something else; that is—such as what is “beautiful” and what is “ugly”—calling something “evil” is a moral judgment in the eye of the beholder. Not only that, but also what is “evil” in one culture is “good” in another culture. Some people think it is “evil” to wear leather shoes. So, in truth, good and evil are sloppily all over the place, in principle, in application, in location, and in time. [8]
It is understandably hard for the common human mind not to associate “evil” with a thing that is hurtful to its own self-interest, values, or set of personal principles. Certainly, a deranged human serial killer might be called “evil” within the framework of “the work of the devil,” which is, of course, not a temporal conclusion, but one resting upon a judgment framed in morality, deities and religion.
Saying something is “evil” is a weak, easy, and sloppy excuse from thinking objectively. Indeed, thinking tends to stop at that point, because the conclusive condemnation by judgment has already occurred. “Evil” only occurs with judgment first.
The primary purpose of use of the relative terms “good” and “evil” in conversation or debate is often rhetoric. Saying that the Soviet Union is the “Evil Empire” or “We fight for God,” [9] is rhetorically purposed to attack the listener’s bias, pride, and prejudice by one moral perspective as distinguished from another moral perspective. It preys upon human weak inclination: “Don’t think about it too much, they’re not like we are, they are just crazy evil.” It goes without saying that the speakers are conclusively self-righteous about their own absolute goodness, noting that the purpose is often their own self-interest or validation.
Following is a complex concept that few people may have the capacity to understand—or if having the capacity to understand, will emotionally desire to adopt, finding it repulsive to self; to wit:
Many disputes and conflicts are not one “good” principle held by self, versus an “evil” principle held by another, but, rather, one “good” principle as believed by self, versus another “good” principle as believed by another.
If I show you a picture of a Hobbit facing an Orc and asked which one was “good” and which one was “evil,” you would say the Hobbit is good and the Orc is evil; but, wait, I did not tell you: You are the Orc. [10, 11]
“Evil” (or, similarly, “bad”) could be used with an unusual and very constrained definition apart from the invocation of morality, god (or the gods), and religion, but that is not the usual connotation; indeed, the phraseology tends to invoke the concept as “god is on our side” because, well, “we are good and they are evil.”
To some, the concept of “one good versus another good” is too difficult to grasp, as our mental and emotional framework has been ossified into a “right and wrong” and “good v. evil” construct, often for the socially temporally appropriate purpose of training us when we were children; that is, as children, when we could not yet understand adult-oriented complex concepts.
There is a reason that Abraham Lincoln was majestic, and it is way beyond the simplicity of his wisdom and tenacity to free American human slaves from physical bondage. The deeds done by American human beings to American slaves (and Native Americans) were horrific, really horrific. Americans whipped, raped, hanged, burned, mutilated, and did all sorts of other atrocities, thinking it to be “good” and “god sanctioned”—and so did the civilized English from which the same Americans revolted and separated on that causation. Human hypocrisy on moral grounds is too pervasive to require further expression.
But, watch how Abraham Lincoln references implicitly the complex “good v. good” concept, instead of the simplistic “good v. evil” (and keeping in mind the later religious affinity of many Nazi’s who were called “evil and crazy” for their own particular horrific action).
Here is how Abraham Lincoln addressed the issue in his Second Inaugural Address with an unmatched perfection, traversing elevated concepts of the different perspectives of the moral good (i.e., “one perceived good v. another perceived good”) with the practical applications of fixing temporal human pain.
At the point of this expression, the United States Civil War was effectively over with the North as victor, and after Lincoln had experienced all that would allow him to replicate vitriol and hate for an adversary with gloating pride and validation. None of that for Abraham Lincoln; to wit:
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
Notice the exact language, and it’s not simplistic. Abraham Lincoln says only that it is “strange” (that is, such as “unreconcilable“) that the South could think their behavior to be good, but it is not condemned or vilified as such by him. It is unbelievably subtle. In fact, Lincoln goes even further to say that, on his own set of principles, it would be ironic if he should conclude and judge what is good or evil, but that god (the Almighty) has “His own purposes,” far above his poor power to add or detract.
Then Lincoln continues as a fixer of human pain, but upon an express presupposition. Again, he does not conclude, but he speculates. Notice his use of, “If we shall suppose,” as the introductory premise:
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him.
Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’
With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
The entire closing of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address is premised upon two if clauses relating to God “if” being the biggest little word in the world. [12, 13]
“If we shall suppose,…” and, “Yet, if God wills…”
Abraham Lincoln is not arrogant enough to presume to speak for god. He does not express that he knows that he is righteous, but only that he believes that he is righteous on his expressly stated condition. This deprecation has no impact on his resolve, because his belief is an as-if fact. But, the difference is that Abraham Lincoln knows that he does not know—he knows that he speculates and admits it—which is wisdom, and which otherwise would be foolish arrogance. [14] Abraham Lincoln prayed and, yet, he did not prey.
[1] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop
[3] Surviving Prejudice, Not All Bad
[4] Einstein, Jesus, and the Shared Kiss – The Business of Aesop™ No. 97 – The Fox and the Cat.
[5] The Naked Brain; Or, Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Human Being
[6] They Entered the Building, but Only One Went In; Or, Don’t Call Me a “Human Being”
[7] The Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue
[8] The Four Horsemen of the Social Justice Apocalypse
[10] Why the Walt Disney Company is the Most Dangerous Company in the World
[11] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse
[13] Big Ideas – Business of Aesop™ No. 8 – Belling the Cat
[14] SQL Nulls, Socrates, and Black Holes. Or, the Great Lawnchair Debate
ChatGPT Review
This article—“Good v. Evil, or, Thoughtlessness by Simplistic Vilification”—is not just a commentary on morality; it is a meta-commentary on human judgment and the dangers of false clarity. Gregg Zegarelli uses Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address not as decoration but as a keystone for his philosophical ethos, especially concerning moral humility, cognitive discipline, and the rejection of tribal absolutism.
Let’s break this down step by step:
🔍 STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS OF ZEGARELLI’S METHOD
Step 1: Begin with Aesop—Nature First, Not Morality
“The Wolf just wants to eat dinner, and the Lamb just wants not to be eaten.”
Zegarelli returns to Aesop’s moral neutrality: there is no “evil” in the wolf, only natural self-interest. This framing:
- Strips away the overlay of moral absolutism.
- Establishes a biological realism—creatures act to survive, not to sin.
- Frames all later human behavior as extensions of evolved self-interest, not divine warfare between good and evil.
This is foundational to Zegarelli’s broader project: we must first recognize nature as it is, before we interpret it through cultural or theological lenses.
Step 2: Expose “Evil” as a Lazy Intellectual Shortcut
Zegarelli argues that calling someone or something “evil” is:
- Psychologically comforting, but
- Philosophically lazy.
“Saying something is ‘evil’ is a weak, easy, and sloppy excuse from thinking objectively.”
Instead of inviting thought, “evil” is a rhetorical cudgel—a conclusion without analysis. It appeals to tribalism and emotion over logic. This aligns with his prior critiques of:
- Groupthink (“Presumed Righteousness by Mere Popularity”),
- Post hoc rationalization,
- Flawed cause-and-effect reasoning.
Step 3: Elevate the Harder Truth—Conflicts Are Often “Good v. Good”
This is the core principle that Zegarelli considers intellectually mature but emotionally difficult:
“Many disputes and conflicts are not one ‘good’ principle versus an ‘evil’ one, but one ‘good’ principle as believed by self, versus another ‘good’ principle as believed by another.”
This reframes:
- Moral disagreements → as competing virtues, not vice-versus-virtue.
- Political conflicts → as parallel universes of perceived goods, often incommensurable but not evil per se.
- Religious violence → as sincerity colliding, not insincerity attacking truth.
He illustrates this with:
- The Orc/Hobbit metaphor: Our bias is revealed when we find out we’re the Orc.
- Examples like race, zygote termination, and religion, where certainty often conceals insecurity and social conformity.
Step 4: Lincoln as the Model of Moral Humility
Zegarelli sees Lincoln’s Second Inaugural as the greatest example of:
- Moral restraint, despite righteous belief.
- Awareness of speculative belief, not absolutist knowledge.
- Empathy in victory, rather than vilification in triumph.
Lincoln never calls the South “evil.” Instead, he recognizes:
- Both sides invoke the same God.
- Both sides believe themselves to be right.
- He hopes he is right, but admits he cannot know for sure.
This admission—“The Almighty has His own purposes”—is not theological ambiguity; it is intellectual discipline. Lincoln models the ethos Zegarelli seeks: strong belief, coupled with humble admission of uncertainty.
Step 5: Contrast with Modern Rhetoric and Simplistic Absolutism
Zegarelli’s unspoken indictment is contemporary:
- He contrasts Lincoln’s nuance with today’s clickbait moralizing, where people declare opponents “evil” to short-circuit debate.
- He links this to both political rhetoric and internet culture, where self-righteousness is rewarded, and humility is punished.
By holding up Lincoln’s “if we shall suppose” as a template, Zegarelli urges readers to adopt a conditional frame of thought—to believe as-if they are right, while recognizing they could be wrong.
🧩 HOW THIS FITS ZEGARELLI’S ETHOS
| Zegarelli Ethos Principle | Role in This Article |
|---|---|
| Wisdom over moralism | Exposes “evil” as lazy shorthand for not thinking. |
| Understanding tendencies, not judging them | Wolf eats. Lamb flees. Both are what they are. |
| Self-interest as a biological foundation | All beings act in pursuit of survival and comfort. |
| Rhetoric as manipulation | “Evil Empire” and “We fight for God” as tribal control tactics. |
| Humility in judgment | Lincoln is the exemplar: believes firmly, admits uncertainty. |
| Embrace of intellectual paradox (Good v. Good) | Challenges binary conditioning taught since childhood. |
| Danger of group conformity | Moral certainty is often a product of social echo, not truth. |
🧠 CONCLUSION: WHY ZEGARELLI QUOTES LINCOLN SO OFTEN
Zegarelli quotes Lincoln—especially the Second Inaugural—because Lincoln embodies the apex of Zegarelli’s moral-philosophical model:
- Firm in principle, humble in certainty.
- Morally motivated, but intellectually honest.
- Courageous in action, yet compassionate in victory.
Lincoln represents what Zegarelli sees as the ultimate expression of reasoned, non-absolutist leadership—the antidote to both moralistic hypocrisy and populist simplification.
In Zegarelli’s ethos, wisdom is not knowing you’re right—it’s knowing that you don’t know for sure, and acting rightly anyway.
Would you like a side-by-side table comparing Lincoln’s framing to the modern “good v. evil” mindset? Or a one-paragraph blurb summarizing this for reference or citation?
You said: Yes and Yes
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely. Here are both:
📊 Side-by-Side Table: Lincoln’s Framing vs. Modern “Good v. Evil” Thinking
| Dimension | Lincoln’s Framing (Zegarelli’s Ideal) | Modern “Good v. Evil” Framing |
|---|---|---|
| View of Morality | Competing goods with mutual sincerity | Binary opposition: one side good, the other evil |
| Judgment of Others | Humble, speculative (“If we shall suppose…”) | Self-righteous, declarative (“They are evil”) |
| Moral Confidence | Believes firmly but admits uncertainty | Claims absolute knowledge of moral correctness |
| Use of Religion | Reflective invocation (“The Almighty has His own purposes”) | Weaponized affirmation (“God is on our side”) |
| Conflict Resolution Approach | Empathetic, seeks to heal (“With malice toward none, with charity…”) | Vindictive or triumphant (“Crush the enemy, claim victory”) |
| Philosophical Model | Moral humility rooted in wisdom and awareness of perspective | Simplistic vilification rooted in groupthink and conformity |
| Underlying Ethic | “Strong belief, without presumption of infallibility” | “Strong belief, because we must be right” |
🧾 One-Paragraph Blurb (Citation-Ready Summary)
Gregg Zegarelli often quotes Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address because it models the highest ideal of his philosophical ethos: moral conviction coupled with epistemic humility. Lincoln does not label the South “evil,” nor presume divine endorsement. Instead, he recognizes the sincerity of both sides and introduces moral speculation (“If we shall suppose…”) rather than judgment. Zegarelli holds this up as the antidote to today’s tribal absolutism, arguing that true wisdom lies not in asserting righteousness, but in resisting the seductive simplicity of declaring one’s opponents evil. In doing so, Lincoln becomes Zegarelli’s archetype of reasoned leadership, where strong action is guided by disciplined thought—not moral vanity.
20250416.4o
The expression set forth in this article are solely the author’s and are not endorsed, condoned or supported by any affiliation of the author.
© 2022 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-v-evil-thoughtlessness-simplistic-vilification-zegarelli-esq-
GRZ126.20250416 GRZUID126