Let's search for the origin of the idea of evil as real. It is not found in Catholicism. Catholicism was greatly influenced by the ideas of the philosopher Plato, born in 428 B.C.

For Plato, evil is not real. Evil exists in the universe because of the absence of good. One cannot study ethics without discussing what is good, and, therefore, what is evil.

The English philosopher Mark Rowlands wrote a great passage that is very easy to understand:

"(...) One way or another, we need to have a basis of comparison. If we can tell the difference between good things and bad things, and all the intermediate degrees of good and evil, then we should have some idea of how something perfect should be. If we had no idea, then how could we separate examples of good from evil? Then we have to admit that we have some idea of how to distinguish the good versions of the circle from the evil ones. Where did we get this idea from? Plato's answer is that we did not get this idea from anywhere in the physical world."

"According to Plato, we got the idea from outside the physical world. He concluded that there must be a non-physical realm of being. Where everything is perfect. In this non-physical realm there is a perfect man, a perfect woman, a perfect sword (or light saber) and so on. Plato referred to these perfect examples of things as FORMS, and to this non-physical realm that contain them, he called the WORLD OF FORMS." Before we continue, note that Plato is considered an IDEALIST PHILOSOPHER precisely because he defended that things are born from ideas. Unlike the MATERIALISTS who believe that ideas come from the world and not the world from ideas.

"These forms are, according to Plato, arranged hierarchically, and at the top of this hierarchy are what Plato called FORMS OF GOOD, which we can call GOOD ITSELF. Many people, actions, rules and institutions are-at least in our eyes-good. Some of these things are evil. And in the middle there are many degrees of good and evil. But even the things we consider good are not perfectly good. It doesn't matter how good a person is, for example, he can always be better. (...) That given, beyond the ordinary physical world (normal), PLATO DEFENDED THE EXISTENCE OF A NON-PHYSICAL WORLD OF FORMS."

Can ethics be taught? Or can the evil present in society turn people into eternal "Darth Vaders"?

Regardless of the differing points of view, to better judge this, we need to get a better and deeper understanding of the thoughts of someone dedicated to the field of ethics.

For Aristotle, virtues and vices can be defined by their excesses. A vice is always excessive or deficient. While virtue is a moderate conduct.

To get a better understanding of this issue, let's look at two examples: for Aristotle, COURAGE is a virtue. While STUBBORNNESS is a vice of excess and COWARDICE is a vice of deficiency. For Aristotle, VANITY is a vice of excess and MODESTY is a vice of deficiency.

With regard to another person's luck, Aristotle understood that man had feelings. When these feelings were moderate, they are seen as APPRECIATION, but if our feelings degenerate into a vice of excess, they become ENVY.

A hacker has to be interested in acquiring and sharing knowledge. The worst type of laziness is mental laziness. RIDDING ONESELF OF THE LAZINESS TO LEARN is one of the pillars of HACKER ETHICS.

Let's continue searching for a way explain another very important aspect of our debate on good and evil, on vices and virtues. To do this, we must look to an important philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), born in Amsterdam. Spinoza was from a traditional Jewish family of Portuguese origin. His family immigrated because Jews were being persecuted in Portugal. Spinoza had another view on vices and virtues. He was interested also in the control of passions and feelings. To get a better understanding of this, let's read a passage from the book Invitation to Philosophy, by Professor Marilena Chaui:

"For Spinoza, we are naturally passionate, because we are influenced by external factors. In other words, being passionate is to be passive. By nature, we are surrounded by other beings, who are stronger than us and act upon us. This is why passions are neither good or evil; they are natural. There are three original passions: joy, sadness and desire."

"So, from joy emerges love, contentment, mercy and glory. From sadness emerges hate, envy, pride, fear, despair and shame. From desire comes gratitude, anger, cruelty, ambition, fear, boldness, lust and greed."

"A sad passion is one that diminishes the capacity of our body and soul to be or act; the opposite of a joyful passion which increases the capacity of our body and soul to be or act. In the case of desire, we can have sad passions."

"What is VICE? Submitting ourselves to passions, letting external factors control us. What is a VIRTUE?

Responding to internal feelings, acts and thoughts. In other words, to shift from being passive (submitted to external factors) to being active (from internal factors). How do we shift from passion to action or virtue? Transforming joyful passions and desires born from joy into acts which we are the cause. Virtue is not a good, it is the force to be and act independently."

Professor Vanderlei de Barros Rosas states that some philosophers and scholars differentiate ethics and morals in many ways:

"Ethics are principals, morals are specific aspects of conduct, Ethics are permanent, morals are temporal, Ethics are universal, morals are cultural, Ethics are rules, morals are rules of conduct, Ethics are theories, morals are practice."

In closing, let's read a passage from a text by Professor Renato Janine Ribeiro, entitled "To be Ethical is to be a Hero,"available in its entirety on the official site.

(...) Antigone is the daughter of Oedipus. Two of her brothers fight for power, and both die. The throne then goes to her uncle Creon, who orders that one of his nephews be buried with honors, while the body of the other is left to the vultures. Antigone did not agree with this. She participates in the solemn burial of one brother and then buries, with religious rights, the other, the unburied.

The king is furious. He is convinced that there is a conspiracy against him. He demands to know who violated his orders. Upon learning that it was his niece, he tries to save her: if she will deny that it was her, or asks forgiveness, he will give her a way out" under the condition that she denies the act. Antigone refuses and is executed.

The story serves as an example. It shows that there is a latent conflict between ethics and the law. A ruler gives orders. They may be legal or not. Creon did what he shouldn't have morally, but he's the one in charge. The law is on his side. What do you do in this case?

(...) But things can go even further. Maria Rita Kehl praised the leader of the landless rural workers'movement Joo Pedro Stdile last week. Which is more important, property rights, which perpetuate the extensive social exclusion, or the right of people to live and grow with dignity? From an ethical perspective, it is clear that the right to dignity is more important.

It has not always been this way. An English Puritan preacher from the 17th century, Richard Baxter, is responsible for the following reprehensible statement. At the time, if you stole a piece of bread you went to the gallows. He justifies this by saying: the life of the poor, he explains, is not worth much, since an attack on property would destroy the foundations of society itself.

There is no consensus on this. Some defend the landless workers and others attack them. But what I want to address here is something more important: it is that ethics and law do not necessarily coincide. Many times, to be decent means breaking the law. This was true for Nazism and for all types of dictatorships. And it is also true when inequality or injustice rein.

(...) And it is important to insist on this point. What do we want from ourselves: citizens who obey the law-any law-or ethical, decent individuals? Ideally you could combine the two things. However, in education, we must bet on autonomy, that is to say, in the education of people who are capable of deciding for themselves. This means that in rare and extreme cases, they will have the courage to confront social consensus and accept the consequences of their actions.

This can make any one of us a little hero. Heroism is not only found in characters from Greek mythology or superheroes on television. It can be found when one of us confronts some little act of oppression, in the name of a higher value-as long as we are willing to face the consequences of our actions and also remember that we are fallible and can make mistakes. But these are the small personal acts of heroism that human dignity depends on."