In a modern world, is there such thing as a reliable authority? If so, who or what?

There can never be completely reliable authority. Regardless of who or what the authority is, because humans are neither completely good nor evil, there will be those who choose to be reliable as well as those who choose to be unreliable. The best we can hope for is for more who wish to choose to be reliable will make the majority of the authoritarian figures, rather than those who wish not to be, who will then punish those of us who find ourselves in times of need and need dependable and trustworthy authority.

How Does "Crime and Punishment" address my BIG QUESTION?

Crime and Punishment illustrates my question, are humans inherently good or evil through Raskolnikov's struggle of whether or not to turn himself in for his crime and the illnesses he obtains from his stress and worry of wondering if he is yet been found out. It seems as though he would he would be evil because of his murders, but his conscience drags him down so much through the great amount of guilt he feels, that it makes one look again and wonder if maybe the murder just happened, and he is not really evil. But if this is true, he still cannot be good!
Also, Crime and Punishment relates to my question in the same way as my independent study novel, East of Eden. They both have various characters all along the good vs. evil spectrum, allowing for much philosophical discussion over the question, but never allowing one to come to a clear answer.

Is humankind inherently good or evil?

If humans were inherently good there would be no reason for a perfect god, right? But if they were inherently evil, there would be no search for a god at all… A demon does not search for a way to better his ways, he could care less because he likes that he is evil. This question of whether humans are naturally good or evil is a timeless one that has been continuously grappled with, always to no avail. But inherent does not mean exclusive…can’t there be a gray area? If humans were exclusively good or evil, who would know? Who would care? Philosophical questions such as this only come about because of the comparison of the two; you cannot know one is good without knowing what evil is and vice versa. Can some be born good or evil? Can others choose their own side? Can more still never choose, but continuously bunny hop the invisible divide between the two? Something to ponder: children are selfish by nature, they must be taught to share rather than resort to survival of the fittest methods (stealing); does this mean they are born evil? Are things evil by action or simply from intent?

My independent study novel, East of Eden by John Steinbeck, epitomizes this question absolutely with its struggle of two brothers and their reenactment of Cain and Abel and the first murder. Then there is also Cathy, who throughout the whole novel proves she has had no soul since birth, and will never even attempt to obtain one. Is she an abnormality in society, or simply an extreme case? But then Samuel is so wholly good and has not an evil bone in his body it seems. Where can such two extremes fit on the same scale? And between the opposing poles, of course, the many remaining characters fit in varying degrees.

In Oedipus, the argument can be made that Oedipus himself is inherently evil, for if he was not, he would not have killed that man on the road, though he did not know who he was, and would not have suffered the resulting consequences. But instead, the Sphinx knew he would kill this man, not knowing it to be his father, and in turn marry his mother.


IS HUMANKIND INHERENTLY GOOD OR EVIL?