The Meaning of Insisting on Good and Bad — Nietzsche, Zen, Laozi, Confucianism, Berlin

"This is good, this is bad" — when we have the distance to say so, we feel safe. Drawing a line, the world becomes simple and judgement quickens. But the same line binds us, distances others, and at times makes important things invisible. This volume is not for erasing the line of good and bad, but for seeing the self that draws it. From Nietzsche's "beyond good and evil," to Zen non-duality, Laozi's yin-yang, the Confucian Mean, and Isaiah Berlin's value pluralism — five traditions illuminate the way of drawing the line from different angles.

01What Does "Insisting on Rightness" Try to Preserve?

For a material reviewer, "rightness" is the core of the vocation. Check against the statute, verify the grounds, halt the error. The accumulation of this supports trust. But, stopping occasionally, one notices a strange moment. "Why am I, on this one, so insistent?" A moment when something burns within, beyond the size of the problem.

Behind the insistence, there is always something one is trying to protect. Sometimes a great value like patient safety; sometimes a small value like one's professional face. Within the same "insistence on rightness," both are mixed. Each time we draw a line, we expose the map of our own values. The meaning of insisting on good and bad lies not at the line's end, but in the self drawing it.

02Nietzsche — Peering Beyond Good and Evil

In 1886, Friedrich Nietzsche published Beyond Good and Evil. The title is provocative, but what he wanted to say was not "abandon good and evil." It was a more troublesome proposal: "See where what you call 'good' and 'evil' came from."

"To stand beyond good and evil — that is not to transcend good and evil, but to see the process by which you yourself make good and evil." — paraphrase of the thrust of F. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886)

Nietzsche's analysis is thorough. When we feel "this is good," behind it lie history, culture, education, survival strategy. The feeling of "good" is not pure; it is constructed by many layers. The same holds for "evil." So, when asking after good and bad, not only "what is good" but "why do I feel this as good" must be asked at the same time.

This bears directly on material review. The moment one feels "this expression is inappropriate," where does that feeling come from? The interpretation of the statute? Industry convention? Personal sensibility? Past trauma? Unless one sees the origin of the line, the line itself cannot be verified. Nietzsche called this work "standing beyond."

03Zen Non-Duality — A Point Beyond Good and Bad

The Eastern lineage sees the same place through a different entrance. Zen's non-duality (funi, 不二) is a well-known word. Good and bad, beauty and ugliness, life and death, self and other — a word for seeing these oppositions not as absolute opposition but as mutual relation.

"The Great Way is not difficult; only it dislikes picking and choosing. When there is no aversion or attachment, all is utterly clear." — Sengcan, Xinxin Ming (Inscription on Faith in Mind) (the Third Patriarch of Chan, 6th century)

What Zen says is not "lose preferences." It is "have the distance not to be swallowed by preferences." Make the judgement of good and bad. While judging, do not be swallowed by the judgement. Maintain one thin gap between judgement and self. This is the practice of non-duality.

Non-duality is also different from relativism. Not "good and bad are the same," but "good and bad are both lines my heart drew right now" — knowing this, and still drawing the line. Not absolutising the drawn line. Hold the power to judge and the power to doubt the judgement at the same time. This is, probably, the most practical use of mind for a reviewer.

04Laozi's Yin-Yang — The Good Always Contains the Bad

Laozi captures opposition more dynamically. The good itself contains the seed of the bad. The reverse, also. This is the logic of yin-yang.

"All under heaven know the beauty of the beautiful, and so there is ugliness. All know the goodness of the good, and so there is non-good." — Daodejing, chapter 2

A passage somewhat hard to follow, but it can be read this way. The moment "beauty" is fixed as "beauty," it produces "the not-beautiful." The moment "good" is fixed as "good," it produces "the not-good." The very act of drawing a line generates opposition. So, while the line must be drawn when it must, one must keep in view the cost of having drawn it.

In practice, if one decides "this is fair review," then necessarily "this is unfair review" is born. If one decides "this is for the patient," then "what is not for the patient" comes into view. The line has a function, but the line itself is not absolute. The logic of yin-yang demands both — keeping the insistence, and doubting the insistence.

05The Confucian Mean — Finding the "Just-Rightness" of the Line

The Confucian Zhongyong (Mean, 中庸) is often misunderstood as "taking the middle," but it is in fact a more precise concept. The Zhongyong (the "Doctrine of the Mean," a chapter of the Liji, also one of Zhu Xi's Four Books) says:

"Before joy, anger, sorrow, and pleasure are aroused, this is called the centre (zhong). When they are aroused and all attain due measure, this is called harmony (he)." — Zhongyong, ch. 1

The still state in which emotion has not yet emerged is called "centre"; the state in which emotion emerges and fits the measure is called "harmony." The Mean is not an average; it is the right response to the situation. Be greatly angry where one should be greatly angry; restrain where one should restrain. Draw the line strongly on grave deviations; loosen the line on trivial differences of preference. This bears a structure strikingly similar to Aristotle's gentleness (see Vol. 4).

The Confucian Mean is wisdom that turns the insistence on good and bad not into abandonment but into situational fit. Drawing the line is important. But when, where, and at what strength to draw it is even more important.

06Isaiah Berlin — Values Are Plural and Often Conflict

The twentieth-century political philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) presented, in the modern context, value pluralism. Human values are plural and often conflict with one another. Liberty and equality, justice and mercy, efficiency and fairness, safety and autonomy. None can be discarded, and they cannot be satisfied simultaneously. This was the human condition as Berlin saw it.

"The ultimate values are objective. But they cannot be arranged so that human beings can fit them into a single formula. Values conflict — this is part of the nature of human life." — paraphrase of Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958)

What Berlin shows is not despair but maturity. To depart from the dictatorial moral view that one value triumphs over all others. For instance, in a scene where "patient safety" and "the survival of the enterprise" conflict, if one absolutises one side, the other is sacrificed. At such times, Berlin demanded choosing while carrying the weight of the choice.

This applies directly to the grey-zone judgements of material review. "The safest judgement" and "the most useful provision of information" do not always coincide. "Faithfulness to the norm" and "the actuality of the field" can also diverge. Berlin's value pluralism, while admitting that there is no correct answer, demands the maturity to draw the line responsibly nonetheless.

07Four Questions for Observing "Good and Bad"

Place four questions for observing the insistence. Immediately after drawing a line, or immediately after a strong reaction, try to ask just one.

08In the Pharmaceutical Field — Choosing the "Strength" of Rightness

On the desk of material review, insistence is tested every day. If every comment is made at the same strength, the line that really must be defended is buried within "the grumbling of a noisy person." Conversely, if the strength is too low, patient safety is endangered. Insistence does not function unless it chooses its strength.

For this, what is needed is to articulate the priorities within oneself. "What will I absolutely not yield?" "What can be adjusted through dialogue?" "What can I leave to the other's judgement?" — Making these clear inside makes the judgements outside clear as well.

A reviewer who holds a hierarchy of strengths becomes predictable to others too. "When that person speaks strongly, it is really serious" — that becomes understood. Conversely, a reviewer who reacts to everything with the same strength wastes trust, and when it really matters, no longer reaches. The design of insistence is, not only for oneself, also a discipline for being received.

09Three Moments When Insistence Runs Amok

Insistence often runs amok unawares. Three frequently observed patterns:

In all three, it is the moment when the line has transmuted from function to defence. If one notices, one can redraw the line. If one does not notice, the same pattern repeats.

10See, Once More, the Self Drawing the Line

The meaning of insisting on good and bad does not lie in stopping the drawing of lines. It lies in becoming able to see the self drawing the line together with the line itself. Nietzsche's "beyond," Zen's non-duality, Laozi's yin-yang, the Confucian Mean, Berlin's pluralism — none demands "do not draw the line," but all demand the doubled attitude of "while drawing, see the self drawing."

That doubled attitude divides the professional's maturity. Draw a line, protect that line, and yet know that the line is not absolute. Hold both the courage to redraw when the situation demands and the strength not to redraw when it does not. Good and bad do not disappear, but one is not swallowed by good and bad.

The meaning of insisting on good and bad lies not at the line's end but in the self drawing it. Nietzsche said ask the origin of the line; Zen said hold the distance not swallowed by the line; Laozi said see the opposition the line generates; Confucianism said match the line's strength to the situation; Berlin said do not forget that the line always sacrifices another value. Five traditions point to a single attitude in different words.

Tomorrow, at the desk, you will draw a line again. Do draw. Only — for an instant after drawing — look at the self that drew it.