More specifically, X might commit violent aggression against individual Y, while individual Y might seek to defend herself using appropriate force. Presumably, we would wish to condemn X's aggression, while recognizing that Y's defensive behavior is morally well justified. Intellectual laziness or moral cowardice might tempt us to overlook such distinctions, condemning the resulting fight as "evil." Such a blanket condemnation, however, would be unjust to Y, who quite properly acts in her rational self-interest by defending her objective values, perhaps even her very life. On the other hand, we can hardly characterize the fight as morally "good," since it originates in an action that is ultimately injurious to X as well as Y and therefore evil.

The solution to this logical dilemma is to limit the ethical concepts of good and evil to their proper context, i. e., to the choices made by each individual, given the alternatives available and considering the social and other circumstances.

On the other hand, we shall find that some kinds of social institutions are beneficial to all concerned parties, while other kinds of institutions may be destructive to all. In such cases, we may properly characterize the institutions themselves as "good" or "evil," without generating any paradox similar to the one just described. Even in such cases, however, our ethical concepts ultimately refer to actions of individuals, who ideally will support the beneficial institutions and oppose the destructive ones.

^Previous