The terms good and evil refer to artificial standards used to regulate human behavior, stabilize social order, and ultimately maintain a harmonious world. Outwardly, the question concerns an evaluation into the benefits and disadvantages ofthe terms good and evil; but fundamentally, the usage of “would” emphasizes a possibility for a better world, rather than a sided argument as with the phrasing of “should”. It could then be understood that the question aims to explore whether there exists a possibility for a better world without the “given” standards of good and evil, and thus the core of this question lies in the relationship between “givenness” and “possibility” (openness). The standards “good and evil” do not necessarily fail to achieve good results, but cannot encompass all possibilities of existence. Hence, this essay will explore the potential for a better world, and will argue for an open society where more possibilities should be acknowledged rather than a binary of good and evil. Indeed, this also constitutes an essential feature of a civilized society.