I don't believe in evil

[Jack Aidley]

Today, I will mostly be taking a philosophical outlook.

I've been thinking about evil - kind of inspired by reading some people talking about the Pope having being a great and good man, and other's describing him as evil (no, I'm not going to talk about that debate). I've come to the conclusion that a) evil isn't real, b) doesn't help us understand the world and, usually, c) actually hinders our understanding of the world.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people involved in the holocaust you wouldn't know from Adam (or Eve) if you met them in the pub. They raised their kids, they looked after their families and friends, and they enjoyed a joke and a beer. They'd be the kind of people you meet everyday; some of them would be the kind of people who stop and help if your car breaks down, who offer directions if you look lost or who organise the church fete. Yet they helped, assisted, or turned a blind eye to one of the greatest atrocities of the last century. Why? The easy answer is to say they were evil. That it takes evil people to do evil things. Bollocks, says I. Not only does that answer tell us nothing, it actually harms our understanding of the world. By categorising them as 'evil' we can put them at arms length, safely in another category that we, and the people we know, don't belong to. It serves the same purpose as words such as 'nigger', 'fag' or 'kike' - it safely puts 'them' away from 'us'.

There was a story the other day about someone who stole the rings off a dying pensioner's hand. Now I and I expect most of you, think that's a pretty evil act. But does adding that 'evil' tag to either the act or to the person who carried out the act actually help in anyway? Does it tell us any more about the act itself? No - although it does tell us something about ourselves and our moral model. Does it help us understand the actions of the thief? No. Does it help us predict the actions of others? No. Does it help us understand how to prevent others acting in the same way? No.

Evil isn't a property of the world; it's a property of our own views of the world. Projecting our views on to the world as if they were real doesn't help us understand the world; it hinders that understanding. And understanding why people do evil things is important if we are ever to make the world a better place.

So I don't believe in evil, and I don't think you should either.

[contracycle]

Quite right.   The only use the term serves is to obviate critical thought,  It's a kind of emotional blackmail - once a thing or person has been identified as "evil", nobody is ever allowed to try to understand, or analyse, or examine.  When someing is "evil", the only response is to kill it.  Thus, ideologies of "evilness" (such as the alleged "axis of evil") themselves contribute to much evil.

[Domhnall]

So, you're making an ontological claim concerning all things that only have their origin in human "states"/actions.  "Love", "evil", "good", "brutality", etc., are all psychological states or behaviors, and therefore do not exist?  

Well, there may be a heavy underlining semantics issue here, or maybe you are a Naturalist (and hold that only "physical" things exist), or possibly you were not intending to speak technically?  

Aside from this debate, however, I think the spirit of what you're saying has merit, and the ontological argument is less relevant than that.  You're asserting that people demonize those who have done "evil acts" to guard themselves from moral association with "Evil".  I agree with that.  

Metaphysically speaking, however, I hold that mental states/human actions are as "real" (more relevantly real, in fact) as atoms.

[Jack Aidley]

I wasn't intending to make an ontological statement about the reality of mental states. I suppose I could have stated that evil is a property of the observer rather than the observed or that evil is a subjective assessment rather than an objective reality but it seemed overly long-winded to me.

[GB Steve]

Do you believe in individual free will, whether that be moral responsibility or the freedom to have done otherwise?

I'm not sure that it's as simple as that. I think the role of society and culture need to be included if we aren't to treat the individual as somehow detached from their situation.

In this context 'evil' might be seen as a description of a set of behaviours sufficiently removed from the norm of one social group as viewed from another rather than necessarily some choice by an individual.

The documentary Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus, did show "evil" people in the Deep South of the USA. In their background there seemed to have been a very real choice to follow the path of "evil", as defined by the Baptist Church. They had tried "good" but found it too difficult to stick with the programme. They seemed rather resigned to their fates as sinners but determined to make the best of "evil" whilst they had the chance, knowing that the eternal lake of fire was waiting for them in the end.

[Victor Gijsbers]

The anatomy of the concept of Evil is very complex; it has meant many different things for different people. A short and partial catalogue:

* Evil as a metaphysical force, opposed to good.
* Evil as sin, thus guilt, in which we all share.
* Evil as crime, as actions we ourselves would never take.
* Evil as irrationality, as madness.
* Evil as the Other of humanity, as the unthinkable opposite to humanity.
* Evil as weakness of character, the opposite of virtue.
* Evil as lust, as strength expressing itself.

Does evil exist? I do not think that is a question that can be answered. Is Evil a useful concept? Perhaps - but some uses of it are harmful, rather than useful.

"Evil" as a word distancing ourselves from other whose acts we condemn, as if to emphasise that we would never do that in any circumstances - that notion of evil is surely a conventient lie, a closing of the eyes to the tragic nature of our existence. (So I think I completely agree with Jack, as this was surely the point he was making with his holocaust example?) "Evil" as a word of condemnation that stops all further conversation, all attempts to get to understand the other - that notion of evil is surely a dangerous idea, with potentially destructive consequences. (This is where Bush' "Axis of Evil" belongs, I suppose.)

But other notions of "Evil" may be interesting and useful, in art, life and philosophy.

[Ben Lehman]

Oh.

I do.

yrs--
--Ben

[Christopher Weeks]

Evil is the violation of the observer's aesthetic.

[pete_darby]

Evil is the violation of the observer's aesthetic.

By this definition, Steven Segal films are evil.

So that'll be a "yes" then.

[Sean]

Do you believe in good?

[Lance D. Allen]

Let's see if I've learned anything in my Philosophy classes.

I've been taught that there are two types of Evil. Moral Evil, and Natural Evil. Natural Evil encompasses toil, suffering, strife and death, though I'm personally iffy about death. Natural Evil is imposed, and serves as a callback, a call to stop and think about what you are doing. I don't think this applies to the discussion at hand, so I'll leave it at that.

Moral Evil is defined as doing what is contrary to your nature, specifically the nature of being a rational being. Moral Evil is, specifially, Neglect, Avoidance, Resistance and Denial of rationality. The consequences of Moral Evil are not imposed, nor are they deferred.

The Consequences of Moral Evil are Innate and Present, and include Meaninglessness, Boredom and Guilt. These three things lead to acts which are considered "evil" by the populace at large; Meaninglessness causes you to either seek meaning in the wrong places, or to distract yourself from your meaningless existence. Boredom drives you to seek sensation, in increasing doses as you become numb to previous doses. Guilt leads to denial of guilt, or, again, distraction from guilt. Between the three of them, you are driven to excess, depravity and perversion. This is called Spiritual Death. The Wages of Sin, as it were.

Natural Evil as stated above restrains, removes and acts as a callback from Moral Evil. Natural Evil, especially death, limits the scope and duration of Moral Evil, and it's resultant acts. Natural Evil can remove the ability to commit Evil acts. The suffering, and the imminence of death frequently cause people to think about their lives, and sometimes to make a change, going away from Moral Evil, toward the Good.

So.. Yes, I believe in Evil. My definitions vary slightly from the above, but the above makes a great deal of sense to me.

[Victor Gijsbers]

Let's see if I've learned anything in my Philosophy classes.

Allow me to be curious: where were you taught philosophy? It seems to me an intriguing mix of hard Enlightenment rationalism and Protestantism. Am I thinking in the right direction? (This is not an attempt to discredit your opinions, but to get to understand the context within which they are to be understood.)

Personally, I couldn't disagree more with man's essence being 'rationality', evil being the transgression of man's inner nature, or evil leading to guilt, boredom and meaninglessness. It seems to me that 'rationality' is either a rhetorical term or the name of something pure instrumental; that man has no essence, and if he has, it's not his rationality; and that evil is not its own punishment.

[groundhog]

I think evil is what happens when there is an absence of good. It's much like darkness, cold, stagnation, and many other negative words. Darkness is realy just the absence of light. Cold is just the absence of heat. Stagnation is the absence of motion. Evil is the absence of good.

Why is stealing evil? Because respect for a person's property and the effort that went into securing it are good. Stealing is a lack of that respect. Why is murder evil? Because it's a lack of respect and love for human life. Why is lying evil? Because it's good to tell the truth and disrepectful to deceive.

In short, something's evil if it goes counter to what is considered good. In my mind, "good" has to do with love, respect, and sacrifice.

[Anonymous]

M.Scott Peck wrote a pretty interesting book called "The People of the Lie."

He starts out by stating that the elephant in the room of psychiatry/ology is that a great number of disordered persons get there due to things that were done to them, either in upbringing or as later trauma.
But that this root problem is, essentially, "eviltude," and as such lies outside any realm of scientific inquiry.  Leaving us chasing down the symptoms but not addressing the cause.

He goes on to define "evil" as a willingness to sacrifice others' needs in order to meet your own.  His argument is that, as a set of observable behaviors, evil certainly exists.  And that, given this definition, evil can be discussed and dealt with.  

It's a good read, I recommend it. He discusses some case studies, draws some interesting conclusions, and then goes off the deep end.  Check it out.

-Matt
(Garbanzo, when I'm not too lazy to log in.)

[Victor Gijsbers]

On the topic of Evil, I can also recommend Rudiger Safranski's Das Bõse. (I do not know if it has been translated into English, although I do believe there is a French translation of the original German.)