DEFINITIONS
Evil as a Mere Lack: Evil isn’t real on its own; it’s just the
absence or corruption of good—a weakness or flaw that depends on good to exist.
Evil as a Real Substance: Evil is an actual, independent force or power that can
act on its own and influence the world directly.
OUR APPROACH
The
following works no matter what definition of evil is accepted. Many will argue
that evil is a mystery so they are not sure exactly what definition is right.
Many will argue that some evil is a mere lack and yet there are other evils that
are real substances.
I wish to add that there is no evidence or proof that if evil exists, that it is a mere lack. All of us are impacted by that uncertainty. Holding that evil is a substance has spiritual and social repercussions. Eg - if the evil in a murderer is even partly a substance then forgiving that murderer is only enabling him. If holding has that much power, then suspecting or being unable to refute that definition will as well. It puts us on a slope down which we may slide slowly but surely. Some come down it faster than others.
THE ARGUMENT
Many attempts to define evil are hypocritical, never mind wrong. They are refuted by everyone’s life experience. It is no surprise that people also try to classify actions or events as evil when they are not or might not be.
People have a motive for pretending to think things are evil. It means they are distinguishing themselves from others who are supposedly bad. They are good, and know what good is, while the others are to be avoided. Also, they will be bullied to pretend. You cannot fully trust people who talk to you about evil, for you don't know what pressures they are under to do so.
If you are not certain in yourself about what boundary must never be crossed, you will project that to others, especially those of a different faith, or group, or political party. Tensions arise. Wars happen.
That is the psychology, but they also keep conflicting with themselves over what is evil, and even about what evil itself means.
Some say that all evil is wrongdoing, but not all
wrongdoing is evil. This is based on the strange assumption that doing wrong may
not do great harm, so if, when it does, then it is evil. Now, people with okay
or good intentions can do worse harm than one with evil intentions. It is not
fair to say that somebody intentionally doing evil is evil just because of the
horrible results. That is looking at the aftermath and working backwards.
Surely, the problem is the intention in the first place? If it is, then it does
not matter if the evil backfires and turns to good. You are evil and doing evil.
If evil actions wreak more damage and hate than just plain ordinary bad
ones, then you are basically saying that if one intends evil, more harm will
happen. This is magic. This is not philosophy. How can you say that an evil
motive is only evil if bad things happen after it is acted on?
The word evil is often misused. If you have to do one of two things, and both of them will do harm, you may talk about the lesser of two evils. You don’t mean they are necessarily horrific or extremely harmful. You will even regard your choice as good under the circumstances. This calls the situation bad. And you call yourself the brave victim who has had to choose carefully.
You will do this if you have to pull a switch to torture billions to death on Planet Zod or Planet Zid. You might choose to spare the planet that you think there are more babies on. The person who makes such a choice should suffer terribly, simply at having to decide, and also the tragic ramifications of destroying a planet. What happens is they seek the reward of feeling they did what they had to do, and that they are good. Others pat their backs. And what about God, if he set up the situation? You should lend no worship to a being that forces you to choose. God cannot blame harm on human free will and avoid responsibility for putting you in a catch 22 situation. He is killing the people on the chosen planet through you. He is the murderer, even if you are not, for you are forced.
The view that evil is something horrific attacks those who feel that it is evil for their partner to cheat on them. Most of us would not consider adultery to be evil, but just hurtful and unwise.
To understand evil as something that is extremely wrong does, may lead to serious problems. One is that the evil may look better than what it is. You cannot tell the book by the cover. And a relatively tame wrong can escalate and show itself to be a Pandora’s Box. It can be the tip of an iceberg.
Evil is evil. It is the principle. If evil has bad results, it is because it is bad in principle in the first place. It will not do to measure the badness of an action simply by how much harm it does or can do, the harm it threatens. Much of that harm will not happen or be seen. To focus too much on the horrors that follow an evil deed shows one is not worried so much about the evil but the inconvenience. You see persons who do not care if a child is molested as long as the child suffers no harmful after affects. That is an outgrowth.
Religion seems to think that the volume of evil in the universe is irrelevant to the goodness of God. So, God can be good even if the universe is a torture chamber for all. This arises from its view that the amount of evils does not matter, for God is infinitely good and no evil, however big, even registers in comparison. Evil is just evil. So, God can allow some evil or virtually complete evil. There is no room to argue that excessive and useless suffering exists, and that if it did, it would refute God. Most of us would consider that too contrarian and too extreme. It does not fit what many of us think we need to believe. If you need to believe in evil to drive you to battle, this teaching will discourage you.
It makes no sense to call something
evil because the harm it does crosses a certain border. That is like saying
murder is not murder when you kill one person, but it is if you kill two.
Some say that evil versus good teaches there is a cosmic battle between two
kinds of forces, perhaps supernatural ones or ones that are like the
supernatural. Many reject that as simplistic and untrue.
One problem is how no two people agree on where the supposed good is, and the supposed evil is, or what they are. People can do great harm even as they mean well. You can fight an evil only to realise it was only a collateral thing while the real evil laughs in your face. All agree that evil and harm hide under the guise of good and use good things for cover.
But if there is a battle or a war, that deception or confusion is what you would expect! It does not refute the cosmic battle theology.
The teaching that we have a war in ourselves where good confronts evil and evil confronts good does not refute a cosmic battle either. It could be seen as supporting it.
There is a worry that if you see good and evil as a cosmic conflict that it turns us into soldiers and crusaders who get fearful and toxic and amplifies evil as an enemy. That would not refute the cosmic battle idea. If you don't want the horror of believing in cancer, that does not make cancer go away.
An internal war or a cosmic war? You can hate evil with the same intense force either way. You feel like a universe inside. You can hate something with the same force whether or not you believe in a universal war of God v Satan and Justice v Injustice. And it is because you hate the evil in you first and foremost that you can hate the supposed evil side in the cosmic war.
My point: if the cosmic war idea leads to hate and cruelty, it is only because our internal war did it first.
Many say that evil is anything that makes or should make those who are aware of it experience great horror. They feel a moral revulsion. This is too subjective, for if you are depressed, the thought of living another day seems unjust and evil.
Their view is often associated with actions that show a level of malice. You want someone hurt just because they can be hurt. But that would mean that shooting people when the plague is coming to spare them suffering is not evil but misguided. There would be no malice there. What you see from this is that talk of battling evil is just talk. It does not really help that much in the real world, for most of us do harm for a perceived greater benefit. Even if a person harbours malice, that does not mean they are harming you over it.
Many say that evil is something that is morally wrong, and you can detect it when you ask yourself, “Can I ever see myself doing that?” and get a no. Again, that is too subjective and too smug.
Many gravitate toward the idea that an evil deed is one that is unfathomable. You cannot find the motive, and you would not understand, even if you could. This is nonsense, for you are never going to know the culprit as well as the culprit knows themselves. There is a difference between something unfathomable and something that cannot be communicated well. If the therapists are told the reasons, they will not share them. Plus, the person is unreliable, so is it true? Will some withhold their reasons simply because they want others to keep guessing? Will some invent reasons so that they have a chance of being seen as stupid and crazy rather than evil, as in unfathomable?
The "unfathomable" approach actually writes the
person off by saying therapy and reformation are a waste of time. It is evil
itself, if anything is.
In the end, the concept of evil is complex,
subjective, and often manipulated to serve personal or collective agendas.
Understanding evil requires more than labeling actions or intentions; it demands
deep reflection on motives, consequences, and the intricate interplay between
good and bad within ourselves and the world. Rather than rushing to condemn or
simplify, we must recognize the gray areas and strive for empathy,
self-awareness, and critical thinking. Only then can we confront true evil—not
as a vague, external enemy—but as a challenge to our own moral responsibility
and capacity for growth.