In manyAbrahamic religions,demons are considered to be evil beings and are contrasted withangels, who are their good contemporaries.
Evil, as a concept, is usually defined as profoundly immoral behavior, and it is related to acts that cause unnecessarypain and suffering to others.[1][2][3]
Evil is commonly seen as the opposite, or sometimesabsence, ofgood. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profoundwickedness and againstcommon good. It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personalmoral evil commonly associated with the word, or impersonalnatural evil (as in the case of natural disasters or illnesses), and inreligious thought, the form of thedemonic orsupernatural/eternal.[4] While some religions,world views, and philosophies focus on "good versus evil", others deny evil's existence and usefulness in describing people.
In some forms of thought, evil is also sometimes perceived in absolute terms as thedualistic antagonisticbinary opposite to good,[8] in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.[9] In cultures withBuddhist spiritual influence, bothgood and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achievingNirvana.[9] Theethical questions regarding good and evil are subsumed into three major areas of study:[10]meta-ethics, concerning the nature of good and evil;normative ethics, concerning how we ought to behave; andapplied ethics, concerning particular moral issues. While the term is applied to events and conditions withoutagency, the forms of evil addressed in this article presume one or moreevildoers.
Evil is translated as惡 in Chinese.[12] The duty of the emperor and of his officials is to restrain it, thus preserving the cosmic order.[13]
The nature of good and evil was also ascertainable by natural faculties without the need for revelation—"one will not achieve a perfect perception of good and evil if one has not exactly examined the nature and reason of things."[14]
Offenses against the Three Bonds and the Five Constants
Chinese cosmology, moral philosophy and law regard offenses against theFive Constants with particular abhorrence—anything that diminished the proper relationship between ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger, and between mutual friends was a violation of the cosmic order and heinous.[13] Anything that went against the Way embedded in the order of human relationships was considered vile, and invited the displeasure of Heaven and ghosts, who were seen as inflicting retribution through the instrumentality of legal punishments on earth.[15]Chinese moral and legal philosophy views the violation of family and kinship order with particular abhorrence, considering it especially heinous.[16] In assessing the degree of evil, not only the severity of the effect against the life, health or dignity of a person is considered, but also the relational distance.
Ten Abominations ("十惡")
TheMing Legal Code identifiedTen Abominations—categories of prohibited conduct so abhorrent and heinous that the usual considerations of pardon would not apply[13]—these include plottingrebellion, great sedition,treason,parricide, depravity (the murder of three or more innocent persons or the use of magical curses), great irreverence (lèse-majesté), lack offilial piety, discord, unrighteousness andincest (fornication with relatives of fourth degree of mourning or less, or relationships with one's father's wife and concubines).[17]
Other views
As with Buddhism, inConfucianism orTaoism there is no direct analogue to the waygood and evil are opposed although reference todemonic influence is common inChinese folk religion. Confucianism's primary concern is with correct social relationships and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man. Thusevil would correspond to wrong behavior. Still less does it map into Taoism, in spite of the centrality ofdualism in that system[citation needed], but the opposite of the cardinal virtues of Taoism, compassion, moderation, and humility can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it.[18][19]
European philosophy
In response to the practices ofNazi Germany,Hannah Arendt concluded that "the problem of evil would be the fundamental problem of postwar intellectual life in Europe", although such a focus did not come to fruition.[20]
By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.
By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good.[21]
Spinoza assumes aquasi-mathematical style and states these further propositions which he purports to prove or demonstrate from the above definitions in part IV of hisEthics:[21]
Proposition 8 "Knowledge of good or evil is nothing but affect of joy or sorrow in so far as we are conscious of it."
Proposition 30 "Nothing can be evil through that which it possesses in common with our nature, but in so far as a thing is evil to us it is contrary to us."
Proposition 64 "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge."
Corollary "Hence it follows that if the human mind had none but adequate ideas, it would form no notion of evil."
Proposition 65 "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, and of two evils,follow the less."
Proposition 68 "If men were born free, they would form no conception of good and evil so long as they were free."
Psychology
Carl Jung
Carl Jung, in his bookAnswer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the dark side of God.[22] People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project theirshadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story ofJesus as an account of God facing his own shadow.[23]
Philip Zimbardo
In 2007,Philip Zimbardo suggested that people may act in evil ways as a result of acollective identity. This hypothesis, based on his previous experience from theStanford prison experiment, was published in the bookThe Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.[24]
In 1961,Stanley Milgram began an experiment to help explain how thousands of ordinary, non-deviant, people could have reconciled themselves to a role inthe Holocaust. Participants were led to believe they were assisting in an unrelated experiment in which they had to inflict electric shocks on another person. The experiment unexpectedly found that most could be led to inflict the electric shocks,[25] including shocks that would have been fatal if they had been real.[26] The participants tended to be uncomfortable and reluctant in the role. Nearly all stopped at some point to question the experiment, but most continued after being reassured.[25]
A 2014 re-assessment of Milgram's work argued that the results should be interpreted with the "engagedfollowership" model: that people are not simply obeying the orders of a leader, but instead are willing to continue the experiment because of their desire to support the scientific goals of the leader and because of a lack of identification with the learner.[27][28]Thomas Blass argues that the experiment explains how people can becomplicit in roles such as "the dispassionate bureaucrat who may have shipped Jews toAuschwitz with the same degree of routinization as potatoes to Bremerhaven". However, likeJames Waller, he argues that it cannot explain an event like the Holocaust. Unlike the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the participants in Milgram's experiment were reassured that their actions would cause little harm and had little time to contemplate their actions.[26][29]
Religions
Abrahamic
Baháʼí Faith
TheBaháʼí Faith asserts that evil is non-existent and that it is a concept reflecting lack of good, just as cold is the state of no heat, darkness is the state of no light, forgetfulness the lacking of memory, ignorance the lacking of knowledge. All of these are states of lacking and have no real existence.[30]
Nevertheless, a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves.
Thus, evil is more of an intellectual concept than a true reality. Since God is good, and upon creating creation he confirmed it by saying it is Good (Genesis 1:31) evil cannot have a true reality.[30]
Thedevil, in opposition to the will of God, represents evil and tempts Christ, the personification of the character and will of God.Ary Scheffer, 1854.
Christian theology draws its concept of evil from theOld andNew Testaments. TheChristian Bible exercises "the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world."[4] In the Old Testament, evil is understood to be an opposition to God as well as something unsuitable or inferior such as the leader of thefallen angelsSatan.[31] In the New Testament theGreek wordponeros is used to indicate unsuitability, whilekakos is used to refer to opposition to God in the human realm.[32] Officially, theCatholic Church extracts its understanding of evil from its canonical antiquity and theDominicantheologian,Thomas Aquinas, who inSumma Theologica defines evil as the absence or privation of good.[33]French-American theologianHenri Blocher describes evil, when viewed as a theological concept, as an "unjustifiable reality. In common parlance, evil is 'something' that occurs in the experience thatought not to be."[34]
There is no concept of absolute evil inIslam, as a fundamental universal principle that is independent from and equal with good in a dualistic sense.[35] Although theQuran mentions thebiblical forbidden tree, it never refers to it as the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'.[35] Within Islam, it is considered essential to believe that all comes fromGod, whether it is perceived as good or bad by individuals; and things that are perceived asevil orbad are either natural events (natural disasters or illnesses) or caused by humanity's free will. Much more the behavior of beings with free will, then they disobey God's orders, harming others or putting themselves over God or others, is considered to be evil.[36] Evil does not necessarily refer to evil as an ontological or moral category, but often to harm or as the intention and consequence of an action, but also to unlawful actions.[35] Unproductive actions or those who do not produce benefits are also thought of as evil.[37]
A typical understanding of evil is reflected byAl-Ash'ari, founder ofAsh'arism. Accordingly, qualifying something as evil depends on the circumstances of the observer. An event or an action itself is neutral, but it receives its qualification by God. Since God is omnipotent and nothing can exist outside of God's power, God determines whether or not something is evil.[38]
InJudaism and Jewish theology, the existence of evil is presented as part of the idea offree will: if humans were created to be perfect, always and only doing good, being good would not mean much. For Jewish theology, it is important for humans to have the ability to choose the path of goodness, even in the face of temptation andyetzer hara (the inclination to do evil).[39][40]
Evil in the religion ofancient Egypt is known asIsfet, "disorder/violence". It is the opposite ofMaat, "order", and embodied by the serpent godApep, who routinely attempts to kill thesun godRa and is stopped by nearly every other deity. Isfet is not a primordial force, but the consequence of free will and an individual's struggle against the non-existence embodied by Apep, as evidenced by the fact that it was born from Ra's umbilical cord instead of being recorded in the religion's creation myths.[41]
One of the five paintings ofExtermination of Evil portrays one of the eight guardians ofBuddhist law, Sendan Kendatsuba, banishing evil.
The primal duality in Buddhism is between suffering andenlightenment, so thegood vs. evil splitting has no direct analogue in it. One may infer from the general teachings of theBuddha that thecatalogued causes of suffering are what correspond in thisbelief system to 'evil'.[42][43]
Practically this can refer to 1) the three selfish emotions—desire, hate and delusion; and 2) to their expression in physical and verbal actions. Specifically,evil means whatever harms or obstructs the causes for happiness in this life, a better rebirth, liberation fromsamsara, and the true and complete enlightenment of a buddha (samyaksambodhi).
"What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil: envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And what is the root of evil?Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil."Gautama Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, 563–483 BC.
Hinduism
In Hinduism, the concept ofDharma or righteousness clearly divides the world intogood and evil, and clearly explains that wars have to be waged sometimes to establish and protect Dharma, this war is calledDharmayuddha. This division of good and evil is of major importance in both the Hindu epics ofRamayana andMahabharata. The main emphasis inHinduism is on bad action, rather than bad people. The Hindu holy text, theBhagavad Gita, speaks of the balance of good and evil. When this balance goes off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance.[44]
Sikhism
In adherence to the core principle of spiritual evolution, theSikh idea of evil changes depending on one's position on the path to liberation. At the beginning stages of spiritual growth, good and evil may seem neatly separated. Once one's spirit evolves to the point where it sees most clearly, the idea of evil vanishes and the truth is revealed. In his writingsGuru Arjan explains that, because God is the source of all things, what we believe to be evil must too come from God. And because God is ultimately a source of absolute good, nothing truly evil can originate from God.[45]
Sikhism, like many other religions, does incorporate a list of "vices" from which suffering, corruption, and abject negativity arise. These are known as theFive Thieves, called such due to their propensity to cloud the mind and lead one astray from the prosecution of righteous action.[46] These are:[47]
One who gives in to the temptations of theFive Thieves is known as "Manmukh", or someone who lives selfishly and without virtue. Inversely, the "Gurmukh, who thrive in their reverence toward divine knowledge, rise above vice via the practice of the high virtues of Sikhism. These are:[48]
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether one's definition of evil is determined by one's social or cultural background.C. S. Lewis, inThe Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such asrape andmurder. However, the rape of women, by men, is found in every society, and there are more societies that see at least some versions of it, such asmarital rape or punitive rape, as normative than there are societies that see all rape as non-normative (a crime).[49] In nearly all societies, killing except for defense or duty is seen as murder. Yet the definition of defense and duty varies from one society to another.[50]Social deviance is not uniformly defined across different cultures, and is not, in all circumstances, necessarily an aspect of evil.[51][52]
Defining evil is complicated by its multiple, often ambiguous, common usages: evil is used to describe the whole range of suffering, including that caused by nature, and it is also used to describe the full range of human immorality from the "evil of genocide to the evil of malicious gossip".[53]: 321 It is sometimes thought of as the generic opposite of good. Marcus Singer asserts that these common connotations must be set aside as overgeneralized ideas that do not sufficiently describe the nature of evil.[54]: 185, 186
In contemporary philosophy, there are two basic concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. A broad concept defines evil simply as any and all pain and suffering: "any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw".[55] Yet, it is also asserted that evil cannot be correctly understood "(as some of the utilitarians once thought) [on] a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus".[56] This is because pain is necessary for survival.[57] Renowned orthopedist and missionary to lepers,Dr. Paul Brand explains that leprosy attacks the nerve cells that feel pain resulting in no more pain for the leper, which leads to ever increasing, often catastrophic, damage to the body of the leper.[58]: 9, 50–51 Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is a neurological disorder that prevents feeling pain. It "leads to ... bone fractures, multiple scars, osteomyelitis, joint deformities, and limb amputation ... Mental retardation is common. Death from hyperpyrexia occurs within the first 3 years of life in almost 20% of the patients."[59] Few with the disorder are able to live into adulthood.[60] Evil cannot be simply defined as all pain and its connected suffering because, as Marcus Singer says: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".[54]: 186
The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, therefore it is ascribed only to moral agents and their actions.[53]: 322 This eliminates natural disasters and animal suffering from consideration as evil: according toClaudia Card, "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others".[61] The narrow definition of evil "picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc.Evil [in this sense] ... is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable".[54] Eve Garrard suggests that evil describes "particularly horrifying kinds of action which we feel are to be contrasted with more ordinary kinds of wrongdoing, as when for example we might say 'that action wasn't just wrong, it was positively evil'. The implication is that there is a qualitative, and not merely quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality".[53]: 321 In this context, the concept of evil is one element in a full nexus of moral concepts.[53]: 324
Views on the nature of evil belong to the branch of philosophy known asethics—which in modern philosophy is subsumed into three major areas of study:[10]
Meta-ethics, that seeks to understand the nature of ethicalproperties, statements, attitudes, and judgments.
Normative ethics, investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
Applied ethics, concerned with the analysis of particular moral issues in private and public life.[10]
Usefulness as a term
There is debate on how useful the term "evil" is, since it is often associated with spirits and the devil. Some see the term as useless because they say it lacks any real ability to explain what it names. There is also real danger of the harm that being labeled "evil" can do when used in moral, political, and legal contexts.[55]: 1–2 Those who support the usefulness of the term say there is a secular view of evil that offers plausible analyses without reference to the supernatural.[53]: 325 Garrard and Russell argue that evil is as useful an explanation as any moral concept.[53]: 322–326 [62] Garrard adds that evil actions result from a particular kind of motivation, such as taking pleasure in the suffering of others, and this distinctive motivation provides a partial explanation even if it does not provide a complete explanation.[53]: 323–325 [62]: 268–269 Most theorists agree use of the term evil can be harmful but disagree over what response that requires. Some argue it is "more dangerous to ignore evil than to try to understand it".[55]
Those who support the usefulness of the term, such as Eve Garrard and David McNaughton, argue that the term evil "captures a distinct part of our moral phenomenology, specifically, 'collect[ing] together those wrongful actions to which we have ... a response of moral horror'."[63] Claudia Card asserts it is only by understanding the nature of evil that we can preserve humanitarian values and prevent evil in the future.[64] If evils are the worst sorts of moral wrongs, social policy should focus limited energy and resources on reducing evil over other wrongs.[65] Card asserts that by categorizing certain actions and practices as evil, we are better able to recognize and guard against responding to evil with more evil which will "interrupt cycles of hostility generated by past evils".[65]: 166
One school of thought holds that noperson is evil and that onlyacts may be properly considered evil. Some theorists define an evil action simply as a kind of action an evil person performs,[66]: 280 but just as many theorists believe that an evil character is one who is inclined toward evil acts.[67]: 2 Luke Russell argues that both evil actions and evil feelings are necessary to identify a person as evil, while Daniel Haybron argues that evil feelings and evil motivations are necessary.[55]: 4–4.1
American psychiatristM. Scott Peck describes evil as a kind of personal "militant ignorance".[68] According to Peck, an evil person is consistently self-deceiving, deceives others,psychologically projects his or her evil onto very specific targets,[69] hates, abuses power, and lies incessantly.[68][70] Evil people are unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident insociopaths. He also considers that certain institutions may be evil, using theMy Lai massacre to illustrate. By this definition, acts ofcriminal andstate terrorism would also be considered evil.
Martin Luther believed that occasional minor evil could have a positive effect.
Martin Luther argued that there are cases where a little evil is a positive good. He wrote, "Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt forthe Devil, so as not to give him the chance to make one scrupulous over mere nothings ..."[71]
Theinternational relations theories ofrealism andneorealism, sometimes calledrealpolitik advise politicians to explicitly ban absolute moral andethical considerations from international politics, and to focus on self-interest, political survival, and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view as explicitlyamoral and dangerous. Political realists usually justify their perspectives by stating that morals and politics should be separated as two unrelated things, as exerting authority often involves doing something not moral.Machiavelli wrote that "one should not care about incurring the fame of those vices without which it is difficult to save one's state; for if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one's ruin, and something else appears to be vice, which if pursued results in one's security and well-being."[72]
^abGriffin, David Ray (2004) [1976].God, Power, and Evil: a Process Theodicy. Westminster. p. 31.ISBN978-0-664-22906-1.
^ab"Evil". Oxford University Press. 2012. Archived fromthe original on July 12, 2012.
^Ervin Staub.Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 32.
^Matthews, Caitlin; Matthews, John (2004).Walkers Between the Worlds: The Western Mysteries from Shaman to Magus. New York City:Simon & Schuster. p. 173.ISBN978-0-89281-091-8.
^Feng, Yu-lan (1983). "Origin of Evil".History of Chinese Philosophy, Volume II: The Period of Classical Learning (from the Second Century B.C. to the Twentieth Century A.D. Translated by Bodde, Derk. New Haven, CN:Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-02022-8.
^Stephen Palmquist,Dreams of Wholeness: A course of introductory lectures on religion, psychology and personal growth (Hong Kong: Philopsychy Press, 1997/2008), see especially Chapter XI.
^Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Birney, Megan E. (September 1, 2014). "Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science".Journal of Social Issues.70 (3):473–488.doi:10.1111/josi.12072.hdl:10034/604991.ISSN1540-4560.
^Thomas Aquinas,Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947) Volume 3, q. 72, a. 1, p. 902.
^Henri Blocher,Evil and the Cross (Downers Grove:InterVarsity Press, 1994): 10.
^Jane Dammen McAuliffeEncyclopaedia of the Qurʼān Brill 2001ISBN978-90-04-14764-5 p. 338
^P. Koslowski (2013).The Origin and the Overcoming of Evil and Suffering in the World Religions Springer Science & Business MediaISBN978-94-015-9789-0 p. 37
^Singh, Gopal (1967).Sri guru-granth sahib [english version]. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co.
^Singh, Charan (2013-12-11). "Ethics and Business: Evidence from Sikh Religion".Social Science Research Network. Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.SSRN2366249.
^Sandhu, Jaswinder (February 2004). "The Sikh Model of the Person, Suffering, and Healing: Implications for Counselors".International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling.26 (1):33–46.doi:10.1023/B:ADCO.0000021548.68706.18.S2CID145256429.
^Singh, Arjan (January 2000). "The universal ideal of sikhism".Global Dialogue.2 (1).
^Brown, Jennifer; Horvath, Miranda, eds. (2013).Rape Challenging Contemporary Thinking. Taylor & Francis. p. 62.ISBN9781134026395.
^Humphrey, J.A.; Palmer, S. (2013).Deviant Behavior Patterns, Sources, and Control. Springer US. p. 11.ISBN9781489905833.
Wilson, William McF., Julian N. Hartt (2004).Farrer's Theodicy. In David Hein and Edward Hugh Henderson (eds),Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology ofAustin Farrer. New York and London: T & T Clark / Continuum.ISBN0-567-02510-1
.jpg)
