I applaud your effort, but am of the mind that defining evil is a road that ultimately doesn’t lead anywhere. Legions of theologians and others make valiant attempts, but I think the inscription on the Gate to Hell had it right: “Abandon every hope, you who enter.” That said, I’m happy to trod alongside for a bit and offer some observations.
On this road I’m afraid there is no suitable “why.” You are right to apply a discount to intent. Primo Levi recounted his first experience in Auschwitz: “Driven by thirst, I eyed a fine icicle outside the window, within hand’s reach. I opened the window and broke off the icicle but at once a large, heavy guard prowling outside brutally snatched it away from me. “Warum?” (Why?) I asked him in my poor German. “Hier ist kein warum” (Here, there is no why), he replied, pushing me inside with a shove.”
As you noted, describing the cause of evil is an elusive (I think impossible) task. It’s far easier to describe behaviors and consequences. Evidence of evil, of course, is replete. You seem to focus more on form rather than the motive force that produces impious acts. That illustrates the difficulty of describing an irresistible power that resides in an absence (of good). Karl Barth used the term “Das Nichtige,” (The Nothingness). He ascribed no positive existence to it, but deemed it a parasitic force of negation, chaos, and disorder. Aquinas explained that odd paradox (nothingness, yet with menacing power) best, I think, when he equated it to blindness: “Evil is to goodness as blindness is to the eye.” A nothing that is something — an absence that menaces, impedes, hinders, frustrates, and takes pleasure in inflicting injury.
Augustine deemed it the “mysterium iniquitatus” — the deeply puzzling and inexplicable nature of evil that is beyond the reach of human cognition. This enigma is further complicated by the behaviors you note. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said in 1946: “How much evil we must do in order to do good. This, I think, is a very succinct statement of the human condition.” G.K. Chesterton described efforts to account for the cause as akin to joining a “chattering monkey house of moralists;” the origins and mechanics simply cannot be fully grasped by human reason. It is unintelligible because it is anti-reason. Albert Speer was asked how it was possible to work with Hitler and not recognize resident evil; he replied “It is hard to know the devil when his hand is on your shoulder.” Self-serving, perhaps, but it points to evil’s mystery and deceitfulness. Dietrich Bonhoeffer told us evil can appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity, or social justice, confirming the deceptive wickedness of evil. Lance Morrow has an apt metaphor in his book Evil, An Investigation: “I like the image of evil as a current that passes through the world, as it has, in one form or another, from the beginning, a sort of invisible electromagnetic flow through the globe, pole to pole. From time to time the evil force manifests itself in violent displays - moral hurricanes, earthquakes of pathology and slaughter.”
I do not think evil is the act in and of itself, as you describe, but rather the stimulus (the “current”) behind freely chosen immoral decisions. The act is freely chosen because the perpetrator employs his “libero arbitrio” (free will) in surrendering to this alien power. You sum it up neatly by, in essence, describing how the perpetrator prioritizes self-interest over moral law. Self-interest, of course, is in our DNA, and fertile ground for the incursion of evil. Gandhi noted that “Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.”
Evil may not always be expressed in a positive act; Elie Wiesel said the opposite of good is not evil, but indifference. Avishai Margalit said: “Evil, like caring, is a scarce commodity. There is not so much banality of evil, as banality of indifference. Yet one has to admit that the combination of evil and indifference is lethal, like the combination of poison and water.”
It may be the old soldier in me, but I have taken some solace in thinking of evil as a form of friction, in the manner of Karl von Clausewitz’s extraordinary description in On War. Clausewitz spoke of it as a those unpredictable, chaotic, and random factors that bedevil military opponents. If we apply the concept more broadly in the sense of evil as a structural feature of existence, evil is a menacing opportunist that always seeks to employ friction to exacerbate disorder (the first sure sign of the presence of evil). Evil in the form of friction surrounds us — it’s ubiquitous — but it doesn’t ‘surge’ until there is motion toward good and away from evil. Evil acts on the rheostat to crank up friction’s “current,” trying to drive us away from good — a corrupting parasite that makes trying to “do good to all men” a resistive element, and moral callousness and indifference a non-resistive element. It erodes moral sensibilities, and empowers psycopathy. It wears down willpower. It paralyzes and devitalizes the good. And its effects are compounding. As Tolkien said, “It does not create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.” The more complex man’s machinations (e.g, in war, as you note), the denser the friction, and the more intolerable and inexcusable the harms.
Tolkien spoke of the “long defeat” wherein man is engaged in an ongoing struggle of good against evil. Man can combat the friction imposed by evil with the right lubricants (faith, reason, experience, community, family, leadership, judgment), but the guardians of good must be continuously on guard, while evil incessantly picks at the gaps in our armor. Constant vigilance is, of course, an oxymoron. That is why Tolkien characterized the often thankless task of good holding back the forces of darkness as “ever defeated, never altogether subdued.” The forces of good may suffer setbacks and partial defeats, but can never be completely subjugated or overcome by the forces of evil. Perhaps Aristotle’s sign on our road says it best: “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.”
“Dietrich Bonhoeffer told us evil can appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity, or social justice, confirming the deceptive wickedness of evil.”
—There is enough to respond to here for a dissertation, but I will just focus on that.
That is why I tried to hone in on the results/effects on the victim rather than the cause or the intent. My primary concern is whether or not people are made to suffer by others.
"Forcing an unwilling" might be refined a bit. Some of the worst and most horrifying evil I see is using subtle means of mind control or manipulation, whether with drugs, persuasive propaganda that convinces the critically thinking impaired (which is actually created by our public indoctrination institutions,) mass media lies and omissions, and most horrifying, new high tech means of mental enslavement with nanotechnology, beamed brain coded signals, chemical substances that impair thinking or create emotional states that can be used to get obedience and cooperation with psychopathic "authority figures" and probably a few others I have missed, which can create the willingness without any obvious use of force.
What about the very commonly used tactic of offering supposed "benefits" to the gullible masses and getting them dependent on the so called "government" magic printing press money to pay for them, thus ensuring their cooperation and support? There is of course diminishment of the productive people, but are the covetous ones who deceive themselves that they have a "right" to these benefits paid for by those selfish "rich" people any less evil, though they may keep their own hands free of using the force? Willful stupidity sure seems like a very common form of evil in this world.
true, however those who can still fool themselves that they are the poor victim and don't have to dirty their hands with the actual force or coercion which they tell themselves is needed and good. Perhaps this is nit picking on my part, but it is such subtleties that allow these ignorant people to picture themselves as good and making the world a better place. Lying to self if not actually evil, is not what I would call good, and I think results in a lot of evil. Personal responsibility must be taken for our own contributions to evil in the world so much of which is the result of our own false image of ourselves and how it allows for the support of evil in the world. I am 80 years old and never applied for social security benefits because I know the value from it was stolen a long time ago and the present system relies upon taking from young workers what they will never receive. To me that is evil, and perhaps you would see my decision is extreme. I am not perfect and don't expect others to make such a sacrifice, but it is just a small example of how we talk ourselves into thinking we are free from all evil when we think it is necessary for our prosperity or even survival.
Makes sense. Perhaps , though, that is all the more reason to focus on outcomes, irrespective of what anyone thinks or intends or convinces themselves?
Yes indeed Christopher, but that is intelligence. The diminishment of intelligence is evil although it doesn't always involve the use of force or coercion, which is the point I've been trying to make. People are dumbed down quite easily, this destruction of intelligence is why so many are unable to "focus on outcomes" if not why would nations keep going down the path of socialism when it has such obvious inevitable negative outcomes? Putting flouride in water, glyphosate in GMO food, the toxins in most medications and shots like mercury and others, the promotion of high fructose corn syrup, oh I could go on for two more paragraphs about how intelligence is destroyed in our culture and almost all totally not involving force or coercion.
This "unwilling person" part flashed yellow for me too.
Two things, as Hat said, the person may not be "unwilling" he may be brainwashed and perfectly willing.
Second, the definition needs to accommodate where there is no other person, willing or unwilling involved, I.e. I push a button and blow up a building full of people.
I agree. The insidious crafting of all facets of reality to convince sheeple to obey is ubiquitous. It has shaped our language, entertainment, history, schools, behavioral standards, social norms, and so much more.
Evil is eradicating all the things that hold us together as countrymen and humans.
And to ensure this phuckery continues, these mindbenders are eagerly delivering new technologies that can be embedded into social media to biologically trigger people to change their decision making processes. ( Who do you think is the target?) Or the EM device that diminishes faith in God. ( What twisted GERB felt this was necessary?)
Evil is not always dramatic and overt. These days it can be quietly residing anywhere. Banality is evil’s accomplice.
Wow, great comment! One of the most pervasive forms of evil is the art of encouraging and promoting division and separation along any perceived line of difference or duality. Convincing the gullible that we are a cosmic accident of a godless universe and you are justified in any tactic or subterfuge that will allow you to come out on top helps this along. When you see your brother (or sister) as yourself that is good. Seeing them as a resource for you to use no matter the consequence to them, that is evil thought, when that thought becomes an action or a way of life well there is evil manifest. Force or coercion will of course come into the picture, yet the most successful psychopaths find ways to minimize the force or the actual coercion. Don't they now say that "we didn't make you take the vax?" Intimidation short of force is actually a sign of weakness, but the general use of force and violence will actually even sign an end to their reign of terror. Ask Machiavelli.
This is an extremely compelling point, and one I had been thinking of prior to reading this article. Personally speaking, this makes me a bit paranoid about the ubiquitous use of rhetoric and culture manipulation/subversion. Even anti-depressants seem like the perfect tool for a psy-op, by getting rid of people's mental signals regarding the problems in their world-- but I digress.
Perhaps a distinction worth making is whether the persuasion occurs in a covert manner (the individual isn't consciously aware of the effect that someone has on their mind). Your examples of drugs, propaganda, and mind control rely upon *undermining someone's agency* and thus their capacity to make meaningful decisions. If I were to convince someone with rational arguments, however, this wouldn't inherently be evil.
What about "any act ... that undermines a person's agency..."? At the same time, I think "as a means to an end" deals with the manipulation question.
Perhaps, but I think covert manipulation can occur without the element of threats (my understanding of coercion) being present. I could be wrong, but here is some elaboration to clarify my view.
The use of skewed incentive structures (and possible rewards) forms a cornerstone of covert manipulation. Propaganda that conflates adherence to one's patriotic/religious values with allegiance to the state relies upon the citizen's drive to be considered heroic (by themselves or others). Not all of it relies on threats, but instead the reward of conformity / appearing virtuous.
If a wave of popular celebrities were secretly bribed to endorse a corrupt politician, a significant number of unknowing citizens would follow them; arguably, the celebrities and briber (?) are both taking part in manipulation, but there's little threat/punishment involved in this process.
I think it's evil due to exploiting people's irrational blind spots (e.g. bandwagon effect), but would this still fall under coercive force? Or just treating people as a means to an end?
It is, by proxy, causing people to be subjected to force (and to be made into means rather than treated as ends). And it is driven, in large measure, by the last of the sins: vanity/pride. People want to feel good about themselves. They are told that X or Y is the pathways to that. So they do/follow/vote for X or Y. And it causes others to be made into means…
What about bribery and offering incentives for promoting or doing things that are destructive of human prosperity and happiness, like the destruction that is and has been done to the family, gender identification, university education, climate hysteria, spreading misinformation and lies on mass media etc. Rewards have also been used to persuade people to do things that would ordinarily be against their conscience. Making more money by using cheap but known unhealthy materials in food, promoting drugs that are known to be harmful and bribing doctors to prescribe them anyway?
Yes, that's better, many who are manipulated are actually trying to do what they have been told is the good thing..like making your employees get the jab, wear a mask, or lose their jobs. It nearly always involves some self deception or blind spots in many people for this tactic to succeed. Such people are just ignorant more than they are evil, but one of the aims of the evil is to make sure they don't get educated in logical thought or self reflection, keep 'em dumb. But then this is an argument for the necessity that people have a genuine understanding of what constitutes evil. Again, it seems to be something that you would not like to be done to you.
Perhaps I should add there are things you would not like but are done with good intent and outcome, like the discipline of a father. But this takes an honest assessment and realization of how this actually benefited you. As Christopher said, "focus on outcomes."
Your article yesterday was a great one man! It’s still making me think. I’ll write an article myself but my perspective is: “How can we get the populace to SEE this Evil.”
Due to the propaganda, the masses don’t see the evil and come up with all kinds of justifications. But when we can have the public see “who are the bad guys”, then we can get people to STOP supporting the bad guys (ie: why we should stop watching skull and bones sports like football: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/7-reasons-you-should-stop-watching)
Christopher, I’m glad you brought up Occam’s razor. Just as an example of why it’s not always right, we have the words of H.L. Mencken; “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
I don’t agree with your definition of evil, primarily because of “regardless of intent.” In law intent matters. Mens rea, “guilty mind” vs actus reus, “guilty act.” For me intent is everything. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “"the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.” Someone who claims they were only trying to do good by taking something from one person to give to someone more needy is still has a guilty mind because they knew, or should have known that using force violates the nonaggression principle, and the taking violates property rights. Every socialist claims their actions are for the “greater good,” tacitly admitting what they did was wrong.
That’s not to say we don’t need a better definition. Until then I’m going with “that which is not good.” 😊
I get what you are saying, but I excluded intent precisely because of the reasons you cited: most people do not plan to do evil. But the things they do are evil.
Heck, for all we know, Mao, Cromwell, and Hitler really believed that they were acting for the greater good. But it is the outcomes of their actions that were evil.
Maybe this is where our opinions diverge. Perhaps I tend to think that intent is precisely the difference between malice and stupidity. I didn’t mean to leave the impression that just because someone says they are doing good that they are not acting with malice. Again, government. The most evil entity that has ever existed. People have a hard time accepting that our government can do evil, yet also can’t believe that our government can be so incompetent; thus we get conspiracy. A few rogue actors. Or, if you’re on the left it’s all because of Trump. Sorry, got off topic. We’re still looking for a definition of evil.
LOL I hear you completely. Involuntary government is morally impermissible in ALL its forms, and everyone who works for government is participating in morally impermissible activity. It is all initiation of force, and thus technically actionable.
But I am also not going to get too angry at a city bus driver. The system needs to end, but it's not his fault, really. Even many politically and philosophically astute individuals are ignorant of, or do not yet grasp, the simple crystal clarity of the anarchist argument. We must continue to awaken them!
That is reasonable, at least as a partial description. But what about the people in the Milgram experiments? They were just normal folks, who loved their families, until they were told to do something evil…
Right. The bottom line is whether you treat others as you would like to be treated. It is not love when you use another for your benefit when you know it is to that person's deficit.
Although it’s a good definition, I think it’s looking at evil from the wrong point of view. As I understand it, the definition is basically a restatement of Kantian ethics, where the human being must be seen as an end only, and never a means.
However, this definition places too much importance on freedom and human will, and in consequence produces a relativistic, subjective system of morality. Thus, one can imagine a society where evidently and manifestly evil acts are undergone willingly and routinely by all participants, and your definition would invalidate calling them evil.
Without going to far, see the famous case of the German cannibal. A man was looking for someone to murder and consume him. Another accepted, and the deed was carried out. Since both participants were willing, and no coercion was applied, was the act good?
Any definition of evil that doesn’t begin from an objective definition and concept of good is doomed to relativism and subjectivism from the start.
I was trying to be objective, not relative, so your challenge intrigues me.
The cannibalism is certainly offensive to God's creation. But in some earthly sense, if they were consenting, then is it evil? Hideous, yes. Offensive, as I say, to God's creation. But evil? I will have to think about it.
An easy reply would be the classical, Augustinian definition: evil is the absence of Good, an ontological void.
This looks like a cheap reply, but it is actually a whole definition. Evil is not a thing, evil has no existence, there is no such thing as evil: evil is, literally, no-thing, as it can only be defined negatively.
Much like darkness is only the absence of light, and cold is only the absence of heat/energy/movement, then evil is nothing but the absence of Good, or the removal from Good. The farther the distance, the lesser the good, the greater the evil.
Of course, this leaves you with the problem of defining what Good is, capital G Good, which is no easy task. However, this is a definition that is complete, in that it provides an objective standard for what evil is (based on the objective existence of Good), and is absolute, and not able to be relativized to impotence by relying on human freedom or will.
Of course, this presupposes that (a) you believe in objective good, and (b) you believe that Good has an ontological existence in and of itself. But if you don’t believe those things, or at least don’t believe (a), then talking about God’s creation doesn’t make much sense, and you won’t have much common ground with someone who does.
Fair enough, but I have also seen devout Christians in this thread quoting scriptural references to God having "created evil."
I do not think that an omnibeneficent God would create evil. Thus, I took those references to mean that God allowed freedom, and freedom allows evil. (Freedom is a higher good that an omnibeneficent God would allow/create.) But I would want to hear a few opinions of people who could read the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic (I don't recall now which verse it was).
I do believe that God created a beneficial order to the universe, with natural laws and moral laws that emanate from those nature laws. Those are something I can perceive, and use logical to understand. And I must do that, because I believe God would not be arbitrary and create "just because I said so" morality. It would also have to make sense logically. So, if we call that ontological good, I am fine with that notion.
But then is evil just and only an absence of that? Is a desire to do harm just the lack of that goodness?
And then, another question—what about all the terrible evils that are done by people who "mean well"?
I’ll start with the last thing you mentioned first, since it ties more directly into your post and definition.
Here, we need to distinguish between mediate and immediate intent when carrying out an act. An act may have an intent that is mediately good, but immediately bad; this is the classic “doing evil for the greater good”, or “ends justify the means” utilitarian morality.
In this case, the actual intent (which is essential when morally qualifying an action, since intent is a constitutive element of free will, and free will is a sine qua non for a morally qualifiable act) is to do evil, regardless of whether the person carrying out the act believes that the good ends the deed is aligned towards actually justify their evil action.
Thus, “meaning well” has no relevance when morally qualifying an act, when the actual and immediate intent of the person carrying out the act was the evil object, notwithstanding any ulterior motives.
As for your first point, the Bible can be quoted partially and misquoted to justify basically any atrocious position one can come up with. If you’re looking for interpretations closer to the authentic sources, I’d recommend taking a look at the works of the earlier Fathers of the Church. Augustine of Hippo in particular has written quite extensively on the nature of evil (in particular, evil as the absence of good), and this position is orthodoxy for the oldest Christian denominations.
As for ontological good, I’m referring to good that exists as an entity in and of itself, and not only as an adjective or characteristic that qualifies other entities. In this sense, if God exists, and God is understood as, among other things, the Good and the source of all Good, then Good exists, it has being. As you said, good cannot create evil, and thus evil can only be the privation of that Good.
Well, pain exists, that can’t be denied. You can’t define a negative by another negative (defining pain as the absence of not-pain would make pain not-not-pain, which is as dumb as it sounds), and neither is it the absence of pleasure. Pain can be empirically measured, and it’s existence can’t be seriously challenged.
However, is pain, in and of itself, evil? I would argue that it is not.
If you are a Christian who believes in the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of man, then you also believe that is was mankind’s own actions that brought pain into the world.
In man’s fallen state, pain is not evil. Pain is a fact, and can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. For example, if you felt no pain when burning your hand on a hot pan, then you wouldn’t know you should pull your hand away until you started to smell burning flesh, see your skin blister and blacken, or felt your own fat rendering, by which moment it would be too late to prevent serious, permanent damage. By feeling pain, our bodies tell us that something is hurting us, that there is something we need to avoid.
There’s a reason why people who can’t feel pain aren’t superheroes, but patients with a serious and potentially life-threatening medical condition. Would this be the case if pain was evil? I don’t think so.
My favorite philosophers are the American Absolute Pragmatist and neo-Kantian, Josiah Royce and the radical empiricism of Robert M Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality.
But both and all Philosophy struggles with the existence of evil. There’s no real rational reason for evil. So it’s eternally puzzling.
The existence of good (Pirsig). and the existence of error (Royce) are fairly obvious to any serious thinker; but evil remains a mystery
“Sin” in general is just error. Something warped out of its natural path by chance or intent. For instance it is “sinful” when the germ kills the Dr rather than the Dr killing the germ (Pirsig).
Evil is the consistent choosing of sin because its serves your selfish desires or magnifies your ego. Steinbeck’s East of Eden is a whole novel on the issue between Cain and Abel.
I like that your definition does not blame the perpetrators of the acts, just the acts themselves! The blame game only serves to shift responsibility away from what
Solzhenitsyn calls " the evil in the heart of every man".
Perpetrators of evil acts can be ignorant or knowing. Both types of people could be described as being a container and dispenser of " evil" acts, which in my observations are ( amongst other things like fear), as a result of untreated, therefore unending trauma transference to other people.
I can't imagine how much trauma some of these public and anonymous generational elites contain... They must bee seething with such a hate for life that they have to torture people constantly for a sense of relief..... And they must be so scared of death because the list of heinous acts makes paying the ferryman impossible, hence the attempt to live forever in the material realm ( transhumanism)?
I went for a focus on the acts because I think the primary concern is the suffering of victims, more than the cause of evil in general (which is hard to pin down) or the motivation of the perpetrators (which is all over the map).
In Mark Passio's teaching of Natural Law (WhatOnEarthIsHappening.com), each person has the Right to take any action that is not a wrong action. There are only seven categories of wrong actions: assault, murder, rape, theft, trespass, coercion, and fraud/deceit. Each of these seven can be thought of as a form of theft, so objective morality really can be boiled down to just three words: "Do not steal."
I also appreciate Richard Maybury's (aka Uncle Eric's) Two Laws:
1. Do all you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
Evil in the material world context where we are attempting to better define it, is quite simply the action of choice made by a human being which imposes detriment to or harm upon the life and liberty of a human being.
Evil in a metaphysical sense are the collective unseen influences upon humanity’s free will which may lead to actions of choice as described above.
Metaphysical evil is what we submit to in our individual using of others without their consent. My individual choice, moment by moment, to do an evil act opens 'me' to that metaphysical evil, & upon death any possibility of redemption (a clean slate) is lost. The existence of metaphysical evil is often the only thing that convinces some to choose the good.
If all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. . . . there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): “Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.” - Aquinas
Another great article, Chris -- I really like your call for *definitions* -- Liberty Scale is one long essay on that very thing -- a super glossary. Offhand, a glossary sounds like a boring thing to write, but I once worked with an outstanding system engineering architect who insisted on a *glossary* at the end of every system architecture specification. He would say that as an engineer writes a formal glossary for his design, he is in fact constructing the architecture itself. He was right.
He was also fond of saying that the worst problem in discussions is not that people haven't communicated -- it's that they *think* they have communicated when they haven't because their terms don't mean the same thing to all involved.
A short paragraph would go a long way in political essays if, at the front end, the essay included:
"When I used the term 'liberal', I mean ....". Or "When I write 'racist', I mean ... " Or "When I write 'progressive', I mean ...". Etc. It would really help, IMHO.
I'll have to re-read LIberty Scale (!). Are libertarians more comfortable with government than minarchists?
To my mind, a minarchist strives for the *minimum* govt possible, taking down govt and regulations wherever possible, as we go, while watching the results. We have 250 years of (mostly) growing govt and regulations, rarely pulling back. That's what's led us to 630 federal agencies and departments today, each with its own logo, buildings, employees, ever-growing budgets, etc. Yuck.
I try to watch Javier Milei in Argentina as he cuts through the thicket of Big Govt agencies and regulations. He seems to be getting positive results, but I expect some kind of pushback from the monstrous administrative state ... I hope it stays peaceful.
Minarchism is the most austere subset of libertarianism, right before you get to anarchism. I just made the distinction because I moved through greater degrees of austerity as I slowly moved rightward on the freedom scale.
It's a good, pragmatic definition. What it ignores (intentionally, perhaps) is the supernatural element of evil -- evil for evil's sake.
This, I believe, may be the fundamental difference between those who deny the existence of evil and those who acknowledge it. We are not merely acknowledging the Human potential for evil acts, which could be, and likely often are, due to ignorance or downright incompetence, or may be driven by emotions or carnal drives or brain malformations or any number of Earthly causes. We are instead acknowledging the existence of a force that exists outside of Man that encourages him to these acts, and in many cases may aid and abet him in them. (Whether or not this force can exist absent the existence of Man is a matter of debate.)
Does it matter? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, without discussing the supernatural element of evil I believe we are only superficially examining the topic. Of course -- to mix a couple of metaphors here -- that's a huge can of worms that, when opened, leads to some pretty gnarly rabbit holes.
Your definition works, but here’s a curveball: what if the idea that everyone is at a different soul level in our journey of Life is real. If that’s correct, an infant soul is in survival mode and will do whatever it takes to survive and will not understand the definition of evil. Baby souls are all about law and order, but of course that depends on what type of law and order (and shariah law doesn’t sound good to most of us westerners). A young soul is in power mode – ends justify the means - and probably make up the majority of the politicians so they could care less about the definition of evil. A mature soul would understand the definition and may possibly represent the Rand Paul type in the political world. Old souls…well, IDK, too bad they don’t run the world.
When pondering all the craziness in the world, the idea that everyone is at a different soul level in the journey of Life starts making sense:
I applaud your effort, but am of the mind that defining evil is a road that ultimately doesn’t lead anywhere. Legions of theologians and others make valiant attempts, but I think the inscription on the Gate to Hell had it right: “Abandon every hope, you who enter.” That said, I’m happy to trod alongside for a bit and offer some observations.
On this road I’m afraid there is no suitable “why.” You are right to apply a discount to intent. Primo Levi recounted his first experience in Auschwitz: “Driven by thirst, I eyed a fine icicle outside the window, within hand’s reach. I opened the window and broke off the icicle but at once a large, heavy guard prowling outside brutally snatched it away from me. “Warum?” (Why?) I asked him in my poor German. “Hier ist kein warum” (Here, there is no why), he replied, pushing me inside with a shove.”
As you noted, describing the cause of evil is an elusive (I think impossible) task. It’s far easier to describe behaviors and consequences. Evidence of evil, of course, is replete. You seem to focus more on form rather than the motive force that produces impious acts. That illustrates the difficulty of describing an irresistible power that resides in an absence (of good). Karl Barth used the term “Das Nichtige,” (The Nothingness). He ascribed no positive existence to it, but deemed it a parasitic force of negation, chaos, and disorder. Aquinas explained that odd paradox (nothingness, yet with menacing power) best, I think, when he equated it to blindness: “Evil is to goodness as blindness is to the eye.” A nothing that is something — an absence that menaces, impedes, hinders, frustrates, and takes pleasure in inflicting injury.
Augustine deemed it the “mysterium iniquitatus” — the deeply puzzling and inexplicable nature of evil that is beyond the reach of human cognition. This enigma is further complicated by the behaviors you note. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said in 1946: “How much evil we must do in order to do good. This, I think, is a very succinct statement of the human condition.” G.K. Chesterton described efforts to account for the cause as akin to joining a “chattering monkey house of moralists;” the origins and mechanics simply cannot be fully grasped by human reason. It is unintelligible because it is anti-reason. Albert Speer was asked how it was possible to work with Hitler and not recognize resident evil; he replied “It is hard to know the devil when his hand is on your shoulder.” Self-serving, perhaps, but it points to evil’s mystery and deceitfulness. Dietrich Bonhoeffer told us evil can appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity, or social justice, confirming the deceptive wickedness of evil. Lance Morrow has an apt metaphor in his book Evil, An Investigation: “I like the image of evil as a current that passes through the world, as it has, in one form or another, from the beginning, a sort of invisible electromagnetic flow through the globe, pole to pole. From time to time the evil force manifests itself in violent displays - moral hurricanes, earthquakes of pathology and slaughter.”
I do not think evil is the act in and of itself, as you describe, but rather the stimulus (the “current”) behind freely chosen immoral decisions. The act is freely chosen because the perpetrator employs his “libero arbitrio” (free will) in surrendering to this alien power. You sum it up neatly by, in essence, describing how the perpetrator prioritizes self-interest over moral law. Self-interest, of course, is in our DNA, and fertile ground for the incursion of evil. Gandhi noted that “Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.”
Evil may not always be expressed in a positive act; Elie Wiesel said the opposite of good is not evil, but indifference. Avishai Margalit said: “Evil, like caring, is a scarce commodity. There is not so much banality of evil, as banality of indifference. Yet one has to admit that the combination of evil and indifference is lethal, like the combination of poison and water.”
It may be the old soldier in me, but I have taken some solace in thinking of evil as a form of friction, in the manner of Karl von Clausewitz’s extraordinary description in On War. Clausewitz spoke of it as a those unpredictable, chaotic, and random factors that bedevil military opponents. If we apply the concept more broadly in the sense of evil as a structural feature of existence, evil is a menacing opportunist that always seeks to employ friction to exacerbate disorder (the first sure sign of the presence of evil). Evil in the form of friction surrounds us — it’s ubiquitous — but it doesn’t ‘surge’ until there is motion toward good and away from evil. Evil acts on the rheostat to crank up friction’s “current,” trying to drive us away from good — a corrupting parasite that makes trying to “do good to all men” a resistive element, and moral callousness and indifference a non-resistive element. It erodes moral sensibilities, and empowers psycopathy. It wears down willpower. It paralyzes and devitalizes the good. And its effects are compounding. As Tolkien said, “It does not create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.” The more complex man’s machinations (e.g, in war, as you note), the denser the friction, and the more intolerable and inexcusable the harms.
Tolkien spoke of the “long defeat” wherein man is engaged in an ongoing struggle of good against evil. Man can combat the friction imposed by evil with the right lubricants (faith, reason, experience, community, family, leadership, judgment), but the guardians of good must be continuously on guard, while evil incessantly picks at the gaps in our armor. Constant vigilance is, of course, an oxymoron. That is why Tolkien characterized the often thankless task of good holding back the forces of darkness as “ever defeated, never altogether subdued.” The forces of good may suffer setbacks and partial defeats, but can never be completely subjugated or overcome by the forces of evil. Perhaps Aristotle’s sign on our road says it best: “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.”
“Dietrich Bonhoeffer told us evil can appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity, or social justice, confirming the deceptive wickedness of evil.”
—There is enough to respond to here for a dissertation, but I will just focus on that.
That is why I tried to hone in on the results/effects on the victim rather than the cause or the intent. My primary concern is whether or not people are made to suffer by others.
Brilliant comments, Corey!
"Forcing an unwilling" might be refined a bit. Some of the worst and most horrifying evil I see is using subtle means of mind control or manipulation, whether with drugs, persuasive propaganda that convinces the critically thinking impaired (which is actually created by our public indoctrination institutions,) mass media lies and omissions, and most horrifying, new high tech means of mental enslavement with nanotechnology, beamed brain coded signals, chemical substances that impair thinking or create emotional states that can be used to get obedience and cooperation with psychopathic "authority figures" and probably a few others I have missed, which can create the willingness without any obvious use of force.
what about
Any act…that through force or coercion turns…
What about the very commonly used tactic of offering supposed "benefits" to the gullible masses and getting them dependent on the so called "government" magic printing press money to pay for them, thus ensuring their cooperation and support? There is of course diminishment of the productive people, but are the covetous ones who deceive themselves that they have a "right" to these benefits paid for by those selfish "rich" people any less evil, though they may keep their own hands free of using the force? Willful stupidity sure seems like a very common form of evil in this world.
That is a form of making some into the means to others' ends, though, right?
true, however those who can still fool themselves that they are the poor victim and don't have to dirty their hands with the actual force or coercion which they tell themselves is needed and good. Perhaps this is nit picking on my part, but it is such subtleties that allow these ignorant people to picture themselves as good and making the world a better place. Lying to self if not actually evil, is not what I would call good, and I think results in a lot of evil. Personal responsibility must be taken for our own contributions to evil in the world so much of which is the result of our own false image of ourselves and how it allows for the support of evil in the world. I am 80 years old and never applied for social security benefits because I know the value from it was stolen a long time ago and the present system relies upon taking from young workers what they will never receive. To me that is evil, and perhaps you would see my decision is extreme. I am not perfect and don't expect others to make such a sacrifice, but it is just a small example of how we talk ourselves into thinking we are free from all evil when we think it is necessary for our prosperity or even survival.
Makes sense. Perhaps , though, that is all the more reason to focus on outcomes, irrespective of what anyone thinks or intends or convinces themselves?
Yes indeed Christopher, but that is intelligence. The diminishment of intelligence is evil although it doesn't always involve the use of force or coercion, which is the point I've been trying to make. People are dumbed down quite easily, this destruction of intelligence is why so many are unable to "focus on outcomes" if not why would nations keep going down the path of socialism when it has such obvious inevitable negative outcomes? Putting flouride in water, glyphosate in GMO food, the toxins in most medications and shots like mercury and others, the promotion of high fructose corn syrup, oh I could go on for two more paragraphs about how intelligence is destroyed in our culture and almost all totally not involving force or coercion.
This "unwilling person" part flashed yellow for me too.
Two things, as Hat said, the person may not be "unwilling" he may be brainwashed and perfectly willing.
Second, the definition needs to accommodate where there is no other person, willing or unwilling involved, I.e. I push a button and blow up a building full of people.
I guess I presumed that unwilling would cover it, since if you said to someone, "Hey, I'm gonna brainwash you now," they'd likely say no thanks.
If I changed it somehow to include thew word "non-consensually," would that solve the issue in your mind?
And on the second part, do you mean you wish it to say "person or persons"?
I agree. The insidious crafting of all facets of reality to convince sheeple to obey is ubiquitous. It has shaped our language, entertainment, history, schools, behavioral standards, social norms, and so much more.
Evil is eradicating all the things that hold us together as countrymen and humans.
And to ensure this phuckery continues, these mindbenders are eagerly delivering new technologies that can be embedded into social media to biologically trigger people to change their decision making processes. ( Who do you think is the target?) Or the EM device that diminishes faith in God. ( What twisted GERB felt this was necessary?)
Evil is not always dramatic and overt. These days it can be quietly residing anywhere. Banality is evil’s accomplice.
Wow, great comment! One of the most pervasive forms of evil is the art of encouraging and promoting division and separation along any perceived line of difference or duality. Convincing the gullible that we are a cosmic accident of a godless universe and you are justified in any tactic or subterfuge that will allow you to come out on top helps this along. When you see your brother (or sister) as yourself that is good. Seeing them as a resource for you to use no matter the consequence to them, that is evil thought, when that thought becomes an action or a way of life well there is evil manifest. Force or coercion will of course come into the picture, yet the most successful psychopaths find ways to minimize the force or the actual coercion. Don't they now say that "we didn't make you take the vax?" Intimidation short of force is actually a sign of weakness, but the general use of force and violence will actually even sign an end to their reign of terror. Ask Machiavelli.
This is an extremely compelling point, and one I had been thinking of prior to reading this article. Personally speaking, this makes me a bit paranoid about the ubiquitous use of rhetoric and culture manipulation/subversion. Even anti-depressants seem like the perfect tool for a psy-op, by getting rid of people's mental signals regarding the problems in their world-- but I digress.
Perhaps a distinction worth making is whether the persuasion occurs in a covert manner (the individual isn't consciously aware of the effect that someone has on their mind). Your examples of drugs, propaganda, and mind control rely upon *undermining someone's agency* and thus their capacity to make meaningful decisions. If I were to convince someone with rational arguments, however, this wouldn't inherently be evil.
What about "any act ... that undermines a person's agency..."? At the same time, I think "as a means to an end" deals with the manipulation question.
Could we deem all of these things that you and Hat mention to be forms of coercive force, though?
Perhaps, but I think covert manipulation can occur without the element of threats (my understanding of coercion) being present. I could be wrong, but here is some elaboration to clarify my view.
The use of skewed incentive structures (and possible rewards) forms a cornerstone of covert manipulation. Propaganda that conflates adherence to one's patriotic/religious values with allegiance to the state relies upon the citizen's drive to be considered heroic (by themselves or others). Not all of it relies on threats, but instead the reward of conformity / appearing virtuous.
If a wave of popular celebrities were secretly bribed to endorse a corrupt politician, a significant number of unknowing citizens would follow them; arguably, the celebrities and briber (?) are both taking part in manipulation, but there's little threat/punishment involved in this process.
I think it's evil due to exploiting people's irrational blind spots (e.g. bandwagon effect), but would this still fall under coercive force? Or just treating people as a means to an end?
It is, by proxy, causing people to be subjected to force (and to be made into means rather than treated as ends). And it is driven, in large measure, by the last of the sins: vanity/pride. People want to feel good about themselves. They are told that X or Y is the pathways to that. So they do/follow/vote for X or Y. And it causes others to be made into means…
There you go, taking the words right out of my mouth Ophelia.
What about bribery and offering incentives for promoting or doing things that are destructive of human prosperity and happiness, like the destruction that is and has been done to the family, gender identification, university education, climate hysteria, spreading misinformation and lies on mass media etc. Rewards have also been used to persuade people to do things that would ordinarily be against their conscience. Making more money by using cheap but known unhealthy materials in food, promoting drugs that are known to be harmful and bribing doctors to prescribe them anyway?
Yes, that's better, many who are manipulated are actually trying to do what they have been told is the good thing..like making your employees get the jab, wear a mask, or lose their jobs. It nearly always involves some self deception or blind spots in many people for this tactic to succeed. Such people are just ignorant more than they are evil, but one of the aims of the evil is to make sure they don't get educated in logical thought or self reflection, keep 'em dumb. But then this is an argument for the necessity that people have a genuine understanding of what constitutes evil. Again, it seems to be something that you would not like to be done to you.
Perhaps I should add there are things you would not like but are done with good intent and outcome, like the discipline of a father. But this takes an honest assessment and realization of how this actually benefited you. As Christopher said, "focus on outcomes."
Your article yesterday was a great one man! It’s still making me think. I’ll write an article myself but my perspective is: “How can we get the populace to SEE this Evil.”
Due to the propaganda, the masses don’t see the evil and come up with all kinds of justifications. But when we can have the public see “who are the bad guys”, then we can get people to STOP supporting the bad guys (ie: why we should stop watching skull and bones sports like football: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/7-reasons-you-should-stop-watching)
Great writing sir!
Thank you. Yes, seeing the evil is essential!!
The devil's greatest trick is convincing people that neither he nor God exist.
Christopher, I’m glad you brought up Occam’s razor. Just as an example of why it’s not always right, we have the words of H.L. Mencken; “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
I don’t agree with your definition of evil, primarily because of “regardless of intent.” In law intent matters. Mens rea, “guilty mind” vs actus reus, “guilty act.” For me intent is everything. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “"the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.” Someone who claims they were only trying to do good by taking something from one person to give to someone more needy is still has a guilty mind because they knew, or should have known that using force violates the nonaggression principle, and the taking violates property rights. Every socialist claims their actions are for the “greater good,” tacitly admitting what they did was wrong.
That’s not to say we don’t need a better definition. Until then I’m going with “that which is not good.” 😊
Love the Mencken quote!
I get what you are saying, but I excluded intent precisely because of the reasons you cited: most people do not plan to do evil. But the things they do are evil.
Heck, for all we know, Mao, Cromwell, and Hitler really believed that they were acting for the greater good. But it is the outcomes of their actions that were evil.
Maybe this is where our opinions diverge. Perhaps I tend to think that intent is precisely the difference between malice and stupidity. I didn’t mean to leave the impression that just because someone says they are doing good that they are not acting with malice. Again, government. The most evil entity that has ever existed. People have a hard time accepting that our government can do evil, yet also can’t believe that our government can be so incompetent; thus we get conspiracy. A few rogue actors. Or, if you’re on the left it’s all because of Trump. Sorry, got off topic. We’re still looking for a definition of evil.
LOL I hear you completely. Involuntary government is morally impermissible in ALL its forms, and everyone who works for government is participating in morally impermissible activity. It is all initiation of force, and thus technically actionable.
But I am also not going to get too angry at a city bus driver. The system needs to end, but it's not his fault, really. Even many politically and philosophically astute individuals are ignorant of, or do not yet grasp, the simple crystal clarity of the anarchist argument. We must continue to awaken them!
Personally, I think evil is a lack of love for self and others, ego steps in, and power and control take over the heart.
That is reasonable, at least as a partial description. But what about the people in the Milgram experiments? They were just normal folks, who loved their families, until they were told to do something evil…
Following orders of a perceived authority figure.
Right. The bottom line is whether you treat others as you would like to be treated. It is not love when you use another for your benefit when you know it is to that person's deficit.
Although it’s a good definition, I think it’s looking at evil from the wrong point of view. As I understand it, the definition is basically a restatement of Kantian ethics, where the human being must be seen as an end only, and never a means.
However, this definition places too much importance on freedom and human will, and in consequence produces a relativistic, subjective system of morality. Thus, one can imagine a society where evidently and manifestly evil acts are undergone willingly and routinely by all participants, and your definition would invalidate calling them evil.
Without going to far, see the famous case of the German cannibal. A man was looking for someone to murder and consume him. Another accepted, and the deed was carried out. Since both participants were willing, and no coercion was applied, was the act good?
Any definition of evil that doesn’t begin from an objective definition and concept of good is doomed to relativism and subjectivism from the start.
I was trying to be objective, not relative, so your challenge intrigues me.
The cannibalism is certainly offensive to God's creation. But in some earthly sense, if they were consenting, then is it evil? Hideous, yes. Offensive, as I say, to God's creation. But evil? I will have to think about it.
So how would you define evil more objectively?
An easy reply would be the classical, Augustinian definition: evil is the absence of Good, an ontological void.
This looks like a cheap reply, but it is actually a whole definition. Evil is not a thing, evil has no existence, there is no such thing as evil: evil is, literally, no-thing, as it can only be defined negatively.
Much like darkness is only the absence of light, and cold is only the absence of heat/energy/movement, then evil is nothing but the absence of Good, or the removal from Good. The farther the distance, the lesser the good, the greater the evil.
Of course, this leaves you with the problem of defining what Good is, capital G Good, which is no easy task. However, this is a definition that is complete, in that it provides an objective standard for what evil is (based on the objective existence of Good), and is absolute, and not able to be relativized to impotence by relying on human freedom or will.
Of course, this presupposes that (a) you believe in objective good, and (b) you believe that Good has an ontological existence in and of itself. But if you don’t believe those things, or at least don’t believe (a), then talking about God’s creation doesn’t make much sense, and you won’t have much common ground with someone who does.
Fair enough, but I have also seen devout Christians in this thread quoting scriptural references to God having "created evil."
I do not think that an omnibeneficent God would create evil. Thus, I took those references to mean that God allowed freedom, and freedom allows evil. (Freedom is a higher good that an omnibeneficent God would allow/create.) But I would want to hear a few opinions of people who could read the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic (I don't recall now which verse it was).
I do believe that God created a beneficial order to the universe, with natural laws and moral laws that emanate from those nature laws. Those are something I can perceive, and use logical to understand. And I must do that, because I believe God would not be arbitrary and create "just because I said so" morality. It would also have to make sense logically. So, if we call that ontological good, I am fine with that notion.
But then is evil just and only an absence of that? Is a desire to do harm just the lack of that goodness?
And then, another question—what about all the terrible evils that are done by people who "mean well"?
I’ll start with the last thing you mentioned first, since it ties more directly into your post and definition.
Here, we need to distinguish between mediate and immediate intent when carrying out an act. An act may have an intent that is mediately good, but immediately bad; this is the classic “doing evil for the greater good”, or “ends justify the means” utilitarian morality.
In this case, the actual intent (which is essential when morally qualifying an action, since intent is a constitutive element of free will, and free will is a sine qua non for a morally qualifiable act) is to do evil, regardless of whether the person carrying out the act believes that the good ends the deed is aligned towards actually justify their evil action.
Thus, “meaning well” has no relevance when morally qualifying an act, when the actual and immediate intent of the person carrying out the act was the evil object, notwithstanding any ulterior motives.
As for your first point, the Bible can be quoted partially and misquoted to justify basically any atrocious position one can come up with. If you’re looking for interpretations closer to the authentic sources, I’d recommend taking a look at the works of the earlier Fathers of the Church. Augustine of Hippo in particular has written quite extensively on the nature of evil (in particular, evil as the absence of good), and this position is orthodoxy for the oldest Christian denominations.
As for ontological good, I’m referring to good that exists as an entity in and of itself, and not only as an adjective or characteristic that qualifies other entities. In this sense, if God exists, and God is understood as, among other things, the Good and the source of all Good, then Good exists, it has being. As you said, good cannot create evil, and thus evil can only be the privation of that Good.
Lots to think about!
"As you said, good cannot create evil, and thus evil can only be the privation of that Good."
—Focusing on this for a moment… Another commenter brought up pain. Is pain just the absence of not-pain? Or is it something real?
Well, pain exists, that can’t be denied. You can’t define a negative by another negative (defining pain as the absence of not-pain would make pain not-not-pain, which is as dumb as it sounds), and neither is it the absence of pleasure. Pain can be empirically measured, and it’s existence can’t be seriously challenged.
However, is pain, in and of itself, evil? I would argue that it is not.
If you are a Christian who believes in the doctrine of original sin and the fallen state of man, then you also believe that is was mankind’s own actions that brought pain into the world.
In man’s fallen state, pain is not evil. Pain is a fact, and can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. For example, if you felt no pain when burning your hand on a hot pan, then you wouldn’t know you should pull your hand away until you started to smell burning flesh, see your skin blister and blacken, or felt your own fat rendering, by which moment it would be too late to prevent serious, permanent damage. By feeling pain, our bodies tell us that something is hurting us, that there is something we need to avoid.
There’s a reason why people who can’t feel pain aren’t superheroes, but patients with a serious and potentially life-threatening medical condition. Would this be the case if pain was evil? I don’t think so.
My favorite philosophers are the American Absolute Pragmatist and neo-Kantian, Josiah Royce and the radical empiricism of Robert M Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality.
But both and all Philosophy struggles with the existence of evil. There’s no real rational reason for evil. So it’s eternally puzzling.
The existence of good (Pirsig). and the existence of error (Royce) are fairly obvious to any serious thinker; but evil remains a mystery
Yeah—It's a tough nut to crack, as the diverse views in this comment thread have made clear.
“Sin” in general is just error. Something warped out of its natural path by chance or intent. For instance it is “sinful” when the germ kills the Dr rather than the Dr killing the germ (Pirsig).
Evil is the consistent choosing of sin because its serves your selfish desires or magnifies your ego. Steinbeck’s East of Eden is a whole novel on the issue between Cain and Abel.
"serves your selfish desires or magnifies your ego"
—That certainly accounts for a lot!
I like that your definition does not blame the perpetrators of the acts, just the acts themselves! The blame game only serves to shift responsibility away from what
Solzhenitsyn calls " the evil in the heart of every man".
Perpetrators of evil acts can be ignorant or knowing. Both types of people could be described as being a container and dispenser of " evil" acts, which in my observations are ( amongst other things like fear), as a result of untreated, therefore unending trauma transference to other people.
I can't imagine how much trauma some of these public and anonymous generational elites contain... They must bee seething with such a hate for life that they have to torture people constantly for a sense of relief..... And they must be so scared of death because the list of heinous acts makes paying the ferryman impossible, hence the attempt to live forever in the material realm ( transhumanism)?
Really good comments, Justin. I tend to agree.
I went for a focus on the acts because I think the primary concern is the suffering of victims, more than the cause of evil in general (which is hard to pin down) or the motivation of the perpetrators (which is all over the map).
In Mark Passio's teaching of Natural Law (WhatOnEarthIsHappening.com), each person has the Right to take any action that is not a wrong action. There are only seven categories of wrong actions: assault, murder, rape, theft, trespass, coercion, and fraud/deceit. Each of these seven can be thought of as a form of theft, so objective morality really can be boiled down to just three words: "Do not steal."
I also appreciate Richard Maybury's (aka Uncle Eric's) Two Laws:
1. Do all you have agreed to do.
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
This is really good stuff. I am very much looking at these sorts of simplified rules myself, trying to figure out what is best.
I toyed with it some here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/five-rules-govern-any-society
And did a much more complex version here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
Evil in the material world context where we are attempting to better define it, is quite simply the action of choice made by a human being which imposes detriment to or harm upon the life and liberty of a human being.
Evil in a metaphysical sense are the collective unseen influences upon humanity’s free will which may lead to actions of choice as described above.
Metaphysical evil is what we submit to in our individual using of others without their consent. My individual choice, moment by moment, to do an evil act opens 'me' to that metaphysical evil, & upon death any possibility of redemption (a clean slate) is lost. The existence of metaphysical evil is often the only thing that convinces some to choose the good.
"The existence of metaphysical evil is often the only thing that convinces some to choose the good."
—Can you elaborate on that?
Yeah, that's kind of where my thinking was on this.
I'll have to excuse myself from todays excellent discussion, as I have to cut the weeds, which are an evil in themselves.
But this allows me in some small way to show love to my wife.
Thank you weeds!
My gardener loves me. No wonder I married her!
Ah, the weeds. The never-ending battle.
If all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. . . . there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): “Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.” - Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas is a good source
Freedom—which allows for evil—is certainly a good thing!
Another great article, Chris -- I really like your call for *definitions* -- Liberty Scale is one long essay on that very thing -- a super glossary. Offhand, a glossary sounds like a boring thing to write, but I once worked with an outstanding system engineering architect who insisted on a *glossary* at the end of every system architecture specification. He would say that as an engineer writes a formal glossary for his design, he is in fact constructing the architecture itself. He was right.
He was also fond of saying that the worst problem in discussions is not that people haven't communicated -- it's that they *think* they have communicated when they haven't because their terms don't mean the same thing to all involved.
A short paragraph would go a long way in political essays if, at the front end, the essay included:
"When I used the term 'liberal', I mean ....". Or "When I write 'racist', I mean ... " Or "When I write 'progressive', I mean ...". Etc. It would really help, IMHO.
Very much agree! I like to understand reality as clearly as possible.
In fact, that extremely careful process is what brought me through libertarianism to minarchism to anarchism.🤣🤣🤣 I bet ya didn't see that coming!! 🤎
I'll have to re-read LIberty Scale (!). Are libertarians more comfortable with government than minarchists?
To my mind, a minarchist strives for the *minimum* govt possible, taking down govt and regulations wherever possible, as we go, while watching the results. We have 250 years of (mostly) growing govt and regulations, rarely pulling back. That's what's led us to 630 federal agencies and departments today, each with its own logo, buildings, employees, ever-growing budgets, etc. Yuck.
I try to watch Javier Milei in Argentina as he cuts through the thicket of Big Govt agencies and regulations. He seems to be getting positive results, but I expect some kind of pushback from the monstrous administrative state ... I hope it stays peaceful.
Same re: Milei
Minarchism is the most austere subset of libertarianism, right before you get to anarchism. I just made the distinction because I moved through greater degrees of austerity as I slowly moved rightward on the freedom scale.
It's a good, pragmatic definition. What it ignores (intentionally, perhaps) is the supernatural element of evil -- evil for evil's sake.
This, I believe, may be the fundamental difference between those who deny the existence of evil and those who acknowledge it. We are not merely acknowledging the Human potential for evil acts, which could be, and likely often are, due to ignorance or downright incompetence, or may be driven by emotions or carnal drives or brain malformations or any number of Earthly causes. We are instead acknowledging the existence of a force that exists outside of Man that encourages him to these acts, and in many cases may aid and abet him in them. (Whether or not this force can exist absent the existence of Man is a matter of debate.)
Does it matter? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, without discussing the supernatural element of evil I believe we are only superficially examining the topic. Of course -- to mix a couple of metaphors here -- that's a huge can of worms that, when opened, leads to some pretty gnarly rabbit holes.
Let us say that this external evil force exists. Does it DO (or cause to be done) anything that falls outside the scope of the definition?
Nothing that I can think of. It certainly acts with force, and the end that it forces is the propagation of itself (evil for evil's sake).
Intentional harm. At source non-corporal, intelligence energy forms that do and direct harm against humanity, to strike back at Creator.
In all cases?
Your definition works, but here’s a curveball: what if the idea that everyone is at a different soul level in our journey of Life is real. If that’s correct, an infant soul is in survival mode and will do whatever it takes to survive and will not understand the definition of evil. Baby souls are all about law and order, but of course that depends on what type of law and order (and shariah law doesn’t sound good to most of us westerners). A young soul is in power mode – ends justify the means - and probably make up the majority of the politicians so they could care less about the definition of evil. A mature soul would understand the definition and may possibly represent the Rand Paul type in the political world. Old souls…well, IDK, too bad they don’t run the world.
When pondering all the craziness in the world, the idea that everyone is at a different soul level in the journey of Life starts making sense:
https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/do-you-want-to-live-in-the-happiest?r=76q58
Yeah, that is compelling.
I think you would like Max Borders on this:
https://underthrow.substack.com/p/the-spiral-of-human-development-stage