In a recent lecture, a question was asked about how one would define ‘evil’ and then, by extension, how would one label action as ‘evil’. What is ‘evil’? Can any actions be described as being truly ‘evil’? If so, which acts are ‘evil’?
A consensus was reached that ‘evil’ is a term dependent on context. What one society deems to be evil does not hold true to another society. It is a word that is often used clumsily or carelessly, with George W. Bush’s use of the phrase Axis of Evil being one such example. Of the actions considered to be ‘evil’, rape and paedophilia were suggested as ‘evil acts’, yet not all agreed with this. Some felt that whilst the acts themselves might be seen as being ‘evil’, the intention behind them might not necessarily be. As demonstrated, there is no consensus on what ‘evil’ is.
In 1963, political theorist Hannah Arendt published Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which focused on her perceptions of Adolf Eichmann during his trial over his role in the Holocaust. She found him to be ordinary, and not, as others made him out to be, psychopathic. He had simply been following orders and had chosen to do so. In short, Arendt argued that there was a banal aspect to evil. Eichmann had made a moral choice to do what he did, Arendt argued, and it was not to do with an ‘evil’ nature inherent within us all which can be brought out with the right ingredients. If one compares the work of Arendt (expanded upon in the video below) with literary works such as Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Golding’s Lord of the Flies, which play on the idea of evil within (or ‘the darkness of man’s heart’ as Golding puts it), there gives further proof of the existence of the differing opinions over what ‘evil’ is, where it comes from and what actions it can be attached to.
There does not appear to be any concrete answers to these questions, but what do you think constitutes ‘evil’? Which acts can be described as being truly ‘evil’? Are there any such acts? What do the philosophies and the religions of the world have to say on the matter? RS Matters would like to hear your thoughts and reflections on the issue. Please submit your thoughts in the Comments section below or to rsmattersblog@gmail.com.
I'm not sure of the answer myself, but I would cite the argument of Durkheim, who stated that crime is a method of understanding what is right or wrong in our society. By identifying something as 'different' and punishing it, we thereby reaffirm our own beliefs and unite together in condemning an action. In this light therefore, 'evil' might simply be another way of expressing this. We brand something different as evil in order to reaffirm our own sense of rightousness. For example, homosexuality was once thought as evil, because it was different, but now it is (mostly) accepted as natural.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with this is that it follows that some things seen as evil now may not be in 10/100/1000 years. But I cannot imagine paedophilia, torture, rape, or murder ever being classed as 'normal', and I would not be comfortable with it. These surely are evil acts?
So in conclusion, I don't know. But it is interesting to see how evil can ironically be a very good thing for society.