A Study of Evil

 EVIL AND SOCIETY

 Now we come to the moment of truth. We consider the individual in terms of evil—not a multitude, not a cult, not a religious sect, not an army, not a populace. We see only a person with a soul that permits an act of evil against another person or group of persons. We don’t deal with gradation. Instigating the murder of millions is evil. Remaining silent during the execution of evil is evil. Numbers, as we have noted, only tend to magnify, sanctify, intensify, and vilify evil according to its breadth and scope. It all begins with an individual action.

Let us begin by supposing that the act of evil deprives someone or some group of something which is necessary to enjoy not a grandiose life, but an average and acceptable condition of existence. That includes a long spectrum, ranging from the ability to vote in an election to the ability to breath, with the right to live free from pain and distress somewhere in between.

Within that broad spectrum, it seems reasonable to limit our search further. For example, here are some examples that may rise to the level of sin[i] or illegality,[ii] but not evil:

The procurement of sexual activity between two consenting adults;

Activities relating to dietary laws;

Minor financial deceit;

Violations of religious edicts not otherwise defined as evil;

Victimless crimes;

Failure to conform to societal or military edicts or laws:

Public nudity; or

Public profanity, as defined by someone or something.

Moving up the scale one notch are actions considered acceptable or normal in some sects but defined as evil in others. For example:

The beating of children as a training exercise;

Domination and/or abuse of women by men.

Racial discrimination;

Masturbation;

Sex with minors;

Prostitution;

Polygamy;

Sex or marriage to close relatives;

Public execution of criminals or deviants;

Same-sex love and/or marriage, or homosexuality in general;

Rape;

War or aggression;

Tattoos;

Usery;

Contraception; or

Unnatural sex acts as defined by the sect.

This complicates things further, but wait. Some among these have changed in context due to a sort of civil evolution. For example, polygamy enjoyed approval and participation by Judo-Christian ancestors but fell out of favor somewhere along the line, as did slavery among a large segment of the population. The execution of criminals in America evolved from public spectacles to near extension, now carried out in shameful quietude. Now to lighten this depressing journey up a bit: As the old comedy line suggests, masturbation has moved from an absolute, hell-promising sin guaranteed to produce blindness to the prohibition of, “just until you need glasses.”[iii]

With that, we will close and work on a modest definition.

---

[i] Let us use: “Any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, degrading, shameful, detrimental to order, or alienating by a defined religious or societal group."

[ii] As defined by appropriate legal codes.

[iii] From the film Can I Do It Til I Need Glasses? distributed produced by Dauntless Productions and distributed by National American Films, 1977.

 FOCUS

We have reached the point where we must assign some value system to evil itself. Thus, we face the indomitable task of attempting a definition. Does this represent a cosmic case of hubris or is it a necessary step in understanding evil?

We gave narrowed our definition previously to the point of limiting it to an act of a person or group of persons against another person or group of persons. Eliminating the teaching or punishment to promote evil by the spirit world removed a great percentage of the historical treatment of our subject. We might term it “the great simplification.”

We are free to focus on human interaction, with perhaps some input from our biological cousins.

This will be difficult to the point of impossible one might say and that is true. Immediately, we find societal norms that define the same act as abhorrent to the point of capital punishment to an act that is lauded, even commanded by the polis.

Simply consider the act of same-sex love.

Or men’s dominance over women.

Or genocide.

Or the treatment of children, including the implanting of a vicious primal fear in the minds of the young by force-feeding the terrible prospect of being thrown into an eternal burning fire for the act of not following parental teachings.[1]

The last example becomes even more complicated by the teachings of the cult that promotes it. The punishment described, or the alternative—an eternity of undefined bliss—is not determined, according to some writings of the cult, by one’s interaction with living creatures, but by a consistent and fervent faith in an invisible being.[2] Complicating this particular instance further is the fact that the same teachings that govern this cult suggest that salvation (an eternity of bliss) is, conversely, obtainable by doing good.[3]

Let’s complicate things further. What about the fact that some historical icons of goodness began life immersed in evil?

What about the former slave runner who repented and fought against that evil trade, even to point of writing perhaps the most beloved hymn in the protestant faith?[4]

What about the rounder and royal companion in mischief who repented and gave his life in defense of his church?[5]

What about the Apostle Paul, considered by many to be one of the chief architects of Christianity, who by his own admission, first engaged in persecuting Christians before repentance?[6]

So it goes. And we have yet to touch the broad spectrum of evil. It runs from the murder of millions in an attempt to conquer the world to the suborning or absolution of evil in order to get a favored politician elected.

We have a rough road to hoe, as our rural ancestors would note. But, next we try.

---

[1] For a terrifying example, but one that will sound familiar to many Americans who grew up in the so-called “Bible Belt, see the account of installing this fear by James Joyce. (Joyce, J., & Deane, S. (1992). A portrait of the artist as a young man. London: Penguin.)

[2] Ephesians 2:8-9

[3] Romans 2:7

[4] Celebration Road Show & Newton, J. (1970) Amazing grace Hymn .

[5] Thomas à Becket, Chancellor of England (1155-62) venerated as a saint and martyr in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Anglican Communion.

[6] Galatians 1:13

 On the road and thinking today. More tomorrow.

A Study of Evil

 In modern times, we tend to cite the actions of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot as among the extremes of recorded evildoers. At the other end of the spectrum, we find easily overlooked acts such as cruel jokes, injurious falsehoods, and minor deceits. We also find evil exposed as morally wrong but legally exonerated.

Speaking of legalities, it is for certain that, given careful legal design, laws can, in fact, make evil legal and protect the evildoers. Consider the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow Laws (which seem to be reemerging) of the post-war South, and the arbitrary, but punishable, laws promulgated in church-based states.

Media and entertainment sources even have us emotionally lauding the evildoer. A popular film of 1974 in America was Death Wish, based on novel of the same name by Brian Garfield. In it, Charles Bronson played a mild-mannered architect who turns vigilante after the murder of his wife and the sexual assault of his daughter. In short, he turns to slaying the types of people who slayed his wife. The theme resonated with a public who saw an increase in violence within the country.

In reality, Americans witnessed the dark side of vigilantism in 2020 when self-style protectors of the law stalked an innocent man believed to harbor an evil intent, resulting in the victim’s death. Lengthy prison sentences communicated the dark side of evil for evil transactions.

Do evil interactions predict increasing intensity of evil? This is a controversial topic but some research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals do not stop there—many of them move on to their fellow humans.[i] This is not meant to imply that cruelty to animals is a lessor sin than cruelty to humans, only that there is a correlation worthy of investigation.

The we come to the “but for” instances in which a person doesn’t set forth to do evil but commits it when it could have been avoided had not the first steps been taken. Americans are still arguing over a case in which two deaths and a maiming could be been avoided had the perpetrator, found innocent in a court of law, simply not decided to travel to a particular location in a particular state of readiness. In short, but for deciding to travel to a particular site, tragedy would not have occurred.

Intent to perform evil is a tricky concept in American law and an equally elusive issue in the pursuit of morality.

Even trickier is the concept of forbearance. Writers including Elie Wiesel, Victor Frankl, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and the recently deceased Desmond Tutu have all spoken eloquently and all agreed upon the fact that forbearance of evil is evil itself.

A 1996 book further argues that the German populace was quite universally aware of, and tacitly condoned, the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime. The author’s explanation proved controversial, but the facts were not. People knew and did nothing.[ii]

Picking one of the writers mentioned above, we part with a quote from Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.”[iii]

---

[i] Catherine A. Faver & Elizabeth B. Strand (2003) Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty, Journal of Social Work Education, 39:2, 237-253, DOI: 10.1080/10437797.2003.10779134

[ii] Goldhagen, D. J. (1996). Hitler's willing executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Knopf.

[iii] Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10, 1986

 One of the more argued aspects surrounding the study of evil is the question of forgiveness, or even acceptance. Are there examples of evil deeds that warrant understanding in context (UIC)? It seems so. The state in which I live observed, for many years, a holiday honoring a traitor who abandoned an oath he took to protect the United States of America and, instead, elected to lead a vicious war against that country in an attempt to perpetuate the institution of slavery. If a UIC can cause us to condone the support of evil such as was employed against African Americans, what else is eligible for redemption?

What about a war against the most precious of innocents, our children?

Jacob Riis was a journalist, photographer, and social reformer during the late 1800s and early 1900s. In his classic work, How the Other Half Lives,[1] he called attention to the neglect of the poor in our country, particularly the child laborers. In his notes, he observed that child labor exists:

Wherever the street is the only playground of the children;

Wherever they are dragged into the police courts, when they ought to be at school,

There is the slum waiting to raise its head.

Wherever men sell their votes and their consciences, it is only just around the corner.

One child, under five years of age, when interviewed and asked how long he had been working, could only reply, “since I was.”

He concluded, in a famous passage, “How shall the love of God be understood by those who have been nurtured in sight only of the greed of man?” An earlier philosopher, a follower of the same god, noted, “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”[2]

Many take this as a UIC, as an admission that some forms of evil are so persistent as to justify neglect.

Others say, about an instance of evildoing, that “You just had to have been there.”

During the winter months, we often note the date of the execution of United States Army Private Eddie Slovik on January 31, 1945. He was the only American soldier executed for desertion, some say cowardice, during America’s involvement in World War Two. A month after Christmas, they led him to a lonely garden in France, placed him in front of a stone wall, in order to avoid stray bullets injuring someone, and fired 11 rounds of .30 caliber bullets into him from 12 M-1 Garand rifles. From accounts, he faced the ordeal with resolve, even bravery.

As with many, if not most things in our country, it remains a divisive issue. Some say it stands as an extreme case of cruelty, i.e. evil, to have chosen one of thousands of deserters as an example. They argue that he fit a handy profile, an admitted deserter with a former felony background, no children, and a lackluster military career. He, himself argued, “They’re not shooting me for deserting the United Stated Army—thousands of guys have done that. They’re shooting me for bread I stole when I was 12 years old.”

Others point out that Private Slovik was offered, on multiple occasions, clemency if he would return to his unit for duty. He refused. They also note that there was a feeling at the time among American soldiers that the war was almost over and it wasn’t a good time to die. Morale was lagging in the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in which a massive German counter-offensive threatened to send the war into another long period of horror for the entire world. The execution of one deserter, under clearly established military law and a fair trial, in order to instill resolve and discipline in others remains, in some minds a UIC.

The tricky point of UICs, some of which deserve detailed analysis, is that unethical forces can use their false cousins for evil purposes. The talents of Joseph Goebbels, and the efficacy of modern media sources, support the contention that a large segment of the public falls prey easily to constantly repeated entreaties by false prophets.

We need only ask the innocent victims of Baghdad, or January 6, 2021.

---

[1] Riis, Jacob A. (Jacob August), 1849-1914. (1970). How the other half lives. New York :Garrett Press,

[2] Matthew 2611 NIV

A STUDY OF EVIL

 BUT FOR

I opened the door and walked into the back room of the mess hall where I saw a shocking sight. A group of my shipmates, mostly average, normal fellows but led by a sailor that had a reputation as a troublemaker, chortled like children on a playground. They had an elderly, Vietnamese man in black silks spread with his feet on a chair and this hands on the floor, making him try to do pushups as some form of punishment.

His crime? He had tried to steal six oranges from a garbage can in the kitchen of a mess hall in Camp Tien Sha, near Da Nang. He was one of a group of locals allowed to work on the base and oranges were a highly prized item for a people starved of its nutrients.

Mentally citing the “I have no authority. I only came in to see what the commotion was about.” excuse, I muttered something to the effect of “You guys are going to get in big trouble,” and left.

It was an act of cowardice equal to running away in battle or abandoning a wounded comrade. I have regretted each day since, the only faint solace being that I learned from it. At least I hope I did.

I thought of the incident as I continued to peruse the question of why people I once regarded as “normal shipmates,” so to speak, now post slogans and perform acts that would have made Joseph Goebbels nod in approval.

In the last chapter, we looked at the Milgram experiments at Yale University indicating that ordinary people, if encouraged by an authority figure, were willing to shock their fellow-citizens with what they believed to be painful and potentially lethal levels of electricity.

Less than a decade later, another university experiment, this one on the opposite shores of America shocked the academic, in fact the whole, world. Called the “Stanford Prison Experiment,” it was a social psychology study funded by the U.S. office of Naval Research. In it, college students became prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment conducted in the basement of a building on the Stanford campus. As described in Britannica:[i]

“The experiment, … took place at Stanford University in August 1971. It was intended to measure the effect of role-playing, labeling, and social expectations on behavior over a period of two weeks. However, mistreatment of prisoners escalated so alarmingly that principal investigator Philip G. Zimbardo terminated the experiment after only six days.”

It seems that things got out of hand, even in a simulated experience. The prisoners became unruly and the guards became sadistic. All were college students paid a stipend of (I seem to remember) $15.00 for their participation. They had completed a questionnaire concerning their background, physical/mental conditions, and other factors testing for normalcy. A simple coin toss determined their roles as either guard or prisoner in the experience.

Let’s just say that things went “hugely” awry. The behavior of all participants was so extreme that the supervisors terminated the experience, as noted, after six days of turmoil.

Much time has passed since the experiment became a source of public examination. As with the Milgram experience, opinions abound. Interested readers can find a fairly precise non-academic report here.

At any rate, the Stanford Experience initiated much thinking as to how the granting of too much power can transform normal individuals into sadistic monsters, or, as we choose to term it, converting the terrifyingly normal into the efficiently evil.

Some understanding of the study’s meaning occurred in 2003. That is when details of “enhanced interrogation” techniques employed by average military personnel began seeping into the press from Abu Ghraib prison. This was an American-run prison complex in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, located some 20 miles west of Baghdad. There, prisoners detained as a result of America’s invasion of Iraq awaited resolution.

Photographs snuck from the facility showed troopers—who looked as if they may have been in one’s next-door back yard practicing basketball a year before—performing acts on prisoners that would have made Tomás de Torquemada smile. According to a report issued by U.S. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, these acts included:

- Punching, slapping and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.

- Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.

- Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.

- Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.

- Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear.

- Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped.

- Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.

- Positioning a naked detainee on a box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

- Writing “I am a Rapest (sic)” on the leg of a detainee accused of rape, and then photographing him naked.

- Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.

- A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.

- Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee.

- Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

Heated debates still surround the issue. Many of the prisoners, to be sure, harbored evil intentions not only against America in particular, but against the non-Muslim world in general. Some no doubt harbored information that, if disclosed, could save lives and prevent destruction.

Many, though, suffered for undisclosed and unproven claims. As with the Spanish Inquisition, rivals and seekers of gain did not disdain from seeking to have their fellow citizens detained.

Opinions have become diametrically opposed.

Opponents say, “America is better than this.”

Proponents say, “Torturing one to save thousands is not only justified, but imperative.”

We are left to say, “What is normal and what is not?”

We might conclude that power is a societal gift best granted with care, caution, and contemplation.

---

[i] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2020, May 5). Stanford Prison Experiment. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Stanford-Prison-Experiment

 DEFENCES

  Why do normal people embrace evil? Setting aside the possibility of mental disorder, we come to the so-called “Nuremberg Defense.” This emerged from the Nuremberg trials following World War Two. In these surviving German leaders faced judgement before and International Military Tribunal (MIT) for horrendous crimes perpetuated by Nazi Germany, including the Holocaust.[i]

From the trials came the now-famous, and often lampooned defense: “I was only following orders.”

Later, In 1962, the concept arose again during the trial of Adolph Eichmann, who was tasked with, and carried out energetically, the “final solution” designed at the Wannsee Conference of 1942. Israeli agents had captured Eichmann in Argentina and ferreted him to Jerusalem to stand trial. While there, he wrote that he and other high-ranking officers were “forced to serve as mere instruments.” Among the orders he followed, as such an instrument, included directives to murder every last person in Europe determined to be of Jewish descent as determined by precise laws established in pre-war Germany. In Eichmann’s case, as has been mentioned earlier, the defense didn’t work. His evil past hung with him as he hung from the scaffold.

That same year, a Yale University psychologist, Stanly Milgram, conducted a series of studies designed to test whether, indeed, ordinary people, including our “terrifyingly normal,” would inflict harm upon others when receiving orders from a higher authority.[ii] In other words, it was an experiment designed to test “Obedience to Authority.” At the time, the results of the experiments indicated, rather alarmingly, that ordinary people did, indeed, harbor a sea of evil potential.

The study has since enjoyed a great deal of examination, criticism, support, and some refutation, What happened, though is that test organizers convinced a group of student participants that they were involved in a study to test the relationship between pain and cognizance. In short, they were to apply electrical shocks, in increasing severity, to other participants who gave wrong answers to questions in a highly controlled and supervised situation. They administered the shocks, under the watch of variously bedecked authority figures, to test participants in a controlled environment.  The reactions of the test victims were visible and quite dramatic, as they should have been for they, and the authority figures, were actually actors. The degree of electrical shock, at times theoretically lethal, applied under orders didn’t actually shock the participants, but it did shock the academic community when the results were published.

We’ll drop anchor for a short spell for the readers to carry out some homework, under orders of course. Anyone interested in the evil performed while following orders must read an account of the Milgramexperiments. They still shock.[iii]

---

[i] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Introduction to the Holocaust.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust. Accessed on December 23, 2021.

[ii] Milgram. S (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-78.

[iii] Brown, R. (1986). Social Forces in Obedience and Rebellion. Social Psychology: The Second Edition. New York: The Free Press.

 ROOTS

 Mentality Do those among us simply sit around and think up evil deeds to perform? It seems that way sometimes. Let’s look into the mental side of the problem.

The human genome includes all of the approximately three billion base pairs of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that make up the entire set of chromosomes of the human organism. It includes the coding regions of DNA, which encode all the genes (between 20,000 and 25,000) of the human organism, as well as the noncoding regions of DNA, which do not encode any genes.[i]

Researchers now know the entire sequence of the human genome. What we may never now is how the unimaginable number of connections, triggers, controllers, and inhibitors within a specific person operate. A minute transaction may control how we determine a sexual mate. Another minor transaction may determine our sense of gender. Another may control our ability to perform essential daily functions. Another may affect our inability to perform music, create art, understand mathematics, or billions of other mental and sensory results.

Could such a connection, or combination of connections, affect our sense of wrong and right? Perhaps. That is a question for more competent minds.

We may note, however, that we do generally accept the existence of persons who are pathologically prone to criminal or violent behavior. Many of these fall into one of two categories. They may be classified as a psychopath, generally considered to be born that way, or a sociopath, the product of one’s environment. In other words, one is, or learns to be, that way.

The DSM-5[ii] defines such antisocial personality as someone having three or more of the following traits:

·       Regularly breaks or flouts the law

·       Constantly lies and deceives others

·       Is impulsive and doesn’t plan ahead

·       Can be prone to fighting and aggressiveness

·       Has little regard for the safety of others

·       Irresponsible, can’t meet financial obligations

·       Doesn’t feel remorse or guilt

Psychopathy: Realizing the danger that generalizations represent, we note that not all psychopaths or sociopaths represent carriers of violent evil intent. Of the two, however, psychopathy ranks higher as a dangerous disorder because its representatives experience less guilt connected with one’s actions and a greater ability to disassociate from them.

A detailed discussion of these so-called anti-social disorders (ADPs) lies far beyond the scope of this modest effort at examining root causes of evil. Let us just say that some evil my flow from mental disorders that are sometimes difficult to spot, either in children or as adults.

In addition to being among those we listed in previous chapter as Supreme Catalysts, ones who conceive evil, persons listed as ADP are also likely to be what we call Takers of Advantage, or the ones who do the dirty work of evil intent. In this, many might be especially prone to propaganda or selective reinforcement. We can only conjecture as to the impact of hours spend, in an increasing state of agitation, watching or listening to propaganda spiced heavily with falsehood, inuendo, and blame.

One only needs to remember the effect of hate-radio upon the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 in which an estimated 800,000 were killed in a space of 100 days. Of a far lesser case of magnitude, but nonetheless disturbing to Americans, were the events of January 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

It is crucial to understand the relationship between mental minefields and provocative catalysts.

---

[i] Fridovich-Keil, J. L. (2019, February 15). human genome. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/human-genome

[ii] DSM–5 is a book prepared by the American Psychiatric Association that contains standard classifications of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States.

  CAUSES

Some of our greatest thinkers have studied the evil done by evil people. But what causes a “terrifyingly normal” person to do evil as one of the types covered in the last chapter? Let us steer carefully into that whirlpool.

First, we must mind a prevalent lesson from statistical analysis. Perhaps the strongest correlation with evil to be found in historical accounts is religion. Better minds than ours must attempt to determine if religion is the cause of evil or if religion is simply the excuse. We’ll steer around that question as best we can. We might note that one modern writer posits that, given the limitations of direct personal control over others, a major function of myth is to permit the control of many by a few.[i] Thus we veer toward correlation and causation merging in the case of evil.

As a prelude to causation, in the last chapter we discussed the types of evildoers. At the next level, now let us examine a litany of the most common catalysts for evil in the history of our species.

Punishment: This may be the most common source of evil actions. Bart Ehrman covered this thoroughly in his work on suffering (Ehrman, 2008). The use of evil for punishment by omnipotent spirits is common in Hebrew literature. Disobedience is perhaps the most common instigator. Examples include the imposition of the agony of childbirth[ii] for the gender of a species. Perhaps the most virulent involved the near annihilation of all species on earth.[iii]

Other religion-based punishments don’t involve a particular motivating act, i.e. sin, by the victims. Consider the innocents of the City of Jericho, going about their business.[iv] Some examples involve actions on victims for deeds that we might view as untoward but not worthy of violent punishment, say the acts of some young boys in ridiculing a bald man.[v] Being torn apart by wild beasts would seem a little “over the top” by modern standards.

Some societies attempt to create punishment that equated to a crime. Thus, the punishment for the wanton murder of an innocent is a long period of contemplation followed by the imposition of 2,000 volts of electricity through the perpetrator’s body.

Revenge: Again, this is a major determinant involved in the imposition of evil. Sometimes the connection is apparent, say Hiroshima and Nagasaki for Pearl Harbor. Other times, the connection becomes skewed, say the bombing of Baghdad for 9-11.

The act of revenge can allow be personal. A young Julius Caesar was once kidnapped by pirates. After paying off the ransom, Caesar raised an army, captured the pirates and had them crucified.[vi] Acts of revenge can also serve as acts of education.

Victory: Nothing seems to motivate the evil angels of our nature more than victory in war. Ask the Midianites who faced the following wrath after defeat in battle: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”[vii] More recently, we might ask German families about the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles following their country’s defeat in World War One.

Cleansing: See Wannsee Conference.[viii] This is, reportedly, from where the Final Solution to ridding Europe of all Jews emerged.

Law: The use of law to promulgate evil provides an unusual difficult task. First, we are not legal scholars. Second, laws derive from many sources, tradition, constitutions, statutes, and ordinances. A particularly needling fact is that, increasingly, our national state, local, and local laws emerge from iron-age writings by unknown authors in distant lands. Third, power determines the validity and enforcement of laws. So, we get the so-called “Nuremberg Laws” [ix] that legalized the persecution of Jews in Germany and the “Jim Crow Laws”[x] that legalized the persecution of African-Americans in the modern South.

Guilt: James A. Michener, in his classic Tales of the South Pacific, recounts how educated military members noticed curious phenomenon among South Pacific Islanders. These groups lived in what might be described as “paradise on earth:” No disease, ample food for the taking, and a moderate climate. In response, some had formed some of the cruelest religions imaginable. They termed this “Paradise Syndrome” which has come to include individuals of such great wealth and success that they feel they no longer have anything left in life to accomplish. Perhaps this might account for the fact that the poorest among us sometimes find a peace that eludes the better off, who think up evil as a pastime. See: “Legislator.”

---

[i] Harari, Yuval N. author. ( 2015). Sapiens : a brief history of humankind. New York :Harper,

[ii] Genesis 3.16

[iii] Genesis 6-9

[iv] Joshua 6:21-25

[v] 2 Kings 2:23-24

[vi] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (Invalid Date). The Time Julius Caesar Was Captured by Pirates. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/story/the-time-julius-caesar-was-captured-by-pirates

[vii] Numbers 31: 14-18

[viii] Berenbaum, M. (2021, January 13). Wannsee Conference. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Wannsee-Conference

[ix] Bradsher, Greg, The Nuremberg Laws, The National Archives, Winter 2010, Vol. 42, No. 4

[x] Urofsky, M. I. (2021, September 20). Jim Crow law. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Jim-Crow-law

A Study of Evil

  LEVELS

Is all evil equal in scope? Hardly. Bearing false witness may get one person sent to prison and another elected to high office. Each day we overlook those who endanger others by careless and evil actions. There are scales and degrees. Let us say levels of evil behavior.

One can’t imagine or discuss, though, the Holocaust without classifying it as one of the most evil phenomenon ever perpetrated by a group of individuals. In a spirit not of simplification but of management, let us use it, along with the cleansing of Cambodia, the purges of modern Russia, and others as ore from which we might mine answers. How did those atrocities occur in the presence of knowing witnesses? Who were the prime movers, who the secondary, and who was further down the line? This will require a great deal of value judgements, but that is precisely why we use these examples.

Following is a suggested order of the primacy of evil phenomenon:

Supreme Catalysts: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot come to mind immediately. Let us simply say that, at this level of evildoing, the evil phenomenon in question may have never happened, or at least would have never reached its level of ferocity had these individuals died at birth or some point prior to the culmination of the onslaught of evil. In History’s Gallery of Evil, they and their lot hold the highest of thrones.

Takers of Advantage: Let us take Tomás de Torquemada, (born 1420, Valladolid, Castile [Spain]—died September 16, 1498, Ávila, Castile), first grand inquisitor in Spain, whose name has become synonymous with the Christian Inquisition’s horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism.[i]

The Spanish Inquisition would likely have occurred had Torquemada never been born. He was able, though, to attach it to a disenoblement of human history, even religion, itself. (Yes, I know that’s probably not a word, but it’s the only term I could think of.) His motivation died with him but it is not hard to imagine that the enrichment of friends and associates, or even himself, may have played a part.

The crew of sycophants who surround the Takers of Advantage often seek advantage of their own. Hitler could not have conducted his evil empire nearly as effectively without the support of those like Himmler, Eichmann, Goering, Speer, and Goebbels. We only need to turn on our TVs today to see the faces of modern sycophants seeking to ride the evil tide, one created by their master, to glory, fame, power, or riches.

Closer to the historical home front, it makes us shudder to learn that some of the financial leaders of New York City wanted to recognize the Confederacy, and its evil purpose, because of their close association with cotton producers.[ii] To paraphrase a modern idiom, “Money talks and honor walks.”

Riders Along: Moving a step down from those who gain from evil, we find those who simply go along with for reasons hidden from view. This begins what many now feel is the truly frightening levels of the “movers and shakers” of evil doings. They enable evil before our very eyes because we have classified them as decent, honorable people. Consider the American general who allowed his troops to capture free Americans and transport them to slave states.

Continuing with the Nazi example, (perhaps the most familiar to us) we find a scale of perpetuators ranging from the commander of the submarine that sank the Lusitania to the Prussian general corps. They allow the winds of evil to fill the sails of history.

Turners of Heads: Even more frightening is the group that sees evil and does nothing. We will seek motivations in the next chapter. Let’s just say for now that these represent the rudders that are never turned though the shoals are quite visible and dead ahead. Apathy destroys by allowing evil to destroy.

Members of a Mob: Of all the members of the forces of evil, this is the only group that might ultimately express repentance. Unable to deny participation, their only defense is having chosen poorly because of the excitement and delirium of the moment. Sadly, they often must stand before the smoldering ruins they have created when seeking our understanding or forgiveness.

Takers of Scalps: The most disgusting movers of evil don’t take part in its execution. They don’t claim participation in any group associated with the damage it causes. When pressed, they deny even being on the scene. But they were. They are like the nonparticipants who rush onto the scene of battle after the warriors have left and proceed to scalp the wounded and rob the dead. All they do, they say, is “report the facts.” Today, as most of us know, facts are not “stubborn things,” as John Adams once said. Instead, they are proprietary things, as owners of news channels use them. Others claim to represent the Galilean while preaching the opposite of his words like some religious episode of the comic book empire of “Bizzaro World.”

The flotilla of evildoers looms large. Do we dare question their choice of courses to travel? Stay tuned.

---

[i] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2021, September 12). Tomás de Torquemada. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tomas-de-Torquemada

[ii] Widner, Ted. Lincoln on the Verge New York: Simon and Shuster, 2020