A Study of Evil

 THE HARM

As is alarmingly clear at this point that defining evil is a torturous task and even attempting it requires a high level of presumption. In order to understand something, though, one must first define it in some way, even if the definition is operational or simplistic.

We have narrowed our definition of evil to actions between individuals or groups of individuals. Unfortunately this leaves the treatment inflicted upon the planet or our companion living species for another day’s work. We are busy enough with, as the college students of old used to cite, “man’s inhumanity to man.”

Now what must occur to reach the infamous label of evil? Let us assume, for our purposes, that evil includes, but may not be limited to, the following necessary acts perpetrated against others by direct action, orders, participation, or legality:

·       One may inflict gratuitous pain on another;

·       One may inflict physical or mental torture on another for arguable purposes;

·       One may set actions in progress that harm others for reasons unassociated with the safety of the state or planet;

·       One may murder for no biological gain;

·       One may deprive others of one or more necessary daily functions of life;

·       One may, without gain or provocation, destroy the stasis of another’s existence;

·       One may establish organizations that inflict evil;

·       One may, while possessing powers of intercession, remain silent and inactive in the presence of the above; or

·       One may, in a profession, a daily life, or position of authority, support or condone any of the above.

We now turn to establishing “ground-level points” at which one moves into a definable stage of participating in the above. Some prove easier than others. For example, most would agree that:

·       Genocide practiced against an innocent people is evil.

·       Preventable and senseless murder or maiming is evil.

·       Physical torture is evil unless measurable gain can be proven.

·       Mental torture is evil unless measurable gain can be proven.

·       Abuse of a child is evil.

·       A pursuit of greed that requires the impoverishment of others is evil.

·       Enslavement of a people who posses no legal rights against society or their masters is evil.

The above represent examples about which reasonable people would not argue, even (to most) when any of those occur through religious edict. Even within those, however, levels of comparison exist. Comedy sketches in popular film, for example, represent torture for gratuitous reasons inflicted by means of tickling the feet of another. Some laws preventing or reducing any of the above remain dormant due to the impossibility of enforcement. In the minds of many, religion takes priority, for example, over legal protection of children from many forms of abuse.

Finally, national mental states contribute to the relaxation of measures of prevention. The “Dirty Harry” films that began during a period of perceived high crime rates in America struck a responsive chord in a country still existing under the so-called “frontier mentality.” Laws are still appearing that empower vigilantism in our society. As a result, deaths and maimings in “but for situations” still dominate our national news. Such laws seem to rely upon the good nature of the populace, rather than its evil nature.

That brings up a topic to which we shall return. How are evil and goodness connected?