Some Thoughts on a Basic Definition of Evil?

I wrote this two years ago and submitted it to several philosophers and a journal of philosophy.  Nobody even wanted to read it, let alone comment on its merits.  So I offer it to y’all to see what you might think.  I hope to profit from your insights.

Guest Post by Robert Bronsdon

The basic definition of evil proposed in this essay is “The conscious taking by one person of anything belonging to another person, through any means, without that thing being freely given.”  This definition has many implications to be discussed below but it does not make reference to a moral code or any religion.  It is also devoid of motive.  This is primarily due both to the irrelevance of the motive and the inability of anyone save the actor to impute a motive.  This is not to say that some things which are inherently evil cannot be justified as acceptable in some moral codes.  It is to say that any moral code is developed by the society to define, not that which is evil, but rather the evil actions which are seen in that culture to be acceptable.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

This definition is fundamentally an economic one (much as Nietzsche describes it) in that an actor seeks to take something of value from a victim without consent.  In its simplest form one might consider stealing or theft as an evil.  But this definition is not restricted to physical things.  “Any Thing” refers to physical things such as property but it also refers to things such as life, freedom, virginity, happiness, comfort.  So this is really a very broad definition of what is an evil action and it is not dependent upon the goals of the actor or the level of harm perpetrated on the victim.  It is also independent of the moral codes of the actor and the victim because one is likely to surmise that both share the same moral code but that is not necessarily true. In fact, it is almost always going to be the case that the two actors in this transaction do not share the same moral codes for quite a large proportion of the evil acts that can be performed are supported by one moral code or another.

This definition clearly excludes the concept of evil institutions.  Inherent in this exclusion is the assumption that institutions are simply the sum actions of individual actors.  The actors within any institution reach a consensus as to which evils their moral code is going to support and which evils are to be excluded, but none of that should change the basic definition of evil.  It should not make an act less evil if everyone in the society accepts it as good.  If that is allowed then the definition is not base and cannot form a support for the rational development of a belief system, a religion, or moral code.  It is the goal of this paper to put forth a definition of evil that can be considered basic and fundamental to any discussion of what is good and what is evil.

The current understanding of what is evil

Let us start with a definition currently available and see if it helps us understand what evil is.  Some philosophers have questioned even the concept of evil in the absence of a basic definition.  They seem to contend that evil is not a necessary concept.  Others suggest that it is only relatively recently that mankind has started to wrestle with the concept on a fundamental basis.  Can that be true?  Surely mankind has struggled with the concept of evil from the moment we walked out of the bushes, and most likely long before that.  Most mammals, and very clearly the higher apes and monkeys, demonstrate that they have a very highly developed sense of having been done wrong to by another member of their society.

Evil appears in the dictionary as either an adjective or a noun.  In other words, the word itself is used either to describe an act or a thing (this evil act must be opposed), or it is used as a thing (we must all work against evil.)  None of the current definitions appear to place any modifiers on the act such as very or great.  In other words, in our current understanding of evil there is no need of discussing the degree to which a person is harmed.  But the current definitions do rely on the motive of the actor and most are based on a prevailing moral code or some concept of a religion.

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

Use as an Adjective

1. (of people) enjoying harming others; morally bad and cruel (an evil man, an evil grin)
2. having a harmful effect on people; morally bad (evil deeds, the evil effects of racism)
3. connected with the Devil and with what is bad in the world (evil spirits)
4. extremely unpleasant (an evil smell)

Use as a Noun

1. [uncountable] a force that causes bad things to happen; morally bad behavior (the eternal struggle between good and evil, the forces of evil)
2. [countable, usually plural] a bad or harmful thing; the bad effect of something (the evils of drugs/alcohol, social evils)

The futility of basing the definition of evil on a moral code or religion

Here we see that the definitions in common usage refer to moral codes or in fact a belief in supernatural influences on society.  An evil man is one who enjoys harming others.  The forces of evil must be opposed.  Is the man enjoying harming people?  How might we know that he does?  From where are these forces thought to originate?  Are they real or imagined?  It appears that the underlying cause of confusion as to what the definition of evil is finds its root in the illusion of a unified moral code.  Every single person believes that they know what evil is because they know what their moral code says is evil.  But not every person, and most probably not any person, actually shares a moral code.  Just the religious divisions alone, each with their own morality, puts the idea of basing a definition of evil on a moral code on shaky ground.

A man might be considered evil if he is one who enjoys harming others with whom he shares a moral code.   But what if that man does not share that common moral code?  He may come from a society where those who are not capable of keeping up are left to die.  The action of leaving behind one who cannot keep up is condemned as evil by those in a society where compassion forbids the abandonment of those less capable.  Whose moral code are we to use to define our basis on the definition of this evil?  Clearly the moral code of one group cannot form the basis for the definition of evil.

All moral codes embrace some forms of evil as acceptable while condemning others.  Some are very similar and one could argue that it should be possible to find some common ground and yet many other moral codes are so wildly divergent as to render any attempt futile.  How are we to reconcile the moral codes of the western Europeans with the moral codes of the headhunters of Papua New Guinea?

The futility of attempting to assign motive in the definition of evil

Many of the definitions of evil, or at least examples of the use of the word evil, pertain to people with specifically evil personalities.  The one man upon whom virtually all members of the human race can feel justified in assigning evil intent is of course Adolph Hitler.  Ask anyone if Hitler was evil and virtually every person will answer in the affirmative.  And yet, if you asked Hitler if he was evil it is almost certainly the case that he would say that he was not.  This is because every other person in the world, save Hitler himself, is condemned to form an opinion as to his motives.  Not one other person can accurately define those motives.  Without a clear understanding about another person’s motives one can never impute evil as a base component of another’s character.

If this is true, that it is impossible to truly know motive, then the task of imputing evil is a fool’s errand.  It is this which puts any definition of evil as an attribute of any other person at extreme risk.  If one cannot describe a person as evil then any definition of evil which is based on the concept of an evil personality is doomed to fail.  It is most likely this one logical fallacy which has been the greatest impediment to a usable definition of evil.

Virtually every single society on the face of the earth does now, or has in the past, faced what has been generally acknowledged to be an evil from another society.  Perhaps one society is a perpetrator of evil and the other is a victim of evil or perhaps the two societies simply have different ideas as to what is evil, but none the less, as a summation of all of the actions of the members of each society, true evils will be done on both sides of the conflict.  If one needs to define a motive in order to identify each act as evil then it is very likely that neither side will conclude that any evil acts have been committed.

Conclusion

So we find that we cannot base our definition of evil on a moral code.  And we find that we cannot base our definition of evil on any underlying human trait or supposed motive.  In the past we have condemned our efforts because we could not let go of our own societal beliefs and prejudices. What are we left with save a definition based on specific actions of any actor in any enterprise?   Once we have divorced our definition of evil from our own moral codes we find that we are left to accept that some of our actions are evil too.  Our actions are evil to others as their actions are evil to us.

It is only by separating the moral and religious arguments from the definition of evil that we are able to finally identify and address the true differences that separate us as humans.

So, is there evil in the world?  Of course there is.  In fact, it is everywhere and constant because there will always be people in the world who seek to take things from other people who do not want to give them up.  This is why it is almost inconceivable that anyone could contend that truly deep discussions about the meaning of evil in this world started in recent times.  Every single society on earth has set down its own definitions of what is evil and what is good.  People have, from mankind’s earliest times, struggled with how to define evil.  It seems to be our innate feeling that our motives can only be good and only others motives can potentially be evil that has clouded our perceptions and led us to obfuscate what should be a simple concept.

It is within everyone’s nature to chose to perform acts just as evil as those performed by Hitler.  Sometimes you will think that those acts are evil but sometimes you will not think that they are evil.  Sometimes your friends will think that those acts are evil but not always.  And sometimes it will only be the victim of your evil act who claims that the act was evil and that person will almost always come to that conclusion.  In the end, it is the act which is evil.  Your motive is irrelevant.  Your nature is irrelevant.  If, in the end, you choose to take something knowingly from another person who does not wish you to have it then you have performed an evil act.

Perhaps it is, in the end, the desire by the ruling class to paint a happy face on their own evil deeds which has precluded the adoption of a basic definition of evil.  They print the books.  They build the churches.  They decide what definitions go into the dictionaries.  They have an incentive to define the concept of evil as those things that they do not do, but rather that which those they oppose do.  This obfuscation is fundamental to the way in which societies are built and guided by those in positions of power.