Overview:
Most damage done through evil does not come from terrible
deeds of acknowledged monsters who cannot be identified with. Most damage comes from normal and decent
people. Although evil is not associated
with normal routines of everyday life, people still have constant contact with
evil through mass media reporting violence and other tragic situations. This is a paradoxical situation, as evil is
absent and omnipresent. Absent in experience,
but perceived everywhere. Evil is
difficult to recognize without a centralized identity. Evil is ubiquitous, which is fostered by the
inability and difficulty to discuss evil.
People are a complex mixture of good and evil, and need to find ways to
discuss evil to find ways to fight it.
Moral evil exists because individuals are free to make
choices. To act differently in a given
situation. Individuals are responsible
for the choices that they make. Four
types of evil are described which are demonic evil, instrumental evil,
idealistic evil, and stupid evil.
Demonic evil is an act of doing evil because it is evil. Instrumental evil is using acknowledged evil
to accomplish another goal. Using evil
means to accomplish a good outcome.
Idealistic evil is when a person does evil in the belief that its
good. Those who committee idealistic
evil considered themselves to be the representatives of the good. Stupid evil is committed by someone who acts
without consideration for whether their acts are good or evil. Stupid evil is not a reference to
intelligence, but a reference to evil coming about through thoughtlessness, an
absence of reflection. Stupid evil is
banal, and the focus of this book.
An Introduction to Evil:
Evil has become aestheticized, as imaginary evil is seen as
romantic while real evil is banal. Imaginary
good is banal, while real good marvelous.
The aestheticization of evil, has caused people miss the horror
associated with evil. With an aesthetic
understanding of evil, there is no actual victim, acts without
consequence.
Although the focus of this book is the ordinary evil, could
not escape the contrast with the extraordinary evil. Evil is salient in the acts committed by
acknowledged monsters, whom most people cannot identify with. But that extreme evil is limited, and cannot
explain the abundance of evil. Most
damage done through evil comes from normal and decent people. Evil is the normal, but without the eagerness
to identify it as such. Evil is usually
someone else, a them.
Society has developed a gap between experiencing evil and
the ability to understand it. Outside
extreme cases with clear perpetrators, there is little understanding of where
evil actually resides. Satan was a
scapegoat of evil, but with the death of God, along with Satan, people have
lost the ability to talk about evil as there is no representation of evil. Some claim to want
to resurrect the dualism of evil, as the opposite of good. Others want evil renewed rather than
restored.
Few deny the existence of evil, but many deny the existence
of an evil person. There is a reluctance
to call even the worse individuals evil.
Evil lacks meaning if the worst individuals cannot be called evil. An evil person can be considered those who
chose to intentionally do harm.
Alternatively, evil can from acts claimed to be evil.
People want an unconditional concept of evil, but there are
a lot of conditions that make life less good.
There is no ultimate evil, only various evils. Good and evil are relative concepts, as they
contrast each other. Evil is a
characteristic of things, events, or actions.
Evil is a human social construct describing actions, and refers to
suffering. People therefore seek to
reconcile with the existence of evil, and attempt to find meaning within
evil. The author argues that evil should
not be justified, nor is reconciliation with evil appropriate. Evil should be fought, not explained, nor
justified. That there is no meaning in
the tragedies within human history.
Choices made by an individual are more than a sum of causes,
for the person was can act freely. Free
will allows for choices outside of the chain of cause and effect. Moral evil exists only because there is free
will. Free will refers to the ability to
act differently in a given situation.
Situations in which the individual could have acted differently but did
not.
As people mature, they become culturally acclimated, they
become a moral being. A complex mixture
of good and evil. Some have more good or
evil, but each is a combination. A
morally evil agent is free, without consideration the human impact. No need for intention, for suffering can come
from thoughtless action. A thoughtless
person is responsible for the evil acts because the person should have thought
before the act. Blame comes to those who
could have acted otherwise. Those guilty
of moral evil are free agents.
Evil usually refers to others, a transgression done. The incomprehensibility of evil is both
seductive and repulsive. Evil becomes
practical and clear if it is considered to be anything that opposes living a
meaningful and worthy life. Understanding
the evil done by normal people, can contribute to an understanding of humanity.
The Impact of Evil:
Harm to the victim tends to be greater than the gain to the
perpetrator. The same act that has a
profound negative effect on the victim, but an insignificant positive effect
for the perpetrator. Conflict tends to
escalate because of this gap. Even if harm
to both sides is equal, each will feel to have suffered more than the actual
damage done.
Those who consider themselves to be violent, think that
others are violent, with situations requiring violent responses. Knowing ourselfs, does not necessarily mean
we know others.
There are those who like to mistreat others, without any
benefits. They enjoy it. The desire for violence is always present,
but does require an excuse to utilize.
An excuse to legitimate the violent action, and blame the action on the
other. Victims tend to act aggressively,
which contributes to a tragic outcome.
Fighting Evil:
Contemplation leads to a better life. The world is hard to change, but the
individual can change themselves.
Discussion with others should precede application of practice wisdom. Moral and political questions should be held
in a public forum.
Citizens within democracies are meant to protest publicly
when given the opportunity. Silence gives
consent. Participating in defining an
event’s moral status is important.
Participants can increase awareness of something morally
unacceptable. Evil is not something
anyone should remain neutral to.
Sometimes, that might require physical force to prevent.
Legitimacy of an order comes from it being followed. Refusing to follow orders, also refuses to
recognize them as legitimate. Refusal is
a powerful weapon.
Origins and Alternatives Understandings of Evil:
Traditions of the origin of evil claim that evil is done
because of: 1) seduced by malevolent, supernatural power, 2) people are
naturally predisposed to be evil, 3) environmental influence, 4) people choose
evil with free will.
God’s death is a reference to how humanity has given up
believing in humanities divinity. Rather
than humans becoming divine with the death of God, people not have radical
contingence. They are able to shape the
history, without a guaranteed right direction.
Without God, evil has become a human problem. Science was thought to govern progress, but
that belief was lost at its own demonstrated destructive potential.
Within Marxism, God was replaced with history and
humanity. It even contains a utopian
concept. Ideas that suspend morality for
a higher purpose, which in practice has led to many dead. Historic progress overshadowed any moral considerations
for Stalin’s committees. Their moral
consideration was that of historic progress.
Even believers fell victim to egregious injustices.
Biology cannot define a moral concept of evil, because moral
evil requires a choice. Biology defines
good, that which is useful for reproduction, and evil as useless. Good and evil are not located in the genes.
Sometimes evil is contrasted to what people would do in a
natural state. But a hypothetical
primitive state does not explain who people are.
Demonic Evil:
Demonic evil is self-sufficient evil. The existence of evil for its own sake. Appears in more testimonies of victims than
perpetrators. Victims tend to think that
their perpetrator is purely sadistic, but there is no related emotional relevance
for the perpetrator. Those who appear to
be monsters committing evil acts, tend to be normal people without any
disposition towards sadism.
There are race cases of murders that contain autotelic
violence. Violence that is
self-justifying and self-sufficient, which is demonic. Demonic evil is disinterested, for it has no
purpose beyond itself. This is the
problem with the demonic evil view, for most of the time, every desire has a
component of good even if just for the agent, even though the desire itself is
evil. Evil can come about in trying to
attain the individual’s subjective good goals, at other people’s expense. Evil then becomes purpose driven, a variant
of instrumental evil. People committing
evil to attain a form of good, which is instrumental evil. Demonic evil needs to be supplemented with
instrumental evil.
Instrumental Evil:
Morals laws subordinate sensual appetites to social
interest. Moral laws founded upon
reason. Pursuing happiness is not an
immoral activity, unless it intentionally transgresses on moral laws. For Kant, the root of evil is accepting moral
law, but simultaneously ignoring the precepts.
Moral evil chooses to subordinate moral law to sensuous
inclinations.
There are those who use evil means to obtain good
outcomes. Choosing evil for another
objective, for self-love. The agent
knows the different between subjective and objective good and evil, but chooses
subjective good.
For Kant, respect for moral law comes through its
transgression. Knowing the negative
effect the actions have on even one’s own thoughts, provides the reason to
follow moral laws. The guilt felt for
transgression leads to respect for moral law.
Knowing that the individual is free comes from the transgressions as
well.
Those who do not understand moral laws, cannot be held
accountable to them. Kant’s instrumental
evil applies only to those who knew that they were committing a wrong. Ignorance prevents people from accepting
moral laws, but that can also mean that the individual is responsible for being
informed of moral laws. The problem is
that knowledge of the moral laws, comes about after the violation.
Instrumental evil needs to be supplemented with idealistic
evil and stupid evil. For it is with idealistic
evil that an agent believes they are doing good. And stupid evil is when the agent does not
consider moral consequences of one’s actions.
Instrumental and idealistic evil agents both desires
good. The difference is that while
idealistic evil agents desire objectively good, the instrumental evil agents
desire subjectively good. Instrumental
evil agents, knows that evil is being done but chooses to commit the evil for a
greater purpose. Idealist does not know
that evil is being done.
Idealistic Evil:
Ideas about evil, have created evil. Those who attempt to overcome evil, have
brought more evil into the world. Those
who hate evil, do evil. When their
destructiveness rebounds back on themselves, their world view is
strengthened. Theories of evil simplify
the complexity of reality to a single arbitrary opposition, with no alternative
possible other than good or evil.
Not all evil is imaginary, but much of evil has been
introduced by attacking something mistaken to be evil itself. Evil love brings
into the world evil. Love of self,
country, and other objects of love.
Sometimes, what is perceive to be good, is actually evil.
The attacker perceived the attacker to be the actual victim,
while blaming the victim as the aggressor.
Rare when those who do evil, recognize their actions as evil. Evil is not part of a perpetrator’s
self-image. Evil is perceived by the
victim and witness. As the perpetrator
judges the victim to be evil, they consider themselves to have good motives.
In the human attempt to find meaning, action is founded upon
ideas. The ideas of good and evil are
correlated with us and them. With evil
always others, and never oneself. There
is nothing inherently wrong with the dichotomy of us and them. Even arbitrary delineation are needed for identity
formation. The problem is when the pair
is interpreted asymmetrically, which is a basis for discrimination.
Many identities are created through imagined
communities. Even though most members of
different groups would not have contact with the other group members, there is
still a feeling of group identity. Even
an arbitrarily chosen trait is enough to create the difference between us and
them. Trivial traits that lead to
systematic discrimination.
It has often been sufficient to attack others when they are
perceived to be evil. But, others being
evil does not necessitate that attackers to be good. Both sides are possibly evil. Not every means of fighting evil is
good.
Humans tend to group themselves for the advantages of
cooperation, but too tightly knit groups can become problematic. Individuals tend to substitute the group’s
values for their own. Surrendering
individually is equivalent to surrendering the capacity of thought.
Stupid Evil:
Evil can be unmasked and prevented. Evil creates the conditions for its own
destruction, or at least provokes negative emotions. There is no defense against folly, making
folly a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. Folly cannot be reasoned with. Contradictions are disbelieved, or become a
source for criticism or exception.
Stupidity in this book is a reference to thoughtlessness,
not a lack of intelligence. Stupidity is
a lack of judgment.
Terrible acts can be carried out by people without sadistic
motives, but for want of resolving a practical problem. Actions that take place in a moral
vacuum. Without sadism, elements that
can cause people to accept evil is by presentation, distancing, separation of
labor, escalation, and socialization.
Realization of evil comes the questions about how someone could have
been thoughtless, why evil was not resisted, or recognizing what one has
become. Depersonalization can dissolve
politics and morals which contributes to apathy. Apathy threatens personal responsibility and
critical thought.
Radical in this book means root, as a reference to
depth. People who speak in cliches, are
superficial, and lack depth.
Totalitarian indoctrination does not create absolute conviction, but
rather destroys the ability to form convictions, to destroy the ability to
think with depth. The civil servant
language is a depersonalized language. A
language full of cliches to prevent the individual from thinking for
themselves. Prevents reflection. Thinking for oneself, becomes a form of
betrayal.
Lenin and Stalin wanted to use violence against enemies of
the proletariat. The regime was meant to
serve the masses, but the masses were not what the regime wanted them to
be. Violence was turned against the
workers and peasants the regime was meant to serve. Purging those they deemed an enemy. Purges that were also ethnically and racially
motivated. The opposition to be purged
was ambiguous, and arbitrarily chosen.
With time, more and more groups fit the regime’s qualifications. The ambiguity of the enemy, did not raise
questions about the existence of an enemy.
As the criteria for an enemy became less precise, and more applicable to
more people, the criteria fit not only enemies but also friends and relatives. Within totalitarian society, what is good or
evil is defined by state, not the individual.
People do not actually know what they will do in a
situation, until the realization of the situation. People are fallible, but they can hope to do
what is right, and find the strength to oppose evil.
Caveats?
The focus of
the book is on evil. Specifically
ordinary evil, that everyone is capable of.
With the objective to fight evil, not explain it. The author also claims that there is no
meaning to be found in the history of human tragedies. These claims create various
contradictions. Without an attempt to
explain evil, without trying to find meaning in the tragedies, there can be no
reflection on what evil is and what to do about evil. The author wants reflection to prevent evil,
but also undermines reflection.
Reflection of evil would mean trying to understand evil to find
alternative ways of being and ways to fight evil. Knowing how evil operates and why, leads to
ways to fight and undermine evil. Within
the book, the author does seek out examples of evil throughout history, and
reflects on what was found.
What is missing from the book is a systematic explanation on
what is needed to fight evil without turning into evil. To know what is evil appears to need
discussion, but different groups can come up with different views about certain
actions as evil or good. As the
different groups can obtain different views about what is evil or good, the
different groups can have a conflict and see each other as evil and themselves as
good. This type of conflict has features
of instrumental evil, and of idealistic evil.
But within this conflict, they will be doing good, because they have
reflected on what that means and chose the conflict.
A way to fight evil is by speaking
up against evil. But there are social
consequences of speaking up. The author
does reference a case when people willingly did evil to others, without harming
those who did not want to participate. But
the lack of apparent consequences could only have been known after the event,
for the author to obtain the statistics.
The people who were committing the acts or did not want to commit the
acts, would not have known the consequences in advance. Appropriate dissent is not as easy as the
author tries to make dissent out to be.
The author wanted to focus on ordinary people committing
evil, but the examples of transgressions are mainly large or with extremely
outcomes. As anyone can commit evil,
what is missing is the size of transgressions.
There are costs to reflecting about morality of
actions. Ordinary people commit evil,
and are meant to use those temporary acts to reconsider ways to act. Even as the acts are transient, socially
acknowledging and trying to become better is difficult, because society can
emphasize the evil done rather than the willingness to change. This social feature escalates the cost of
acknowledging the transient evil, because it can be forever claimed as a reference
of an evil individual. The cost can
prevent people from acknowledging the evil, and continue to do evil.
There is more to reflection.
The author does acknowledge that reflection does not make people good
people. They can still choose to commit
evil, or mistaken their views to be good.
But there is another problem with reflection. Reflection takes energy, while delegating
decision reduces the energy strain. Many
decisions are delegated to enable the individuals to think about other
things. What this means is that not thinking
about something, is not necessarily the problem of evil. Also, it would be near impossible for an
individual to consider the moral consequences of every action, for there would
be no every left to actually make a decision to act. This leads to another missing part of the
book, missing an understanding of appropriate reflection methods.
