Is evil a viable concept?
The term evil has and continues to be used by philosophers, theologians, psychologist, jurists, and many others. There are those who distinguish between what is generally referred to as natural evil which might include earthquakes, storms and resulting tsunamis and what might be referred to moral or ethical evil. There are also those who associated the concept of evil with supernatural or dark forces in the universe or universes. Most readers will be familiar with such common reminders as “money is the root of all evil.” It would seem that many individuals are very comfortable using the concept of evil to explain their experience or understanding of parts of the world, individuals or forces they encounter in their world. It is not uncommon to hear the phrase “to overcome evil” or “to conquer evil.” One also hears the concept used as the opposite of good or moral. The phase “evil incarnate” will be familiar to most and is most often used to describe some person/people. When in the court room as an expert witness, I have often heard a judge addressing the convicted person as having committed an unspeakable evil act and is, thus, deserving of punishment implying that they are evil. Both of the current presumptive presidential candidates in the United States have used the term evil to describe the person and acts of their rival.
Most people with whom I talk are very comfortable using the word evil. We must, after all, have some word or concept with which to compare good, moral, ethical, bad, undesirable, amoral, or unethical. We can, of course use the terms bad, immoral or unethical to describe an action by another. There are also, even in the English language, a myriad of terms which are synonyms with how many use the term.
Scott Peck, the now deceased noted psychiatrist and author, says in his book People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Evil that “People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures.” His books, including that one, sold many copies. I can well remember many of my colleagues and clients finding this book helpful. I, however, had a very difficult time with his use of terms such as evil. Try as I might, ever after the third try, I could not finish the book.
I am in complete agreement with those who suggest that the following are examples of acts which are without any value or merit:
· Beheading people.
· Torturing people – including waterboarding.
· Killing people without their permission (I word it this way because I am in favor of individuals having the right to assisted suicide even when I think that their decision is premature).
· Stealing from others as opposed to sharing needed resources.
· Addictive behavior.
· War.
· Denial of health care
· Not treating other people as sacred.
· Not being grateful or humble.
· Intentional discrimination.
One could reasonably ask, “Why not just call these acts evil?” Certainly if one researches the word evil one finds that the etiology or origin of the word is to describe acts as bad, sinful, or wicked.
It is obvious when I say that action is without merit or value I am essentially stating that the action is bad, wicked or sinful. Yet, I have as much discomfort with the term evil as I do the term sinful.
I think that I am getting closer to discovering the source of my discomfort. Very often, I have heard the term evil used to not only describe an act but to then describe the actor. When the word is used to describe an actor – the person who commits an act – it often seems to be used in such a way as to imply that the person and not just the act is evil. If the person is evil, it seems to be a short distance to proclaiming that the person has no merit or worth. I hear the word often used to describe those who one has labeled an enemy for whatever reason – on a very personal, national or international level.
I do not believe that anyone is without merit or worth. I would never say that a person is evil and can, therefore, be killed, locked away to just vegetate, or otherwise discarded. I also would not say that the person who acutely mistreats or even beheads or otherwise kills another is without merit.
There are certainly those who are temporarily or permanently not able to consider the needs or worth of another. I do think that there are those who the medical, psychological, and spiritual community cannot currently help to rise above the bottom level of Maslow’s scale. These people may be born without the physical ability to experience empathy. There may be those who are so trapped by addiction that they are unable to consider the needs of others. Yet, addiction is a disease which can be treated and managed thus allowing the successfully treated individual to act in a way which respects the rights of others. Anyone who had attended a 12-step open-speakers meeting has heard stories of the miracle of conversion/healing of someone who formerly could only focus on “ways and means to feed their addiction no matter who it hurt” to being an empathic, productive, healing member of the community. I have worked with/for people who, often in spite of the prison system, have learned to love and trust themselves and others. I have also worked with/for individuals whose mental illness would not allow them to distinguish a shared reality from dangerous hallucinations or delusions. Many, not all, of these individuals are now able to be love and to trust and to be loved and trusted.
Spiritually, it is my experience that all too often when “I am pointing a finger at myself I have at least three more pointing back at me.” Although my behavior may be less immediately or invasively harmful, it is not kind or considerate of others..
As I type and “listen” to what I am saying I hear that it is not the word evil with which I have a problem per se. My experience is that we all too often use the word to describe a person rather than an act or behavior of a person. Once we use the word to describe a person we then seem able to justify mistreating or permanently discarding the sacredness of that person. I find that the chance of miscommunication is much less if I just avoid the use of the term. I do not want to play a role in treating others as if they are less then sacred.
The reader may then appropriately ask about the concept of free will. If someone chooses to not get treated for an addiction or a mental illness and, thus, open themselves to evil behavior should they not be held responsible for their actions? The problems with this line of thinking are:
· If one is mentally ill or actively addicted, one’s mind is not working well enough to make a decision to get into treatment. One has to be at a minimum well enough to accept that one is not well and needs to turn over treatment decisions to someone else. Occasionally one can be forcefully committed to treatment.
· One does not, as far as I know, determine before they are born that they will enter this life journey without the ability to develop the part of the brain which is able to experience empathy.
· One does not decide to have a medical condition which makes the brain unable to think conceptually or logically. Many illnesses affect the ability of the brain to function.
The bottom line is then that I have, during the course of writing today learned or relearned something. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or inaccurate with the word evil. It is, however, in my mind such a “loaded” word that it can easily be inferred to refer to the person and not just the act. I am recommending that we be very cautious about using it to refer to any other person – domestic or foreign! For me it is simpler to not use the word.
Written July 1, 2016
The term evil has and continues to be used by philosophers, theologians, psychologist, jurists, and many others. There are those who distinguish between what is generally referred to as natural evil which might include earthquakes, storms and resulting tsunamis and what might be referred to moral or ethical evil. There are also those who associated the concept of evil with supernatural or dark forces in the universe or universes. Most readers will be familiar with such common reminders as “money is the root of all evil.” It would seem that many individuals are very comfortable using the concept of evil to explain their experience or understanding of parts of the world, individuals or forces they encounter in their world. It is not uncommon to hear the phrase “to overcome evil” or “to conquer evil.” One also hears the concept used as the opposite of good or moral. The phase “evil incarnate” will be familiar to most and is most often used to describe some person/people. When in the court room as an expert witness, I have often heard a judge addressing the convicted person as having committed an unspeakable evil act and is, thus, deserving of punishment implying that they are evil. Both of the current presumptive presidential candidates in the United States have used the term evil to describe the person and acts of their rival.
Most people with whom I talk are very comfortable using the word evil. We must, after all, have some word or concept with which to compare good, moral, ethical, bad, undesirable, amoral, or unethical. We can, of course use the terms bad, immoral or unethical to describe an action by another. There are also, even in the English language, a myriad of terms which are synonyms with how many use the term.
Scott Peck, the now deceased noted psychiatrist and author, says in his book People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Evil that “People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures.” His books, including that one, sold many copies. I can well remember many of my colleagues and clients finding this book helpful. I, however, had a very difficult time with his use of terms such as evil. Try as I might, ever after the third try, I could not finish the book.
I am in complete agreement with those who suggest that the following are examples of acts which are without any value or merit:
· Beheading people.
· Torturing people – including waterboarding.
· Killing people without their permission (I word it this way because I am in favor of individuals having the right to assisted suicide even when I think that their decision is premature).
· Stealing from others as opposed to sharing needed resources.
· Addictive behavior.
· War.
· Denial of health care
· Not treating other people as sacred.
· Not being grateful or humble.
· Intentional discrimination.
One could reasonably ask, “Why not just call these acts evil?” Certainly if one researches the word evil one finds that the etiology or origin of the word is to describe acts as bad, sinful, or wicked.
It is obvious when I say that action is without merit or value I am essentially stating that the action is bad, wicked or sinful. Yet, I have as much discomfort with the term evil as I do the term sinful.
I think that I am getting closer to discovering the source of my discomfort. Very often, I have heard the term evil used to not only describe an act but to then describe the actor. When the word is used to describe an actor – the person who commits an act – it often seems to be used in such a way as to imply that the person and not just the act is evil. If the person is evil, it seems to be a short distance to proclaiming that the person has no merit or worth. I hear the word often used to describe those who one has labeled an enemy for whatever reason – on a very personal, national or international level.
I do not believe that anyone is without merit or worth. I would never say that a person is evil and can, therefore, be killed, locked away to just vegetate, or otherwise discarded. I also would not say that the person who acutely mistreats or even beheads or otherwise kills another is without merit.
There are certainly those who are temporarily or permanently not able to consider the needs or worth of another. I do think that there are those who the medical, psychological, and spiritual community cannot currently help to rise above the bottom level of Maslow’s scale. These people may be born without the physical ability to experience empathy. There may be those who are so trapped by addiction that they are unable to consider the needs of others. Yet, addiction is a disease which can be treated and managed thus allowing the successfully treated individual to act in a way which respects the rights of others. Anyone who had attended a 12-step open-speakers meeting has heard stories of the miracle of conversion/healing of someone who formerly could only focus on “ways and means to feed their addiction no matter who it hurt” to being an empathic, productive, healing member of the community. I have worked with/for people who, often in spite of the prison system, have learned to love and trust themselves and others. I have also worked with/for individuals whose mental illness would not allow them to distinguish a shared reality from dangerous hallucinations or delusions. Many, not all, of these individuals are now able to be love and to trust and to be loved and trusted.
Spiritually, it is my experience that all too often when “I am pointing a finger at myself I have at least three more pointing back at me.” Although my behavior may be less immediately or invasively harmful, it is not kind or considerate of others..
As I type and “listen” to what I am saying I hear that it is not the word evil with which I have a problem per se. My experience is that we all too often use the word to describe a person rather than an act or behavior of a person. Once we use the word to describe a person we then seem able to justify mistreating or permanently discarding the sacredness of that person. I find that the chance of miscommunication is much less if I just avoid the use of the term. I do not want to play a role in treating others as if they are less then sacred.
The reader may then appropriately ask about the concept of free will. If someone chooses to not get treated for an addiction or a mental illness and, thus, open themselves to evil behavior should they not be held responsible for their actions? The problems with this line of thinking are:
· If one is mentally ill or actively addicted, one’s mind is not working well enough to make a decision to get into treatment. One has to be at a minimum well enough to accept that one is not well and needs to turn over treatment decisions to someone else. Occasionally one can be forcefully committed to treatment.
· One does not, as far as I know, determine before they are born that they will enter this life journey without the ability to develop the part of the brain which is able to experience empathy.
· One does not decide to have a medical condition which makes the brain unable to think conceptually or logically. Many illnesses affect the ability of the brain to function.
The bottom line is then that I have, during the course of writing today learned or relearned something. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or inaccurate with the word evil. It is, however, in my mind such a “loaded” word that it can easily be inferred to refer to the person and not just the act. I am recommending that we be very cautious about using it to refer to any other person – domestic or foreign! For me it is simpler to not use the word.
Written July 1, 2016
RSS Feed