The Meaning of Evil - A Response

The concept of evil is a complex one. It brings into discussion many philosophical and religious concepts. It is a question that has been part of our civilization for a very long time.

De Maitre has discussed the psychological perspective behind evil, as well as the fact that the “evil” acts of the figures brought up are the consequences of intentions carried too far. My conclusions are slightly different. I take a more philosophical approach to evil, and explore the more fundamental aspects of humanity that define this phenomenon we call “evil.”

Here, I’ll talk about the nature of evil, whether it exists in the first place, and whether the events that we consider evil are evil at all.

First, what is evil? Has evil been an intrinsic part of our species? Philosophers across time and space since the dawn of civilization have explored this issue, and the arguments can be summarized under what philosophers call “the state of nature,” that is, the nature of human beings before the advent of civilization.

There are philosophers who believe humans were kind by nature, or at least had a tendency towards kindness. Evil exists because circumstances force them to act against their morality. Examples of philosophers in this school are Confucius and Mencius.

In fact, kindness was thought to be a natural tendency. According to Mencius, the tendency of human beings to do good is as inevitable as water flowing from a higher level to a lower level.

And of course, there are philosophers who think otherwise.

Starting with China, the legalists such as Han Fei-zi believed humans were fundamentally evil. To him, the reason why society is in such chaos is because there is no inherent morality in humans. The only way to achieve peace between people is by harsh laws and strict control from the state.

And in Europe, Thomas Hobbes continued this tradition by stating that the state of nature would be “a war of everyone against everyone”, the result of which the life of men will be “poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short.”

But all these philosophers take one thing for granted: that evil had always been, or has never been with us since the dawn of time. Evil is something inherent, not external or imported.

What about the Christian notion of evil? Christian philosophers found evil equally difficult to address. This is because of the main reason that God being all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving wouldn’t have allowed evil to exist in our world, or at least, amongst His followers. And of course, this reason has been the point of much scrutiny from philosophers.

Just take what Epicurus said:
Is God willing but unable? Then He is not omnipotent. Is God able but unwilling? Then why call Him God?

The premise of God being all-powerful yet at the same time not able to eradicate evil poses a serious challenge to Christian thinkers. A whole new branch of thinking is devoted to this question – the question of evil – theodicy.

Let’s look at some of the arguments they came up with.

First, Satan. A personification of evil. Someone who constantly challenges God in his work, who destroys what He creates, who bring suffering to the world.

But this argument is not without flaws. First, if God’s omnipotent, wouldn’t it be easy for Him to just destroy Satan himself? Second, if God’s all-loving, why let Satan do what he likes? Some rebut that Satan is acting on God’s will, but that’s already conceding to the previous argument.

So there’s a new argument, that God has a role for evil to play. Then we have notions of retribution for “evil” deeds, and in the process, a moral compass is created for believers.

But it wouldn’t help explain why “evil” things happen to good, innocent people. People rebut saying its evil precisely because it befalls on innocents, but that’ll run their own idea of an all-loving and omnipotent God, and the idea of Him as a
moral judge down, because surely God wouldn’t let that happen?

So the question of evil remains unanswered.

My take? Either the definition of evil must change, or evil simply doesn’t exist. I take the latter stand. My reasons are simple.

First, the definition of evil keeps changing. Evil is just what a particular individual or group dislike strongly about. People, groups, institutions dislike something, feel that it’s a serious threat, and then call it evil. In other words, evil is what you say it is.

Second, this stand is the only possible way of reconciling religion with philosophy. The religious idea of evil is severely discredited by philosophy, due to its weak reasoning and critical assumptions. So to say evil doesn’t exist, simply means that misfortune and evil are not synonymous, and that God does not directly intervene in worldly affairs. This is the view taken by most moderate Christians.

In fact, even Chinese philosophers agree with that. The philosopher Xun-zi illustrated clearly the relationship between heaven and man. He states that the affairs of heaven and the affairs of man are unrelated. What happens to the mortal world does not affect what happens in heaven, and the mechanisms that govern heaven do not affect human activity as well. Evil, if it exists, if uniquely human, not the effect of some heavenly process.

This is my take on the question of evil. It’s a philosophical and religious take on the issue. It is neither comprehensive nor complete, but it gives an idea of the debates that occur where the issue of evil is concerned. Humans are interested in evil, precisely because it is a question that has defied our understanding. It will be ironic that after thousands of years exploring the issue, we might conclude by saying it never existed in the first place.