An example of the usefulness of the concept “evil” is the assault, rape and torture of Angela Miller and Clifford Barnes. These people were attacked by Willie Horton after he was foolishly furloughed from a life sentence in prison for murder.
Had the Massachusetts authorities simply said, “Horton is evil,” they never would released him. Then this innocent young couple would have been spared.
In short, the concept of “evil” can help us to make better practical decisions.
The final answer must be that we are all not “evil” or “good”, but simply self-centered.
Would you purposely perform an act that would bring physical or emotional harm upon yourself? No.
“What about people who sacrifice their lives for the lives of others?”, you say.
Well, consider the motivation of such a person. In every case, self-sacrifice is still self-centered. We must ask “Is there some reward to this person for sacrificing themself?”.
The answer is always YES.
Consider the following situation: An adult and a child are at a corner waiting to cross the street. The child drops a ball into the crosswalk and leaps into the street to get it. The adult, barely even thinking, jumps in to the street to push the child out of the way of an oncoming truck. The truck kills the adult and the child’s life is spared.
Now, almost anyone would say “This was a selfless act. The adult had nothing to gain by sacrificing their life. This person was not self-centered.”
Wrong. The motivation (read: subconscious interior monologue) for the adult is probably as follows:
In this case, the value of the reward (extreme societal approval) is greater than the immediate instinct of physical self-preservation. This is still a self-centered motivation.
Now let’s look at the opposite: Willful murder.
Murder is committed because the murderer has something personal of emotional value to gain. A murderer must have somehow reached the point where the approval of most of society is valueless. Any personal emotional gain outweighs the devalued reward of societal approval. Perhaps an instant of power over someone is sufficient reward.
The motivation is still self-centered. In this case, to the detriment of other human beings.
The concepts of “evil” and “good” are political, as has already been discussed. They have no relevance in determining motivation. The only reason for any action, on any scale, is to increase the well-being of the act-or.
What we tend to think of as evil is when the effort of a person to increase their own well-being has the effect of decreasing the well-being of others. Notice that the motivation behind any such effort is not of importance to society’s definition of evil.
Similarly, the concept of good can be used to describe actions that have the effect of increasing the well-being of others.
In Summary:
**All motivation is self-centered.
We are at all times trying to increase our own well-being/happiness/satisfaction/etc.
Whether actions are “Evil” or “Good” depends upon the nature and degree of their effect on others.
“Evil” or “Good” may be useful terms to define what society will or will not tolerate, but they are no indication of intent.
The concepts of “Evil” and “Good” must forever be separated from the concept of motivation.**
That’s evil??? Goodness. In that case, not only is all of humanity evil, but so is all of nature, and the universe as a whole! Don’t you think that’s a little harsh on yourself? Killing someone when it’s thoroughly justified (Like self-defence) isn’t evil, wether you feel remorse for it or not (Personally, I probably wouldn’t if the guy was trying to kill me). What do you think is good, sitting there and letting him kill you? And why should you feel remorse for protecting yourself or someone else? It’s not you who did evil, it’s the person who attacks you.
And being uncharitable isn’t evil by a long shot. It’s not saintly good, no, but it isn’t an either/or thing here. Even being selfish isn’t “evil” (It’s rather self-centered, but not evil). Evil would be walking down the street with a wad of twenties, waving them at the homeless guys just because you like taunting them with the money, and that’s rather mild on the “evil” scale.
It seems like you’re including “moral neutral” acts as evil, as well. Evil isn’t just “not good”, it’s the opposite of good. Doing bad things, not just not doing good things.
I dunno about that, people have done very selfless things because of their emotions toward a third party. And in a split-second move like that, I doubt a person would have enough time to think of the complete social reactions. If it were their own child, their attatchment to that child could very well be enough to override their self preserverance, even to the point of self-sacrifice.
I’ve faced a somewhat similar situation, though obviously not quite as assuredly-lethal, being that I’m still here. I didn’t risk myself for attention, in fact I rather tried to avoid attention. I did it because several of my friends and many other people I didn’t know were in danger (And I wasn’t alone in acting on that impulse, either).
I believe that people can be good or evil, with the vast majority falling into a middle ground of neutrality. My views of evil have nothing to do with religious evil. Simply put:
Someone is evil if they would rather spite someone else to the point where their own needs are infrindged upon.
My mother is a prime example of this. She tried to destroy me to her own destruction.
Absolute selfishness doesn’t necessarily mean you’re evil. But it certainly contributes to being evil.
gobear, I am among those who do not share your thesis of innate human evil, but I have nothing useful to add that hasn’t been said far more articulately and eloquently than I am capable of doing.
Indeed, the only reason that I’m posting here at all is because I feel a need to communicate something to you (and even this may turn out to be misguided or untimely). I am very sorry to hear about what happened to your friend. I have no rationalizing platitudes to offer you, but I do offer you my sympathy, and my sincere hope that you and he are able to find a way to live with this outcome with as little suffering and as much joy as possible.
Peace.
Oh, and everybody?
Please forgive the hijack.
Yes, this is another very possible reason to do such an act. But look closer: "…their attachment to that child…"
What does this really mean and how does it represent something of great value to the adult in this story? Because it is The Right Thing to Do®. Loyalty, devotion, caring, heroism… All of these personal attributes generate their own emotional rewards when carried out. We are taught from a very young age that these attributes make a good person. This makes us feel good.
I suggest that perhaps the sense-of-self of the adult is enhanced with such an action. Thus the motivation is still self-centered.
Now, certainly nobody can pretend to understand all the psychological reasons motivating any person’s actions. And no, we don’t always consciously think about our true reasons for doing anything. That’s why it’s called the sub-conscious.
But there is no exception to what I have previously postulated:
**All motivation is self-centered.
We are at all times trying to increase our own well-being/happiness/satisfaction/etc.**
As for Good vs. Evil, don’t forget to distinguish motivation from effect. It may be okay to describe someone as “Evil” if what you really mean is “This person’s actions consistently bring harm to others”.
Just remember that all creatures are striving to do good for themselves. Always.