Who is Evil?
Evil is a term that gets thrown around too much lately. As a rhetorical tool it can be effective in making a stark contrast between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” as the President attempts to do, but is it accurate? And do we harm our understanding of “evil” by defining it to be anyone who disagrees with us? Finally, how we define evil and who we label as evil tells a lot about our view of human nature.
It is important to create a distinction between “evil” and “bad” or “wrong”. Bad or wrong seem to be inherently relative ideas, whereas I see evil as a universal term. If I catch a man in bed with my wife and I murder him, am I evil? No, I wouldn’t say so. I’d certainly be wrong and would face a severe penalty for my action, but I don’t think anyone would label me evil. On the other hand if I killed a man simply because I enjoyed causing others to suffer, I would describe that as evil.
I think the motive and intent is crucial to divide between “evil” and “bad” or “wrong”. Most of the worst tyrants and terrorists in history had good motives despite the slaughter they inflicted. For them it was a matter of the ends justifying the means.
Even Hitler I wouldn’t describe as evil. He didn’t kill people for the delight of death and chaos and war, he did it to build a glorious German empire that would last a thousand years and create a golden age of peace and prosperity for his people, yadda yadda. His means were utterly despicable, without question, but I still wouldn’t call him evil.
And before someone dismisses me, the European colonization of the Americas led to the deaths of millions of Native Americans, were they “evil” by a similar argument as the argument that Hitler was evil?
In both cases the primary actors were motivated by some good goal that they felt justified the horrible actions they took. So bad, horrible, and disgusting are proper terms…. but not “evil”.
Any easy test to compare whether someone is evil or bad is whether reasonable people can disagree over the wrongness of someone and their actions. Bin Laden killed many innocents in pursuit of a goal which he and many supporters view as good. So did George Bush. We can debate over who has the better goal, but the fact that there is a credible debate means neither are evil.
I don’t think “evil” is relative. “Bad” or “wrong” may be relative, but evil is a universal concept. Thus I maintain that the suicide bombers are bad or wrong (according to our perspective) but not evil.
Since evil is a universal concept I think that there would be less debate over the rightness or wrongness of their actions. If reasonable people can take two sides on the goodness or badness of Bush or Bin Laden, then I’d describe neither as evil. Not that it depends on the debate, or even reasonable people.
You can go to anyone in the world, in any culture, and no matter their religion or politics they will no doubt recognize that Erzebet Bathory, Berkowitz and others were clearly in the wrong and evil.
Ask that same question about other tyrants and leaders in history and you’ll find some apologists. You’ll find some group naming them a glorious hero and defender of the people. Or a misunderstood leader. As with most things, history is written by the victor, so how much credit we give these people for their good motives depends on our bias.
Was the bombing of Dresden an act of evil, or a necessary act for a greater good? Reasonable people can disagree.
But there is no argument about Ted Bundy.