Derivative Images

“The problem of evil is one of our oldest intellectual conundrums. Volumes have been written attempting to define evil, to catalog its horrors, to account for its persistence, to explain its appeal, to confront its consequences. The moment we begin to ask questions about the nature of evil, however, we begin to understand how difficult it is to answer them. One way to start the discussion is to narrow the focus.” ~ Alan Wolfe

How do you define evil? Is it merely a relative term  that each person will define differently? When we review history, do we see concepts that were once considered evil are now acceptable?

Perhaps the main issue is that evil is all too often analyzed at too high a level of abstraction. Theologians will tell us that evil is the absence of God in our daily lives, a neat little umbrella term that loses some of its punch when these very same theologians, in the same breath, have a good degree of difficulty defining Divine Essence in general.  Contemporary metaphysicians and philosophers  will confidently claim that evil is a disturbance in the natural order of the Universe only to fall short trying to explain “what” the “nature” of the Universe actually is let alone what “order” constitutes. Science will tell us that evil is a by-product of some faulty cross wiring in our brains so we are then reduced to mindless madmen and women who are not responsible for what our minds are producing thus giving birth to the neighborhood rapist, the hell bent destructo-terrorist and even the covetous unethical politician who’s helping to pass legislation to rob us blind.

"malum naturæ" …  "culpæ"  … "paenæ"

Some believe that evil is divided into three categories -  physical, moral, and metaphysical.

These following definitions are from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization. Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.

Moral evil is understood  to be the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation. The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally

believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural  sanction.

Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world. Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes. Thus, animal and vegetable organisms are variously influenced by climate and other natural causes; predatory animals depend for their existence on the destruction of life; nature is subject to storms and convulsions, and its order depends on a system of perpetual decay and renewal due to the interaction of its constituent parts. If animals suffering is excluded, no pain of any kind is caused by the inevitable limitations of nature; and they can only be called evil by analogy, and in a sense quite different from that in which the term is applied to human experience.

Say what???  You might want to read that again …

Many times I’ll hear someone refer to someone else as “evil” and this generally applies to the describer describing the describe as evil due to actions based upon his/her particular belief system or personal philosophy. A popular tag line connected to this scenario is, “… that S.O.B tells lies and manipulates others into believing the BS peddling he/she is putting out there.”  Is this really evil? What if the person isn’t cognizant of this evil-doing? Is this accusation warranted because it is not in accord with proper rational value structures? Let’s say it is true; the persona lies and leaves a BS trail a mile long. Is this evil or is it a matter of irresponsibility?

Once someone or something is defined as evil, all means of ridding it from society are legitimized.  We know enough about history to understand how that statement plays out - Hitler blamed Jews. Once he had defined them as evil, his solution was to make them pay. Sin requires payment; when we falsely identify sin, we falsely demand a sacrifice for sin. Marx blamed capital and capitalists as the depraved element that polluted society. Marxist revolutions have thus tolerated every horror imaginable against these elements as cathartic for society. 

Could it be that man is inherently good and evil is imposed upon him from the external?

Even if evil is acknowledged as external to man, the question would remain as to why good men are so controlled by evil.

What about evil and malevolence? Are they the same thing? Most would answer with a resounding, “YES!” OR at the very least one was a sub category of the other. Both are conscious disregard for the welfare of others but does evil kick that whole concept up a notch? Think about it.

Can we actually define evil or are we only capable of coming up with a myriad of examples?

" I generally always adhere to an Eastern viewpoint as I think they describe the variances of Reality as It appears to us on the Physical Plane, that there are both Positive and Negative, working either in concerto with, or utterly against It's Opposite, thus Being Balance on the Whole, and then there is a state beyond either side of the Duality, and in my humble opinion It is That that is of paramount importance regardless of the means one uses to see or interpret it with, in other words, Religion, Goggles, Colored Lenses of Unclear View, or any other name one might find useful at any given moment or occurance. To repeat with the quickness, the entire point to Duality are the lessons that the Polarities can teach, but the overall point is that state that is quite beyond either half of the Duality, the Total is actually greater than the parts. It is many times said, that God split Itself into parts, and this may be true to an extent, but never 100%. Even if all Souls were combined, we would not have the Godhead, More would be needed. So here again one finds a plus factor, an amount of room for creativity! Godlike is Soul, but God We are not." - Matt Sharpe