Evil, part one: how can we think about evil? | Clare Carlisle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Evil, part one: how can we think about evil? | Clare Carlisle | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I find the concept of 'evil' an intriguing and important one, since I think in the modern world, aware of the how environment and genetics influence, and yet do not determine, our behaviour, it is important to debate whether such a term can is usable, or useful.

While this is something I need to think about and write on in greater length, my first thoughts are that 'evil' is often used as a way to give up thinking about, or seeking further, the causes of action. To consider someone evil is to render them unknowable and unchangeable - almost to strip them of their humanity, and I have an instinctive revulsion something which so stinks of over-simplification. Given that the worst inhumanities we are capable of generally have their roots such a dehumanizing of other groups or people, then it has to be an approach we should be wary of using. With us or against us may be psychologically soothing, we have to be careful and justified when choosing such dichotomies.

That said, I also think that it is highly likely that there are some people that technically are not human in moral respects - psychopaths for example. Without dealing with the cause or curabily of this condition, at the very least it can be said that there are cases of psychopathic behaviour which is not just chosen, but firmly ground in differeng brain states - blindness to the emotions of others etc. In such cases, these people would seem indeed to qualify as 'evil' - beyond the pale of reason or (social) redemption, uninfluenced by either deterrent or punishment.

However the problem is 'evil' while on the one hand removing people from the moral sphere, is itself a moral judgement. While we may consider evil people as acting like animals, we don't judge them as animals. Since morality implies choice, then it is as if they choose to be animals, choose to not be human. But to me this raises a fundamental question - what is the difference between having the biological setup which makes one choose to be act like psychopath, than having (the presumably morally neutral) misfortune to be a pyschopath. What is the difference between being born as somone who is evil, and someone who is born as someone who chooses to be evil? If there is responsibility, there is a character,, but whence the blame for the character?

So  it seems to me that the term 'evil' is not something which has a place in the modern world. It is a moral sop, a relic of a religious heritage. The point of course is that this might practically make no difference - we will still need to protect from and punish those who 'do' evil, but there is no place in moral judgement for horrific nature, even if it's human.