Clare Carlisle on Evil

An interesting series on the concept of 'evil' in the Guardian : Clare Carlisle | The Guardian 
While of course personally have no interest in the theological uses of the term, I do think it still is important as a psychological concept, but not because it is intrinsically valid, but because humanity so often reaches for it to explain/deal with the horrors of life, natural and manmade.

part 1: how can we think about evil?
The religious idea that thinking about evil involves coming to terms with a darkness in all our hearts provides food for thought

part 2: does it exist?
St Augustine's theory was that evil was 'nothing other than the absence of good' ? an idea supported by modern science

• Surprisingly, though, the basic insight of Augustinian theodicy finds support in recent science. In his 2011 book Zero Degrees of Empathy, Cambridge psychopathology professor Simon Baron-Cohen proposes "a new theory of human cruelty". His goal, he writes, is to replace the "unscientific" term "evil" with the idea of "empathy erosion": "People said to be cruel or evil are simply at one extreme of the empathy spectrum," he writes. (He points out, though, that some people at this extreme display no more cruelty than those higher up the empathy scale – they are simply socially isolated.)  Loss of empathy resembles the Augustinian concept of evil in that it is a deficiency of goodness – or, to put it less moralistically, a disruption of normal functioning – rather than a positive force. In this way at least, Baron-Cohen's theory echoes Augustine's argument, against the Manicheans, that evil is not an independent reality but, in essence, a lack or a loss

part 3: does freedom make us evil?
Kierkegaard believed that human sin was a result of a combination of pride and fear in the face of freedom

• Many are suspicious of the Christian concept of sin, but Kierkegaard's reinterpretation of the traditional doctrine is illuminating from a psychological perspective as well as from a religious one. While Augustine thought that Adam and Eve's first sin was transmitted to their descendents biologically – through sexual intercourse – Kierkegaard rejects this literal explanation of sin. Our failure to be good, he argues, is due to the way we deal with being both less and more free than we wish to be. Like stroppy, insecure teenagers, we crave independence, resent authority, and are scared to take responsibility for ourselves. By emphasising the importance of both humility and courage, Kierkegaard suggests a way to cope with this predicament – a non-moralistic basis for morality. And by pointing to the fear that lies beneath evil, he uncovers something common to both victims and perpetrators.

Reading this raised an interesting thought, from a theological point of view, is freedom of the will a good thing? Assuming any creator could make us good/bad or free, and would punish us accordingly, then how is free, the chance to fail, much better than being created bad, and destined to fail from the start. And of course since 'free to choose' implies an innate character which does the choosing, this character itself can only be good/bad, or else, (to avoid infinite regress) random. Again, no fair basis for ultimate judgement.

part 4: the social dimension
Does contemporary society give rise to conditions more conducive to evil than in the past?

part 5: making sense of suffering
One of the basic purposes of our culture is to interpret suffering, to make it meaningful. Myth, art and religion all do this job

part 6: the trial of Eichmann (1)
In finding Hitler's transport administrator guilty, the court recognised him as a free, morally responsible human being

part 7: the trial of Adolf Eichmann (2)
At the heart of Eichmann's banality was not thoughtlessness but evasiveness, and the 'interplay between knowing and willing'