“Evil is tricky. It takes a lifetime of study. Once you think you understand its nature it changes form”. Ingrid-White Oleander
Throughout my career as a psychic-medium and parapsychologist clients have often asked me “What is evil?” “Where does it come from?” I have been searching for those answers myself for the better part of three decades. I am still searching…..
Evil in a broad sense may be described as the sum of the opposition which experience shows to exist in the universe to the desires and needs of individuals and when arises among human beings at least the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil from the point of view of human welfare is what ought not to exist. Nevertheless, there is no area of humanity in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account for which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings. For this purpose it is necessary to ascertain as far as may be possible the source from which it arises.
There are thought to be three types of evil-physical, moral and metaphysical. Each serving a purpose so to speak. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury by thwarting natural desires, illness physical or mental, accidents poverty, oppression, limitation of intelligence, remorse as well as disappointment. These are congenital forms of evil; each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.
Moral l 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 to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanctions.
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. No divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence. This type of evil challenges not only the omnibenevolence or omnipotence of God but also the existence of God.
All evil is essentially negative and not positive. It consists not in the acquisition of anything but in the loss or deprivation of something necessary for perfection. Pain, which is the test or criterion of physical evil has indeed a positive, though purely subjective existence as a sensation or emotion. It’s evil quality lies in its disturbing effect on the sufferer. Because pain is subjective it can also be seen as transformative, catalystic and act as purifying agent for positive change.
So now that we have briefly defined evil the next question may be is it necessary? I believe so. In balanced amounts and maybe as a contrast.
Is Evil necessary?
Quite simply, evil is necessary because it is what defines good. Think of a universe without evil. It is stagnant, static and would eventually implode upon itself without this contrast. We all long for a Utopia – a land of sunshine and unicorns where everyone is happy and no one ever hurts – but we can only conceive of that Utopia because of our knowledge of evil. The bad things in life, whatever they may be, define us. They prod us forward, in one direction or the other. It moves the narrative forward. Conflict, after all, is essential to any story. You don’t have much of anything without it. Conflict begets progress. Evil creates an obstacle, Good attempts to overcome it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t do whatever possible to thwart evil and do good. It is essential for the function of society for each individual to pursue good. However, evil can never be extinguished or the whole thing will come a part. In fact, it seems like an impossibility that evil could ever even be fully extinguished, for it is often the case that doing something “good” unleashes many more “evils. “Stop a dam from being built, you save the wildlife, but let thousands of people starve as a result. We see such scenarios every day. Trying to fight evil, especially in a world as a complex as this one, is kind of like trying to plug a hole in a dam and then finding that 3 more holes have formed as a result, although personally I believe in fighting evil, especially pure evil or demonic energy that moves into our physical realm and is not allowed as a direct force on this planet.
One cannot rewrite reality. Evil exists. It is what it is. Evil is an organized force through the demonic realm. Man’s concept of it reflects its existence and its nature.
What do the terms “good” and “evil” denote in reality? They denote consequences of choices of action that man has the capacity to make, and the evaluation of those consequences by a standard of value. Knowledge of the potential actions and their consequences (i.e., cause and effect) comes first, before any evaluation of those actions and consequences as “good” or “evil” by a presupposed standard of value. Man needs to know what he is capable of (fundamentally speaking) in order to know what long-term principles of action he should follow, and in order to form the concept of “good” as action that sustains his life, and “evil” as action that destroys it. “Good” and “evil” both depend on a whole context of knowledge (and a previously chosen standard of value). One cannot perceive anything called “good” or anything called “evil” directly in reality. One can only perceive concrete actions and their effects for or against one’s life.. The main dependency of “good” and “evil” is on that prior context of knowledge, not on each other.
To claim that “good” depends on “evil” is merely an imprecise, highly misleading way of noting the contextual dependence of both “good” and “evil” on an underlying context of knowledge. Likewise, it is also true that “evil needs good” in the sense that the good (through sacrifice) is what makes the persistence of evil possible. In that sense, “evil” depends on “good,” not vice versa. But this is a metaphysical relationship (as is the fact that man does not need to commit evil in order to live, i.e., that evil is not “necessary” in reality). The more important aspect of the question (and of the term “necessary”) is the epistemological relationship, i.e., how man forms the concepts of “good” and “evil.” He certainly does not grasp what is good by looking first at what is evil (known to him by unspecified means and premises), and then grasping “good” as everything that is not “evil.” If man learns the concepts of “good” and “evil” properly, he learns them both through a process of conceptualization from his antecedent context of factual, concrete knowledge and his chosen standard of value (which itself derives from concrete, factual knowledge).
Evil as an Organized Force
In the Judeo Christian tradition evil is thought to be the absence of good, so therefore it must not have real existence. It is instead a lack, the absence of good. God created humanity, Lucifer, and the rebellious angels as beings of goodness, but also endowed them with the freedom to choose their paths. They chose to turn away from the good, and in doing so their capacity for goodness was diminished. It is this lack, this diminishment, that is evil. Augustine’s formulation has proven to be the most influential understanding of evil in the western Christian tradition.
When they speak of evil, Catholics often make reference to Lucifer, or the devil, who is called the Father of Lies. Lucifer’s power lies solely in his ability to persuade humans to do his will, just as he persuaded the rebellious angels to follow him, and the result is just as disastrous. Lucifer is mirage and subterfuge, creating the illusion that following him will lead to happiness and light when all that will result is chaos and evil. He therefore causes evil, but only with the willing participation of humans utilizing their free will to choose diminishment of the good. He may be called the Evil One, but Catholic belief does not grant him the power to execute the evil he envisions. His power is very limited, his bid for predominance in heaven already thwarted, his final defeat already destined, just as the end of suffering and evil in the world to come is already destined.
It is also thought that we as humans are influenced from these fallen creatures of God. That they take a moral and spiritual presence here on our planet and interact with us to act as agents of change and transformation.
The Pillars of Evil
- Dehumanization: Occurs when certain people or groups of people are seen as being less than human, and as such, unworthy of human treatment. Discrimination, racial slurs, and negative stereotypes are examples of this. The Nazis treatment of the Jews could be largely accredited to dehumanization.
- Deindividuation: The loss of identity and self-awareness within groups. Consider that when large groups gather around people standing on ledges contemplating suicide, the crowd will often taunt them. Psychologist David Myers notes that deindividuation requires three constructs: arousal, group size, and anonymity.
- Anonymity: When we think we cannot be personally held responsible, we can do some horrible things. Think of cyber bullies and internet trolls (my personal unfavorite), the masked uniforms of the KKK, or the makeup and materials used in tribal warfare–these also increase the deindividuation effect.
- Obedience: We’ll obey rules even when we feel them unfair or downright awful, but a key is to take small steps towards the mistreatment. The Milgram experiment highlights this–a participant, under the command of a researcher in a white lab coat, needed to electrically shock another person (an actor) for answering questions incorrectly. For every question they got wrong, the voltage would increase. 65% of participants went all the way to the full level, even after the person they were shocking had been screaming and then went completely silent.
These factors make for a lethal combination. While we’d all like to think of ourselves as good-natured, well-meaning people, take away our individuality, make us anonymous, and give us a set of rules we need to follow with an authority figure ensuring we do, and we might end up as evil as the people we despise and condemn.
Understanding evil can take a lifetime of study. Just when you think you have it in your grasp it’s nature changes form and asks from each of us a higher spiritual ascension, growth from the familiar. It is interwoven with our life force, elusive, powerful and completely everchanging in this landscape called life.
