The Judgement about Evil - Essay Example

?Introduction There can be very little doubt that evil is in existence, it is my belief that “evil skeptics” should not be cynical concerning morality. Moreover, they might as well be complete realists concerning moral properties as well as propositions instead of stating that evil people are not in existence or by stating that such people may be very few. The weakest account of evil cynicism is of the opinion that, factually, evil people are not in existence while versions, which are very strong, are of the opinion that there cannot be evil people. On the contrary, evil revivalists are of the opinion that evil individuals are in existence. They point out that non-trivial numbers of individuals are evil (Russell, 2006). Evil is a notion that is applied in daily moral discourse, although these uses are always varied as well as contentious. It should be noted that a given action might be said to be evil when the action is capable of causing harm, which is undeserved. Evil people are in existence and they are sometimes defined as those individuals who have betrayed their own personhoods and have succumbed to their internal wickedness. There are various schools of thought that define evil individuals, for instance, Kekes, (2005), Card (2002), Singer (2004), and Cole (2006), state that evil persons actually exist while on the other hand, Haybron (2002a), Kekes (1990), and Garrard (2002), state that there are very few evil individuals. Singer (2004) as well as Kekes (2005) further state that these evil individuals deserve very strong moral condemnation. When an individual is considered an evil person, then if this individual does something wrong, it will be very easy or the wrong action he has committed to be explained (Cole, 2006; McGinn, 1997; and Kekes, 1990). Morton (2004) and Formosa (2008) also state that not all evildoers should be treated as evil people simply because although their actions are evil, they may not have been intentional and therefore, these individuals should be given the benefit of doubt. Wolfendale (2007) however, states that an individual is capable of becoming evil through their evil actions because by making these actions a habit, he ceases to view them as wrong and they instead become a part of his everyday life resulting in this individual becoming evil. Haybron (2002a) and Card (2002), an evil person is capable of becoming good despite the fact that it is a very hard thing for this person to do. Similarly, it should be noted that not all evil people would attempt or intend to do evil actions. Violence, hostility, as well as hatred are some of the evils that can be found almost everywhere within our present society and most of these are as a result of human nature. Evil is present in our daily lives and it will doubtless continue to exist amongst individuals for as long as the human race continues to exist and this is an undeniable fact that we have to come to terms with. In almost all the cultures around the world, there is a word for evil and each culture has various degrees of defining it. Within most cultures and societies however, evil is always described as something that is capable of bringing distress, sorrow or calamity to the society besides bringing misfortune, suffering, as well as wrongdoing. The word evil is always closely linked with rage, anger, as well as with violence. However, in the present world, a number of individuals are not comfortable with this outmoded concept. The discomfort of a number of individuals lies mainly in the theological as well as religious insinuations of evil, based on ethics, values, as well as morals that several individuals in the present world find narrow, judgmental, as well as old-fashioned. In secular societies, individuals tend to shun the biblical characterizations of wickedness, sin, iniquity, and evil in general. Some individuals, however, state that evil is an occurrence that truly exists in the society and it can only apply to human beings because it is a common belief that animals do not know anything concerning evil and are therefore incapable of it. There is need for individuals to differentiate between what is good and what is evil in their daily lives. Hence, it is best to clarify the knowledge of what is evil and to do this, it should be noted that evil is generally subjective and it cannot be quantifiable. Individuals are usually born with their natural instincts (at this stage, they are completely innocent and are incapable of evil) and develop other characteristics, such as the ability to be evil, as they grow older. A number of human beings are evil and an evil individual of ordinary intelligence may at times make life very hard, painful, as well as unpleasant for the good individuals around them. Evil is actual, whether we accept this fact or deny it but in consideration of this, the word evil should not be taken to refer to a crime or sin as some laws put it. However, it should be noted that evil generally results into pain or damage that is suffered by those individuals who are affected directly or indirectly by it. It should also be noted that evil is the same as senseless violence. Evil can also be viewed as a trend, which is capable of preventing personal growth as well as expansion. It is also capable of destroying or limiting inborn potentialities, limiting freedom, fragmenting or disintegrating the personality of an individual, and diminishing the worth of interpersonal relationships. It should, however, be noted that all evil individuals are not so evil that they do not have an aspect of good. Evil is always seen on a daily basis in its diverse forms. Human evil exists and it is the inhumanity of one human being to another. Human evil refers to the attitudes as well as behaviors, which enhance extreme interpersonal aggression, aggression, psychopathology, cruelty, disrespecting other people’s integrity, self-destructiveness, as well as human misery. Human evil may be committed by one person (personal evil) as well as by several people, a whole country as well as an entire culture (joint evil). A good example of the last is the Jewish and Slavic Holocaust by the German Nazis during the Second World War. It should be noted that individuals cannot be referred to as evil when they do bad things. Under this case, all individuals would be said to be evil, which is certainly not true. Aristotle stated that being evil signifies a habit that is persistent in doing bad things and in addition to this, people who are evil are often aware of what they do. They always know that the things they do are bad, and despite this knowledge, they continue to do these bad things anyway. Evil people, therefore, are those who have malicious intentions. On the same note, evil individuals generally have very little or no care about the consequences of their actions. They do not understand that the things they do are harmful to other people and at times even to an entire society. It should be noted that most of those who would be considered evil people are usually very cunning and they are highly capable of disguising their evil intents until such a time as they are accomplished. Besides, they do not respect other people and may in fact look upon others as their inferiors.  These people are sometimes murderers, con artists and some are also charming rapists.  The extent of evil differs since some people’s evil cannot be compared with that of others. For instance, it is debatable whether an individual who is willing to kill another person just to be amused cannot be compared to an individual who only wills to steal another person’s money or one who only kills in self defense. Certainly, there are several evil people who are referred to as “sociopaths" and these individuals have Antisocial Personality Disorder. These are regarded as mentally ill if the current standards of psychiatrics are anything to go by; moreover, a number of evil people do not suffer from reasoning impairment or psychosis.  A number of evil individuals may be clever and therefore reason very well concerning the avenues of reaching their ends. Despite the fact that they may be quite rational, one might question the rationality or "sanity" of their particular means or ends.  Garrard (2002) assumes that several evildoers may not be counted as evil persons since they are not in possession of ‘‘settled dispositions’’ in order to perform evil actions. She seems to be saying that a character of evil actions is necessary for an individual to be referred to as an evil person. Secular Humanist psychology states that good individuals perform bad things because of social influences and they do not blame individuals for doing bad things. Maslow, for instance, states that individuals’ good impulses “are generally distorted by cultures and it is very difficult to get individuals in their own states (Welch, Tate, and Richards, 1978). Generally, all Humanistic psychologists are of the opinion that culture is to blame for a number of evil deeds, even those that are done by individuals who were earlier good. Culture influences the behavior of individuals largely (Rogers, 1982). Therefore, humanism states that, it is the evil brought by societal influences, which thwarts individuals’ natural inclination for good. It should also be noted that evil is treated as part of the culture of the individual. The difference between an evil person and a bad person Morality refers to the capacity to comprehend the difference that exists between evil and good and in doing so, it should be noted that morality is generally considered to be a type of intelligence. Young kids usually think that something may be referred to as bad when they are reprimanded for doing the things. Similarly, to them, something will be deemed good when it is of benefit to them. Individuals who do not evolve past this primitive position of moral advancement are referred to as sociopaths or psychopaths upon reaching adulthood. The stages that follow are the conformist phases, which are trailed by non-conformist phases. Moral conformists have the belief that something may be regarded as bad when the thing opposes the law or when the religion of the individual forbids that thing. On the contrary, moral non-conformists comprehend that individuals should assess for themselves the things that are either bad or good. This assessment is generally very simple because it should be noted that a thing may be treated as good when it is of more benefits than when it is harmful. The problem will, however, come when analyzing the benefits as well as the harm of a given thing. Cole and Haybron are of the opinion that evil individuals have to be highly bad; this implies that they are always morally bad in all aspects. It should be noted that evil actions have to be severe instead of just being trivial wrongs. It is naturally believable that not all evildoers are evil persons, as a dispositional description of evil personhood provides that evil can be explained, that evil persons may be good, and that evil people may be prevented from doing evil by luck. They are also of the opinion that luck is capable of causing non-evil individuals to perform evil. However, dispositional explanation of evil personhood opines that a number of evil people are blameless and this appears to differ with the perception that evil individuals deserve very strong moral condemnation. It is highly probable that a huge number of people are likely to do evil actions while in certain environments and the dispositional description refers to this huge group of people as evil. In conclusion, it can be said that some people are of the opinion that there are no evil or good individuals. However, individuals make choices, which may be either bad or good. Individuals, hence, decide whether to engage themselves in activities, which may be considered evil or good. The choices that are made by individuals usually depend on psychological conditions to which they may be exposed to, and this happens from the moment that they are conceived. References Card, C. (2002). The Atrocity paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press. Cole, P. (2006). The Myth of Evil. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. de Wijze, S. (2002). “Defining Evil: Insights from the Problem of ‘Dirty Hands.’” The Monist, 85(2), 210–238. Formosa, P. (2008). “A Conception of Evil.” The Journal of Value Inquiry, 42, 217–239. Garrard, E. (2002). “Evil as an Explanatory Concept.” The Monist, 85(2), 320–336. Haybron, D. (2002a). “Moral Monsters and Moral Saints.” The Monist, 85(2), 260–284. Kekes, J. (1990). Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kekes, J. (2005). The Roots of Evil. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. McGinn, C. (1997). Evil, Ethics and Fiction. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Morton, A. (2004). On Evil. New York: Routledge. Russell, L. “Evil-Revivalism Versus Evil-Skepticism,” The Journal of Value Inquiry 40 (2006), pp. 89-105. Singer, M. (2004). “The Concept of Evil.” Philosophy, 79, 185–214. Welch, D, Tate, G A, & Richards, F ed., Humanistic Psychology (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1978), 189. Wolfendale, J. (2007). Torture and the Military Profession. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Read More