Evil ≠ Bad

Bad = Assignation of Negative Value

We usually assign a negative value to anything causing us distress or harm. The THEE term for a negative value is bad, and its opposite, i.e. positive value, is good.

The common view (e.g. see Catholic encyclopaedia) that evil is "the opposition to the desires and needs of individuals" is confusing and unhelpful. It leads to ascribing «evil» to things like earthquakes, sickness, ageing, accidents, physical discomfort, poverty, disappointment, physical pain, limited intelligence.

Such physical, biological and emotional phenomena are indeed often, but not invariably, "in opposition to human desires". However, that simply means that we regard them as bad. This has nothing to do with evil in common-sense terms or as formulated here.

The common equation of pain and suffering with evil is particularly inappropriate. Even calling such things «bad» is often mistaken and suggestive of a limited perspective.
More:

• Pain is an essential warning sign, and so probably more often good than bad. Loss of the capacity to feel pain, as in leprosy and other illnesses, leads to severe bodily damage. So pain is the greater good, and cannot be evil.
• Accidents and death are part of the human condition: so to label them as bad or evil suggests a state of denial.
• Because of the complexity of situations and consequences, it may be hard to know whether any particular event is good or bad.
• Different perspectives on the same event may generate opposite evaluations.
• What is judged bad is not necessarily judged evil; and what is judged evil is not necessarily judged bad.

The only reasonable position is that the good v bad axis is something quite different from the good v evil axis. In THEE that is reflected in the taxonomic location and formulae: good v bad is intrinsic to PH6, while good v evil is intrinsic to RH'.

The Puzzle of Evil

To repeat: Evil is the label suitable for:

• Choice of a lesser good when something better is possible and available.
• Violation of human nature—physically, socially, emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually—when this is unnecessary and unjustifiable.

Note:

• Violation is a special and extreme case of the first item. • Many restrict evil to this extreme case: cf. this account.

• Judging between good and evil refers to:► judging between two goods: a greater good and a lesser good. The lesser good (i.e. the «evil») may be viewed either as a «bad» or as a «good» depending on the circumstances and perspective taken.
• Choosing the lesser of two evils refers to:► choosing the better of two options, both given a negative value (i.e. «bad»).

The present analysis suggests that reducing or restraining evil is about judging what the situation calls for from you personally, while using Primal Injunctions to prevent egotistic tendencies from intruding inappropriately.

Do Consequences Matter?

Appeals to consequences are commonly thinly disguised "ends justifies the means" rhetoric, or based in a utilitarian ideology. However, our world is too complex to know what the consequences of even simple actions are.

Any identified consequence is a function of the time-scale chosen, how events are punctuated in time, and what factors are considered from which perspectives. So a complete analysis of consequences is never possible.

The Primal Injunctions are a way for us to reach a freely chosen yet impersonal moral security that is inherently imperfect, given the enormous uncertainty that we must accept as our lot.

Who Judges?

Each person is responsible for their own actions. Choice is part of action. So a person has an obligation to judge what is the greater good or lesser bad at the moment of choice. This is a transcendentalist approach to ethical choice (PH'6L7). Other approaches are societally driven in one way or another.

When others consider someone else's choice, they may use a different approach e.g. a utilitarian approach that looks at anticipated consequences, or a conventionalist approach that looks at what is acceptable. That could produce a very different conclusion. Even if they applied a transcendentalist approach, they might well reach a different conclusion.

If the matter is subjected to some formal or public appraisal, then judgements are liable to draw on cultural criteria. Societies provide three great frames of reference for making ethical judgements (sPH"6-G5): custom-G5¹, law-G5² & morality-G5³ (usually as defined by the prevailing religion).

In the arena of humanity-as-a-whole, the relevant frame of reference must be purely personal. Applying your personal conception of being human to another is fraught with difficulties. However, if great care is taken neither to project nor to presume, then it is possible to reach reasonable conclusions. That does not mean you are right. Exactly what you do with those conclusions is another matter, and one for you alone.

Is Power Bad or Evil?

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Power is not the issue: making power the prime good is the concern. In THEE, this is called being power-centred in social interaction.

Power-centredness is a mentality (or approach) to benefiting from social interaction, that has a close relation to evil because:

• it is explicitly egocentric; and
• it assumes that everyone is ready to harm another for their own benefit; and
• it is therefore built on the necessity to control and dominate others.
  More

The paradigm assumes that life is a jungle: that virtually everyone is ready to exploit others for gain, and anyone who isn't is a fool. Its adherents reject ethical and rational constraints as foolish and inappropriate. So, even among those who reject active criminality, you will often find that the lesser good is knowingly chosen, and that others are violated in subtle or socially condoned ways.

The associated set of THEE frameworks makes it clear that power-centred principles are essential to function effectively in society: for cooperating, for career development, for commercial competition, for market regulation and more.

Power-centredness is therefore not intrinsically bad, even if it does intrinsically tempt evil choices. It represents a human tendency that we each must watch out for, both in ourselves and in others. Criminality aside, the approach definitely produces good. The problem is that more good could often be attained with a little extra thought and effort using other ways of interacting.

---

More on Power

• Strength is easier to handle than power: see next framework.
  
• When power-centredness becomes a lust for power, it starts getting out of control.
• Try a quiz about evil.

Originally posted: 7-Dec-2012