Recall...

The Protagoras/Socrates Theory of Evil:

Evil is error. Evil comes from mistaking the worse for the better, and vice versa.

The Plato/Republic Theory of Evil:

Evil is disorder of the ψυχή. Evil comes from the wrong part of the soul dominating the other parts.

Augustine's Theory of Evil

Evil is the product of an uncaused free decision to embrace what is wrong.

Kant's three degrees of evil:

1. Frailty: being motivated by morality, but sometimes finding yourself overcome by self-interest.
2. Impurity: being motivated by morality and self-interest.
3. Wickedness: being motivated only by self-interest.

Plus diabolical evil, being motivated against morality.

Arendt's First Theory of Evil

(Radical) evil is the result of a two-stage process:

1. The systematic denial of individual human dignity; and
2. The imposition of a totally inflexible ideology as a replacement.

Arendt's Second Theory of Evil

(Banal) evil is extreme wrongdoing, resulting from a well-integrated incapacity for moral reflection and judgment in an otherwise healthy person.

Garrard's Theory of Evil:

An act is evil if

1. it is wrongful,
2. the person performing the act psychologically silences moral reasons against the act, and
3. those moral reasons against the act are metaphysical silencers: they metaphysically silence the reasons in favor of the act.

A person is evil if

they have a tendency, given the opportunity, to commit evil acts (if they have a “propensity” to commit evil acts).

Let's take a step back

Unifying characteristics:

Evil is qualitatively different from other wrongdoing and badness. It's not just very very wrong.

Evil involves a breakdown in some kind of ordinary moral functioning.

Evil deserves blame, punishment, and resistance.

Some disagreements.

What is the “locus” of evil?

Example

1. electrical tape, electrician, electrical wiring: locus is electrical current (electricity)
2. medical instruments, medical institutions, medical experts: locus is medical science (medicine)

Possible Loci:

1. Evil people
2. Evil acts
3. Evil “in the world”

What motives are evil?

Self-interest?

Definance of morality for its own sake?

Potentially anything?

Is Evil ever rational?

Doubting Evil

Whatever evil is, it seems fair to expect that it has those core characteristics:

1. breakdown in some kind of ordinary moral functioning.
2. qualitatively different from other wrongdoing and badness.
3. deserves blame, punishment, and resistance.

Evil requires: Breakdown in some kind of ordinary moral functioning.

But

Is there such a thing as “ordinary moral functioning”?

Different people are different from one another.

Different cultures have different beliefs about right and wrong.

              Moral Relativism

The theory that morality is relative to             .

Some things are clearly relative to culture.

Politeness, for example.

Russian culture: smalltalk about religion, income is fine. Don't smile at strangers.

American culture: not that.

Relative to Russian norms, smiling at strangers is not respectable.

Relative to American norms, smiling at strangers is fine.

Some things are clearly not relative to culture.

For example, what is it like to be dead?

Diffent cultures have different beliefs here. But it seems like someone is right and someone is wrong.

So, when we say something is “relative to culture”, we mean more than what you believe depends on their culture. We mean what is true depends on your culture.

Cultural Moral Relativism

The theory that morality is relative to culture (like politeness).

If this is true, then it seems unlikely that there is any kind of “ordinary moral functioning” that could support the concept of evil.

Evil is: Qualitatively different from other wrongdoing and badness.

Consider argument of Virginia Held:

… ‘evil’? It seems to me we can designate all the relevant moral considerations without it. … And I remain wary of the associations between the language of evil and such questionable positions as that particular persons, or humanity in general, are ‘inherently’ evil.

… horribly damaging but avoidable situations … can be called evil, but we can still wonder if this adds much more than rhetorical variety to our understanding of grevious wrongs.

Why be wary of those associations?

Labeling someone as evil potentially dehumanizes them, and paves the way for abuse.

Consider the treatment of prisoners, labeled “evildoers” at Abu Gharib, US-run prison in Iraq where inmates were tortured, sexually abused, and murdered.

Counterpoint: the concept of “murderer” can be abused.

That doesn't mean we can do without it.

Can we do without the concept of evil?

Evil: Deserves blame, punishment and resistance.

Since Augustine, there's been thought to be something “unintelligible” about evil actions.

Sometimes “evil” is our explanation for horrible actions that we can’t (or won’t) find any other explanation for, actions that come out of the blue.

But do we really think, with Augustine, that those actions don't have sufficient causes?

Since Plato, the idea of Evil has been associated with the idea of some kind of disorder of the soul.

Can we punish someone for the condition of their soul? Especially in cases where they didn't put their soul in that condition?

So, new unit.

Can we believe in the reality of evil?

Should we?