We’ve Lost the Meaning of Evil

The subject of evil has fascinated me for as long as I can remember. The evil queen/witch in Snow White terrified me as a child when I was glued to the TV, watching her wickedness unfold. As I grew older, real evil became obvious to me and saddened me to my core: the Holocaust (with Auschwitz in particular), the Bataan Death March, genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda. Some of these events had an even deeper impact on me as I visited the locations and museums and realized more profoundly the human misery they had caused. I don’t think anyone (unless you’re a Holocaust denier) would discount the horror of those times.

But as I grew older, I realized I knew less about evil than I had imagined. The horrific events were obvious memories of devastation, but what about the evil happening in our time? Islamist terrorism, grooming children for transgenderism, the raiding of retail stores, gang killings, children shot on our own streets at random. But the most vivid occurrences for me are the anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian and Hamas protests. I acknowledge that many on the Right would label those protests evil, and the Left is perfectly willing to label ideas and actions of the Right that they disagree with as evil. So, everyone appears to use the term, evil, freely. Does that further our understanding of evil?

So, I decided to explore evil further. In doing my research, I discovered basically two ways to study evil (although there are probably others): secular and religious. Both approaches were different and reached different conclusions, and I thought both conclusions were telling. I also reached my own conclusions after reading them.

The secular approach in psychology revealed some fascinating dynamics:

Highly cited social psychology researcher Roy Baumeister noted in his seminal work Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty ‘There are four major root causes of evil or reasons that people act in ways that others will perceive as evil. Ordinary, well-intentioned people may perform evil acts when under the influence of these factors, singly or in combination.’

1. The simple desire for material gain

2. Threatened egotism

3. Idealism: ‘Noble ends are often seen as justifying violent means.’

4. The pursuit of sadistic pleasure: ‘only 5 or 6 percent of perpetrators actually get enjoyment out of inflicting harm.’

Baumeister attributed violence to those who lacked self-control or experienced a “breakdown of societal control.” He also referred to our pre-frontal lobes affecting self-control, as well as those people affected by ADHD. As you can see, the symptoms that generated evil were physiological and psychological, according to Baumeister. And a person’s background has an effect on future evil behavior:

How a person will behave is strongly influenced by genetic predisposition, past experience (especially early childhood experience), socio-economic and cultural factors, the presence of an intact society with prosocial norms, specific interpersonal dynamics between individuals, and the particularities of the immediate circumstances.

So, the factors that can contribute to evil are complex and impossible to eradicate.

People who commit evil acts are also strongly influenced by social media:

The internet and social media have amplified both the best and worst aspects of human nature, increasing the availability of both high- and low-quality information, equalizing the ability of individuals and groups to disseminate information far and wide, breaking down traditional group boundaries while also fostering new ‘tribal’ affiliations.’

This particular paragraph reflects dynamics that are having a debilitating effect on individuals: social media discourages independent and critical thinking; allows for putting out information widely that can be true or false; is often intended to motivate readers to action or empathy; provides a group or “tribe” with which to affiliate and share similar impetuses to action. Thus, the protests are empowered.

Baumeister also added the following:

People often tend to minimize the harmful impact of what they are doing or rationalize their reasons (even if motivated primarily by the simple desire for material gain or by threatened egotism), often seeing their action as much less of a big deal than the impact experienced from the victim’s point of view, or feeling that the victim threatened or provoked them or deserved what was done to them.

Philosopher Peter Dews describes another insidious aspect of using the word “evil”:

The danger of a word like ‘evil’ is that it is absolute. The ‘intense semantic charge’ of the word ‘evil,’ Peter Dews writes, ‘lends itself to exploitation’ by whoever uses it. To play the ‘evil’ card is to cut off all debate, and to say that any effort toward rehabilitation or reintegration wouldn’t be worth the risk or heartache. The mark of ‘evil’ demands permanent banishment or death, and we call perpetrators ‘evil’ to relieve the guilt we might feel in applying such sanctions. And yet to try to explain evil, as with brain scans or social conditions, smacks intolerably of absolving it. It suggests that evil is part of the natural order of things, a conclusion that our sense of trust in the world yearns to reject.

I think that Dews’ observations here profoundly characterize the anti-Semitism that we have seen over time, and particularly in the last few months. Essentially the pro-Palestinian protestors blame the Jews, whether in Israel or elsewhere, for the distress the Palestinians are experiencing. This mindset is also part of the oppressor (Jew) and oppressed (Palestinian) designations. Jews are guilty, are not redeemable, and must be destroyed. They are the evil in our midst. The Left doesn’t perceive the irony in this description, since those on the Right would apply it to the malicious acts of Hamas.

We can’t ignore many other social factors, but certainly the propaganda coming out of the universities whose professors are uninformed about the conditions in Israel and are wedded to Marxist ideals have enlisted the support of students. I will leave the reader to decide if that education is evil.

The religious approach to evil can include all of the factors mentioned above. But there is an added ingredient that used to have an impact at the point of decision-making: whether to act or not. A question that has become especially charged is, “If G-d exists, why does he allow evil to exist?” Is it possible to believe that an omnipotent G-d, who rejects evil, would allow evil to be pursued?

When we think about the great flood which G-d brought due to all the evil in the world, did people even know what evil was? The Ten Commandments didn’t yet exist:

This description of human nature’s tendency toward evil presupposes something supremely important: there are universal moral laws, intended to regulate the conduct of men and women, that reflect the mind and character of God Himself. How can we explain God’s character? He is ‘good.’ He defines goodness, love and truth—all that is right. And just as a person’s character is defined by what he rejects as much as by what he accepts as right, so God also defines that which is evil and therefore to be rejected.

This approach brings us to the free will granted to men:

God has created all this for a supreme purpose. God wants us to freely choose to take on His character and way of life and to reject the opposite—the way of evil. So, God created the scheme of things whereby humanity may choose between two alternatives and learn by experience which is the better way to live. Rather surprisingly, in the sense of choice between the two opposites, the concept of evil is revealed as going back to God Himself and the universal spiritual laws He has set in motion.

Through this discussion of evil and religion, I am trying to point out that in these times, many people have very little connection to G-d or religion. From what they do know about G-d, they may reject Him because they hold the misunderstanding that a genuine G-d would not allow evil to exist in the world: people suffer, are killed and succumb to disease. What kind of G-d would allow that?

So, what is the point in believing in G-d? I may have free will but others have free will, too, and can choose to hurt me, steal from me or betray me. No one can know the mind of G-d, so when bad things happen, is He indifferent or powerless?

From a religious perspective, these are all questions we can ask, and in many traditions, we are encouraged to ask them. Ultimately, as a religious person, I have to face a key decision: do I want to be a good person? Am I prepared to give up some things because I choose not to commit evil? Do I believe that it matters to G-d (and therefore matters to me) that I choose good, not evil? I believe it does matter. No excuses, no blaming, no justifications or rationalizations. Just doing the right thing.

Unlike Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, I do try to understand evil, but I see value in his statement:

Taking a more moderate Orthodox approach, the theologian Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik suggested that the appropriate Jewish response to evil is not to attempt to understand it, but to respond to it — to fight human evil where it exists and to utilize human suffering as an opportunity for spiritual growth.

My search allowed me to reflect on evil from various perspectives, and I think I better understand the evil that continues to show up in our times. I have also become more sensitive to the fact that I also use the term when I experience extreme dislike for people and their ideas, especially when I believe they are hateful or destructive.

I now encourage others to be discerning when they call others evil, acknowledging evil’s devastating power.

We can’t banish evil, but we can choose to see it clearly. We can choose to practice good and reject evil. We can demand that our legal system hold evildoers accountable and punish them for their actions.

We can be a model to all those around us, demonstrating what it means to live a good and moral life.