George Rebane

Recently a thoughtful RR reader disputed my ascription of a university that he reported had “illegally paid the expenses for students to participate in an anti-Trump rally, … .”  I characterized the people behind such institutional and institutionalized behavior as ranging “between amoral and evil”.  My assessment was dismissed as being not “even on the line between amoral and evil.”  Although a ‘line’ may have been implied by my statement, it most certainly was not intended.  The space and, therefore, the semantic landscape between amoral and evil is a bit more complex than a one-dimensional line, at least in my mind.  For clarification and as a reference for future use let me explain.

First, I do accept the common definitions (cf. dictionary.com):

            Moral – relating to or concerned with the principles or rules of conduct, or the distinction between right and wrong.

            Amoral – not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong.

            Evil – morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful; injurious.

as far as they go, which is not far enough.  Moral and amoral are clearly culture specific and easy to understand, because different cultures do have widely varying “principles or rules of conduct”.  In western cultures a father killing his daughter for involvement in extra-cultural relations is clearly an evil act, whereas in many African and Asian cultures such killings are seen as moral imperatives bringing honor to or salvaging it for the victim’s family.  Changing a flat tire on the Sabbath would be considered an amoral act in traditional western cultures, while in some orthodox Semitic cultures it will definitely be seen as an expression of immorality.  The point of all this is the absence of such absolutes in the communities of Man – perspectives rule.

The notion of evil conforms to the above as seen from its commonly accepted definition.  However, in my worldview evil is something purposely instigated, if not intended, that always causes someone pain, injury, or other form of harm; and it comes in at least three distinct flavors.  We shall label these Pure Evil (PE), Constructive Evil (CE), and Blind Evil (BE).  All of them have one or more instigators and one or more victims who may also be targeted.

Pure Evil is instigated gratuitously for no claimed or apparent higher purpose than to satisfy the desire of the instigator to cause its targeted victim to suffer.  Almost all cultures view the instigators of PE as being evil persons or agencies.

Constructive Evil results from a purposeful act instigated with no claimed foreknowledge of the harm it would cause its initially unintended victim(s), but is then continued in spite of the instigators learning of the suffering they are causing.  The instigators, as purveyors of sustained CE, view themselves as acting morally in the pursuit of a higher purpose for which the victims’ pain and suffering is acknowledged and accepted as necessary ‘collateral damage’ inflicted to achieve a greater good.

Blind Evil results from purposeful instigation wherein the instigators, for good or ill, have no knowledge of the harm and suffering they are causing the unknown victims of their actions.  In turn, the victim(s) of BE may or not know the source and causal chain that is bringing them harm.  At a minimum they do know that their suffering is manmade of indeterminate source, and not due to random natural causes or ‘acts of God’.

With this dissertation in mind, I hope that notions such as ‘the line between amoral and evil’ can now be viewed as a richer and more comprehensive manifold of possibilities.

(A somewhat similar treatment of ‘lies and lying’ can be found here.)