The Nature of Evil

[tinkerdan]

Good and evil are often considered to be opposing arrows in the line of life.
evil<-------|------->good. Degrees along the line vary but perhaps the end of the arrow is pure good or pure evil.
However it really works out more like concentric circles.
Good/evil-within:
self) family) clan/tribe) city/village) state/country/nation) League of nations) world)
Self is fundamental to self existence
Family is necessary to coexist with those closest
Clan/tribe/perhaps even religion toward getting along with the small community.
And so on.

Each circle is full of shades with good and evil on opposing ends of the shaded pattern from white to black(shades of grey)[or gray].

In writing sometimes it helps to find those absolutes; however in reality it is so complex that the real absolute resides within each person on the most fundamental level or the central circle.

Each person decides for himself what is absolute good or evil; if they can.

For the reader; there might be some things you write as evil that are not universally evil to all readers.
Like the individual the reader will often decide the severity of the action and where it resides in the good evil scale.

There may be some thing that readers will all find evil; however I wouldn't bet my life on it.

This means your 'pure' evil character will probably do somethings that some readers find to be good in their book and that will probably subvert all your struggle to make pure evil. I think this is why when you get too far on either end of the spectrum that the character begins to flatten out to mono-dimensionality from over-working in an attempt to paint the most evil of evil.

I think that many of the best evil characters I recall have often felt they were preforming an essential service through their actions and in no way do they see their actions as evil.

The closest thing to pure evil is someone or thing that is blind to the evil and much like the addict--will never change as long as they can't perceive that there is a problem in their way of thinking.

 

[Extollager]

Think instead about inhumanity and humanity.

Stephen I'll bet that "inhumanity" vs. "humanity" are words that allow you to go on thinking of good and evil while escaping certain metaphysical implications distasteful to you. If humans do X, it becomes difficult to say X is "inhuman." Whatever was done at Unit 731 was not "inhuman." Humans did it and would have kept on doing it if they had not been made to stop. Innumerable other examples, perhaps on a smaller scale, could be provided. It's fine to use "inhuman" as an emotive word if "evil" sticks in your throat, but philosophically it won't do. Myself, I think we should face it: Stepfather X raping his stepdaughter Y is evil. It's interesting to trace the trajectory in Jeffrey Burton Russell's scholarly series on the history of the concept of the devil, which, naturally, has to deal with the topic of evil, and to see how, as it appears to me, he is compelled, the longer he writes about it, to venture out of scholarly "objectivity" and admit the reality of evil and advise his readers to consider it.

Unit 731 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To the point of this discussion of evil characters: I think retention of "evil" actually permits an author to deal more credibly with these characters than "inhuman" would. Call them "inhuman" and you're (in effect) removing them from the human. Acknowledge evil as something possible (perhaps endemic) in human beings and you can deal with their humanity more seriously. I can prove that. Read Dostoevsky. Read, for example, the chapter of Stavrogin's Confession, now typically printed as an appendix to The Possessed/Demons/The Devils (printed there because it was suppressed till after the author's death). I don't suppose there are many treatments in literature of the topic of evil more compelling than this; and the author thinks in terms of evil, not "inhumanity."

….I think this present discussion has in mind characters whose evil is given and that the author is not intent to explore from the inside as Dostoevsky was. This can be completely legitimate. Tolkien is not obliged to write, in the manner of Dostoevsky, about Sauron or the Orcs. The more I have thought about Sauron, the more convincing the implied treatment of evil there seems to me to be. The Orcs, as an evil species, present philosophical problems, which one sees Tolkien himself wrestling with in private writings published after his death.

(About Sauron, a brief speculation is here:

What did Sauron want?

Apologies if this sounds like a facetious question, but what did Sauron actually want? I presume that he isn't simply a generic mindless evil character, and I know he must have a rich back story relating to Morgoth and the Ishtari. Not having read the Silmarillion, my guess would be that he...

www.sffchronicles.com

)

 

[Extollager]

People who write about the Nazi and Communist horrors from the outside perhaps do prefer to use "inhuman" rather than evil. People who survived them.... Here's Solzehnitsyn:

"It was granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains … an unuprooted small corner of evil."

I don't think it will do to rewrite this passage: "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating humanity and inhumanity passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart." Agreed?

Viktor Frankl, survivor of the Nazi camps, sounds like Solzhenitsyn:

Viktor Frankl on the Human Search for Meaning

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

www.brainpickings.org

So I would say that we can't do without the concepts of good and evil.

Whether a given writer has the capacity to do anything remotely approaching justice to these concepts is another matter, of course.

Different stories require differing treatments of good and evil. I'm just saying that the concepts are not somehow outdated, somehow impermissible in our time. Good heavens, after what we saw in the previous century and continue to see in our own, they seem more necessary than ever. But how the matter is to be addressed in a given story, or even if it is obviously addressed at all, will differ very much from some other story.

 

[JohnM]

Good and evil need to be clearly defined in stories. There is no gray area, just different starting motivations. Drama is required. Conflict is required. The reader usually meets the evil character as he is doing something bad, triggering a heroic response to stop whatever it is he's doing.

Attempting to rewrite evil as some sort of personal choice ignores popular fiction. People can write what they want but if your goal is to create mass market fiction then you must write for the mass audience. An audience that is largely unconcerned about theories. Take any superhero TV show. The story mechanics are very similar and date back long before the 21st Century.

What is lame is writers dwelling on "dark." That's going to burn out. Or post-apocalyptic. Whatever the background of the writer or reader, people generally prefer optimism.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Well, if we really want to get into metaethics...

I would argue that there are 6 primary schools of thought regarding metaethics: Natural Law, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Neo-Platonic Ethics, and Ethical Relativism. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and none are expressly either theistic or atheistic (and hopefully therefore avoid the prohibition of discussing religion on this forum!). I'll go through these in a little detail, not so much to try to convince anyone regarding ethics one way or another, but to give some ideas of the ideas and potential ways this could be utilized in narratives. To this end, while I will happily provide clarifications, I won't engage in much back and forth about the ideas themselves on this forum. Again, my goal here is to provide information, not stir up debate. If you want to debate ethics, PM me.

Natural law theory is that ethics are a brute fact, whether that be because of a divine figure or figures declaring them to be thus or something innate within humanity. However, this model is very susceptible to the Euthyphro dilemma. As Socrates reported phrased it, do the gods love good action because it is good, or is it good because the gods love it (which could also be stated, does it align with human nature because it is good, or is it good because it aligns with human nature). If the former, the natural question is, "Ok, then what defines what is good?", as it being loved (or aligning with) because it is good requires a definition of good outside of the gods (or human nature). If it is the latter, 2 questions emerge. First, what if the gods disagree/human nature is variant on a point? Which side wins out? Second, if the gods/human nature were different, would this not change the definition of good? To be honest, I haven't seen much by way of solid response to this dilemma from NL theory.

Utilitarianism is likely one of the more familiar ideas, but primarily because it has a rather sorted reputation. The basic premise is that you do the actions which cause the most benefit for the most people, and this can be applied in a theistic (God/the gods did these calculations and provided guidance on what would be best) or atheistic (which is much more commonly depicted). The downside for this is twofold. First, it is nearly, if not actually, impossible to calculate the effects of every action on every person, especially where other ethical actors must react to the action, much less rate the quality or lack of quality of these effects. Second, even in versions where the positives and negatives are weighted (i.e. there is a gradation of how positive or how negative an effect is.), you can still come to some particularly horrible conclusions where if a horrific action can be performed to a small enough population which generates even a cursory benefit to a large enough population, this should be considered morally good. I trust the creative and occasionally devious minds of SFF enthusiasts can imagine such circumstances...

Deontology is rather complicated. It is similar to Natural Law in that good is a brute fact, but different in the basis in that it defines good as actions which can be taken which do not create a contradiction if universalized. An example is lying. If everyone were to lie, no one would believe what anyone says, making lying impossible. The problem with this theory is if the actions are defined narrowly enough, many inarguably "bad" things can be justified. Genocide, for example, could be justified if it is defined as, "The extermination of [insert target group here]".

Virtue ethics is the idea that we should undertake actions not so much based on the actions themselves, but on the sort of people these actions make us. In other words, we should want to cultivate virtues like reliability, honesty, charity, etc. and therefore do actions which make us those sorts of people. The objection raised here is twofold. First, it pushes back the question of ethics to what sort of virtues are ethical, but doesn't provide much guidance on which virtues are ethical and why. Second, there are many potential conflicts between virtues, and there is little to no guidance on what should be preferred here.

Neo-platonism is a kinda strange one too... it holds that different virtues and vices are actually existing but immaterial as "abstract objects", along with numbers, ideas, etc. This, of course, has the same challenges of several others; it just moves the problem back rather than actually addressing the problem, what happens when the values contradict each other, etc. It also has the unique questions of in what universe do they exist (as it's expressly stated abstract objects are immaterial), and how do they come to be?

Lastly, moral relativism is the idea that there aren't objective morals of any sort, but is defined by the individual (or society, in some settings). I must note here, in the interest of fairness, that I've not met or read a philosopher who argues on behalf of moral relativism, despite it being a prevalent idea in other disciplines, have had two separate philosophy professors (one theist and one athiestic Buddhist) from different universities both say they know of no philosophers who argue affirmatively for it, and in my rather extensive and detailed metaethics textbook, the article on moral relativism was written by an anthropologist. Of course, this doesn't mean it's correct or incorrect, but for fairness, I feel that information needs to be provided. At any rate, the critique of moral relativism is that it removes any potential to consider another's actions as unethical in any real sense, regardless of how monstrous the action may be. For example, the forcible capture of a people group for chattel slavery cannot be condemned, because the slave traders are merely doing what they believe is ethical. And, literally any position taken to explain why that would be mistaken would move the person into one of the above mentioned ethical positions (e.g. "That infringes on another's right to chose for themselves" assumes that such a right ought be protected, which moral relativism makes no provision for. Therefore, it makes an assumption of some other standard somewhere which guarantees that right.). Further, it is argued that moral relativism is self-contradictory ("So, it's universally true for all regarding right and wrong that there are no universal truths regarding right and wrong?").

Again, I say that all of this is intended strictly for information purposes, and most, if not all, of the positions describe have some sort of rebuttal for the contentions raised. If anyone particularly wants to argue any of these points, I'll be happy to engage with PM, but much discussion here on the forums will likely violate the rules of the forum.

I'll also say that metaethic, while potentially interesting to keep in mind while writing, isn't going to play much into the character. Applied ethics, which is informed by the metaethical position taken, will be much more important to characterization. So to the extent this and other posts here help with getting into the mind of the protagonist, have at it!

 

[AE35Unit]

I have a problem when it comes to good v evil, specifically when dealing with demons and such. I watch stuff like Ghost Adventures, bit of fun really, there might be something in it, or it might just be, a bit of fun. Anyway they often have someone who is possessed by a demon and they bring a priest in for an exorcism. The problem for me is, I'm atheist so don't believe in god or heaven etc, so therefore I can't believe in the devil either, after all he is just a different kind of god.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Good and evil need to be clearly defined in stories. There is no gray area, just different starting motivations. Drama is required. Conflict is required. The reader usually meets the evil character as he is doing something bad, triggering a heroic response to stop whatever it is he's doing.

Attempting to rewrite evil as some sort of personal choice ignores popular fiction. People can write what they want but if your goal is to create mass market fiction then you must write for the mass audience. An audience that is largely unconcerned about theories. Take any superhero TV show. The story mechanics are very similar and date back long before the 21st Century.

What is lame is writers dwelling on "dark." That's going to burn out. Or post-apocalyptic. Whatever the background of the writer or reader, people generally prefer optimism.

I would agree with you that the audience is largely unconcerned with theories themselves. It seems to me that most audiences prefer stories where the characters are believable, and this requires a certain degree of internal consistency so that the audience can anticipate to a degree the range of possible actions one can take. This is why there is so much antagonism regarding characters who act in ways inconsistent with themselves. But, to make such a consistent character, some theory work can be helpful, so that the author understands what makes them do what they do. So I see this sort of discussion as a matter which will be largely invisible to the audience, but writers keep in mind while world building.

I'll let history sort out whether audiences prefer optimistic or "dark" writing though...

I have a problem when it comes to good v evil, specifically when dealing with demons and such. I watch stuff like Ghost Adventures, bit of fun really, there might be something in it, or it might just be, a bit of fun. Anyway they often have someone who is possessed by a demon and they bring a priest in for an exorcism. The problem for me is, I'm atheist so don't believe in god or heaven etc, so therefore I can't believe in the devil either, after all he is just a different kind of god.

Not touching this with a 3m pole apart from saying there are ethical systems of good and evil which do not require any sort of supernatural figure, as well as those which state that ethics cannot be universal without them, and therefore ethics is not universal.

 

[JohnM]

As someone who works in publishing, and as a student of history, history does not sort out anything. This fake idea that living in the 21st Century has somehow changed people is indeed fake. Writers who do good work, who get noticed, are the ones who are remembered by readers - not history. I have no time to plow through blogs or podcasts which boil down to one man's opinion.

Quality writing is built on a solid foundation. Yes, the writer has to understand the behind the scenes mechanics. I went to the open house of a prestigious art school for three years. In every year, most of the first year students made the same mistakes, the second year showed some improvement, the third year began to reveal a few gems. By fourth year, more gems and more overall improvement.

For writers as well, that same learning curve will never go away. After personally rejecting hundreds of manuscripts at the company I work for, I saw the same mistakes over and over. No one can say that today, the writer's job is somehow easier because he can publish electronically. No one can say that knowledge is conferred on people today. It takes a lot of work, research into the mechanics, and more work. There is no other way.

 

[Extollager]

Well, if we really want to get into metaethics...

Now, I thought, that is sercon. But I looked up "sercon" and saw it can be taken in a non-complimentary way, while this old fan was thinking in complimentary terms.

Serious Constructive - Fancyclopedia 3

fancyclopedia.org

I wondered if anyone cared to nominate works of science fiction (not fantasy, not horror) that deal with evil (or "inhumanity") in a noteworthy way. C. S. Lewis's cosmic trilogy, notably the second and third books, came to mind first. Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go does. I read Disch's Camp Concentration over 40 years ago -- couldn't say now if it does. Walter M. Miller Jr.'s "Conditionally Human" probably does. John Brunner's Quicksand does. 1984 does. If you allow Golding's Lord of the Flies as sf (I would be inclined to), certainly it does.

These works might be helpful to writers interested in reading some works that show how impressive authors working in the genre dealt with this theme.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Now, I thought, that is sercon. But I looked up "sercon" and saw it can be taken in a non-complimentary way, while this old fan was thinking in complimentary terms.

Serious Constructive - Fancyclopedia 3

fancyclopedia.org

I wondered if anyone cared to nominate works of science fiction (not fantasy, not horror) that deal with evil (or "inhumanity") in a noteworthy way. C. S. Lewis's cosmic trilogy, notably the second and third books, came to mind first. Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go does. I read Disch's Camp Concentration over 40 years ago -- couldn't say now if it does. Walter M. Miller Jr.'s "Conditionally Human" probably does. John Brunner's Quicksand does. If you allow Golding's Lord of the Flies as sf (I would be inclined to), certainly it does. These works might be helpful to writers interested in reading some works that show how impressive authors in the genre deal with this theme.

Lol, yeah, I could definitely see how it could be considered such. The point I was trying to make is that the question of what defines evil is a vastly complex one, with an entire dedicated branch of philosophy, and if we want to discuss that here, a brief summary of the major positions may prove valuable. My opinion is that applied ethics is more directly relevant for the writer, though, as this gets into the specifics of the actions one should or should not take, rather than the logical basis for those actions. Forgive me if this came across as a, "Well, actually..."

As someone who works in publishing, and as a student of history, history does not sort out anything. This fake idea that living in the 21st Century has somehow changed people is indeed fake. Writers who do good work, who get noticed, are the ones who are remembered by readers - not history. I have no time to plow through blogs or podcasts which boil down to one man's opinion.

Quality writing is built on a solid foundation. Yes, the writer has to understand the behind the scenes mechanics. I went to the open house of a prestigious art school for three years. In every year, most of the first year students made the same mistakes, the second year showed some improvement, the third year began to reveal a few gems. By fourth year, more gems and more overall improvement.

For writers as well, that same learning curve will never go away. After personally rejecting hundreds of manuscripts at the company I work for, I saw the same mistakes over and over. No one can say that today, the writer's job is somehow easier because he can publish electronically. No one can say that knowledge is conferred on people today. It takes a lot of work, research into the mechanics, and more work. There is no other way.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Of course, there is nothing contestable in the second two paragraphs you provided; the development of a writers' ability is the express purpose of large swaths of this forum, and I am massively indebted to this forum for my development thus far. Unfortunately, some writers aren't willing to put in the work, don't have the fortitude to receive critique, or for whatever other reason don't give themselves time to develop before attempting to publish.

And, forgive the ambiguity of my earlier statement. My intended message was "The topic of optimism vs. "dark" fiction, while interesting, is outside of the current topic of discussion, and I'd rather stay on topic. However, if I just ignore the point, it will look like I just didn't see it, so I need to reference it at some level." In other words, I'll be happy to discuss this in another context (I think the best forum for this is perhaps the traditional or self publishing forum), but I don't think it's overly relevant to the nature of evil itself, and out of respect for the OP, I'd rather not comment much here. I do appreciate your understanding in this matter.

 

[JohnM]

Thank you for your reply. There are a number of ways writers can learn their craft. Forums can help but any good advice must be applied to be of any use.

Back to the topic, I think the average reader has a firm idea of the nature of evil. Ambiguity can be discussed but at the end of the day a decision must be made. How do I portray it?

 

[Joshua Jones]

Back to the topic, I think the average reader has a firm idea of the nature of evil. Ambiguity can be discussed but at the end of the day a decision must be made. How do I portray it?

TBH, I think the answer is going to vary massively, depending on your genre, themes, intended audience, etc...

Evil in, say, Saturday morning cartoons aimed at young children is typically rather one dimensional. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; in fact, many parents may prefer their 6 year olds not be faced with complex ethical dilemmas while they eat their Cheerios which may cause them to think lying to Mom and Dad is ok... but I suspect such an antagonist would be rarely satisfying for an adult targeting novel exploring the intricacies of international (or, perhaps given the forum, interplanetary) politics or racial tensions. As such, I would suggest that knowing the genre and audience will significantly inform the development of the antagonist (or protagonist, for that matter) character and actions.

 

[DLCroix]

Hello!. Well, broadly speaking, there are the good characters who do good things, the characters who do bad things, and as several have said, the evil characters who have a deviant mentality that prevents them from noticing the bad of their actions. We agree.
But, now, suppose we have a complete society that is essentially bad, that that society is corrupted from the bottom up by a certain moral liberality or spiritual decline that makes its attachment to traditional goodness very relative or almost non-existent.
So my question is: what happens in that case?

 

[Joshua Jones]

But, now, suppose we have a complete society that is essentially bad, that that society is corrupted from the bottom up by a certain moral liberality or spiritual decline that makes its attachment to traditional goodness very relative or almost non-existent.
So my question is: what happens in that case?

Game of Thrones. That's pretty much what happens...

 

[DLCroix]

Game of Thrones. That's pretty much what happens...

I was actually thinking of something more sci-fi. As in the area of Space Opera. Dune approaches, but tangentially. Asimov, Heinlein, and O.S. Card are loaded more towards the military macro-political side. And they also follow the typical hero-antagonist scheme where basically everything revolves around the MC

 

[JohnM]

TBH, I think the answer is going to vary massively, depending on your genre, themes, intended audience, etc...

Evil in, say, Saturday morning cartoons aimed at young children is typically rather one dimensional. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; in fact, many parents may prefer their 6 year olds not be faced with complex ethical dilemmas while they eat their Cheerios which may cause them to think lying to Mom and Dad is ok... but I suspect such an antagonist would be rarely satisfying for an adult targeting novel exploring the intricacies of international (or, perhaps given the forum, interplanetary) politics or racial tensions. As such, I would suggest that knowing the genre and audience will significantly inform the development of the antagonist (or protagonist, for that matter) character and actions.

"vary massively"? I think that is a common assumption among some. There is also the quite fictional idea that content suitable for children would automatically not appeal to adults. This is followed by the idea that adults require a certain type of story.

When American comic books attempted to make their stories more adult they failed. This was reported in a credible source. In other words, attempts in that direction failed because of the entrenched idea that comic books are for kids.

Going back to the topic, evil, today, has regressed. It is now more psychotic, more graphic in terms of blood and gore, and sometimes still attempts the decades-long campaign to make profanity acceptable. Game of Thrones is an example of an attempt to market bad behavior as 'entertainment.' I watched a bit and switched it off.

So, using TV as an example, the good and evil in Supergirl has broad appeal. Anyone who wants to sell books should look at it. Then look at the current top-selling SF books. They have more in common with an Ace Double from the 1950s with stories by Heinlein.

 

[Joshua Jones]

"vary massively"? I think that is a common assumption among some. There is also the quite fictional idea that content suitable for children would automatically not appeal to adults. This is followed by the idea that adults require a certain type of story.

When American comic books attempted to make their stories more adult they failed. This was reported in a credible source. In other words, attempts in that direction failed because of the entrenched idea that comic books are for kids.

Going back to the topic, evil, today, has regressed. It is now more psychotic, more graphic in terms of blood and gore, and sometimes still attempts the decades-long campaign to make profanity acceptable. Game of Thrones is an example of an attempt to market bad behavior as 'entertainment.' I watched a bit and switched it off.

So, using TV as an example, the good and evil in Supergirl has broad appeal. Anyone who wants to sell books should look at it. Then look at the current top-selling SF books. They have more in common with an Ace Double from the 1950s with stories by Heinlein.

It would seem that your main interest is to discuss the relative values of more optimistic compared to "darker" fiction. As such, I'll start a new thread for the sake of this topic, so that we may explore this idea without hijacking another thread.

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

I must note here, in the interest of fairness, that I've not met or read a philosopher who argues on behalf of moral relativism

Maybe not moral relativism, but I think there are definitely philosophers who argue for moral nihilism/anti-realism/skepticism.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Maybe not moral relativism, but I think there are definitely philosophers who argue for moral nihilism/anti-realism/skepticism.

Oh sure. Sarte is my go to example for that. Moral nihilism is exposed to many of the same critiques as relativism (apart from the self-contradictory one), but I should have included that on my list as distinct. Thanks for bringing this up!

 

[Joshua Jones]

I was actually thinking of something more sci-fi. As in the area of Space Opera. Dune approaches, but tangentially. Asimov, Heinlein, and O.S. Card are loaded more towards the military macro-political side. And they also follow the typical hero-antagonist scheme where basically everything revolves around the MC

My apologies! I just realized I never posted a response to this!

The first two that come to mind are The Expanse and Altered Carbon. The former falls into the Space Opera genre, while the latter is more cyberpunk (which tends to be darker as a genre default).