Does Evil Exist (and How Do We Recognize It?)

The article begins by quoting Adam Smith, an 18th-century Scottish economist and philosopher, who argued that humans often admire and even worship the rich and powerful. This idea is part of Smith's broader theory on moral sentiments, which explores how people develop ethical judgments. In his 1759 book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith suggests that our moral decisions are influenced by empathy and social context rather than pure logic. The quote highlights how societal values can shape perceptions of good and evil, as admiration for wealth or power may distort moral judgments. For example, Smith observed that people often justify the actions of the wealthy or powerful, even when those actions cause harm, simply because of their status. This sets the stage for questioning whether evil is an absolute concept or something influenced by social and economic factors.

The article then shifts to a personal anecdote where the author receives an email from a British podcast production company during a summer afternoon. The email asks the author to explore the question: Does evil exist? This inquiry serves as a catalyst for the article, prompting a deeper examination of the nature of evil. The author does not provide details about the podcast or its audience, but the question itself reflects a common philosophical and ethical debate. The email implies that evil is a topic of public interest, suggesting that people seek to understand whether harmful actions are inherent or situational. The author’s response to this question will guide the rest of the article, framing evil as a concept that requires careful analysis rather than a simple yes or no answer.

The article introduces the idea that evil is a complex and contested concept in philosophy, ethics, and religion. Unlike simple wrongdoing, evil often refers to actions that are malevolent by nature—intentionally causing severe harm or suffering without justification. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant argued that evil is rooted in a perverse will, where individuals choose to act against moral duty despite knowing better. In contrast, thinkers such as Hannah Arendt, writing in the mid-20th century, described evil as banal—not necessarily monstrous but ordinary, performed by people who fail to think critically about their actions. The article does not advocate for one definition but presents these perspectives to show that evil can be understood in multiple ways, depending on the context and the thinker’s framework.

The article explores how to identify evil in human behavior by examining the motives and consequences of actions. One approach is to look at the intent behind an act: if someone deliberately inflicts harm to achieve a goal, such as power, wealth, or revenge, their actions may be considered evil. For example, historical figures like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin are often labeled evil due to the scale of suffering they caused through deliberate policies. Another approach focuses on the impact of actions: even if harm is unintentional, actions that lead to widespread suffering—such as environmental destruction—might still be seen as evil. The article does not provide a definitive method for recognition but suggests that both intent and outcome play a role in how societies label certain behaviors as evil.

Beyond individual actions, the article considers whether evil can exist within systems or institutions. This idea is often associated with philosopher Michel Foucault, who analyzed how power structures—such as governments, corporations, or social norms—can perpetuate harm systematically. For instance, systems that discriminate based on race, gender, or class may create conditions where certain groups suffer disproportionately, even if no single individual acts with malicious intent. The article references this perspective to highlight that evil is not always about individual malice but can be embedded in policies, laws, or cultural practices. This challenges the notion that evil is solely a personal failing, instead framing it as a collective responsibility to recognize and address harmful systems.

The article acknowledges that perceptions of evil vary across cultures and historical periods. What one society considers evil—such as blasphemy or heresy—may be seen as justified in another. For example, during the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834), the Catholic Church executed thousands for heresy, viewing their actions as righteous. Similarly, modern debates about topics like abortion or capital punishment reveal how cultural values shape moral judgments. The article does not take a stance on these debates but emphasizes that evil is not an absolute concept. Instead, it is often a reflection of a society’s norms, beliefs, and power dynamics at a given time.