Evil the Humanity of Evil

Evil

The Humanity of Evil and Forgiveness

Ever since former President George W. Bush defined the countries that harbor terrorists as an "axis of evil," the word "evil" and its appropriateness in modern society have come under accelerated examination. In addition, the concept of forgiveness, and whether or not it is right to forgive those who engage in evil must necessarily follow a discussion of evil and its definition in our modern world. Through an examination of both the modern construct of evil and the existence and appropriateness of forgiveness, this essay will argue that modern definition of evil suggests humans cannot be wholly evil, and therefore, forgiveness is always possible.

Those who watch the news can readily attest to the fact that each day there is yet another story recounting a human's perpetration of some act of such intense cruelty that it makes the average viewer wince. These are the acts that most humans tend to call evil. In fact, one way to explain evil is an action to which humans have the following reaction -- "We can't imagine how anyone like us could do anything like that" ("Evil and Otherness" 21)! Thus, evil is often viewed as a purely human concept. In fact, the following statement argues that it is wholly human: "Good and evil are no longer viewed as metaphysical principles of equal rank, but rather as human interpretations of reality or reactions to it. In this conception, the world is neither good nor bad and, if human beings did not exist, there would be no good and evil." This modern view of evil, then, excludes supernatural forces, such as demonic forces. Instead, this position states that evil can be categorized by those terrible actions that are so extreme in their perversity that the majority of humans cannot understand how they could have been committed, nor do they wish to think about such things. At first glance it may seem that Freud would agree with such a characterization. His belief that morality lays with the conscious self and evil with the unconscious self (Webster para. 3) can contribute to the argument that evil is contained, entirely, within the self. His further desires to look into the "animal origins of human beings, together with their instinctual heritage," despite the fact that he had the "impulse to transcend this animality" (Webster para. 4) seems to lend increased credence to the human view of evil. If humans are simply animals with instincts that are not created with some special design, God is undermined, and so is the supernatural view of evil.

But Webster suggests that Freud's ideas were deeply rooted in the supernatural, or in Judeo-Christian mysticism and the concept of original sin. Indeed, nearly any believer of any religion would find it difficult to agree with the statement that human beings have manufactured good and evil. Of course, the writer of "Evil and Otherness" shows that demonic images such as Satan, and in popular mythology, vampires, are often the embodiment of evil. St. Augustine, when addressing the problem of evil, discounted Satan and other dark forces, but suggested that good, the antithesis of evil, was the product of a supernatural being -- God (Brians et al. para. 1). Thus, it seems that even the secular tradition -- such as Freud's -- has emphasized the view that good and evil were more a product of some supernatural manifestation than of human's themselves. If humans' themselves were the authors of good and evil, defining what good and evil were would become increasingly difficult. The author of "Evil and Otherness" points out that "the philosopher Kant, for example, treats it as a deep and indeed insoluble mystery why anyone would do anything as unreasonable as to lie to escape embarrassment" (3). The author goes on to give further examples where a deed could be considered evil or simply wrong based on the circumstances and intentions of the wrongdoer. Thus, it seems evident by these examples that humans are not the authors of what is good and what is evil, but instead simply have an inherent knowledge of what fits in these categories.

If humans are not the architects of good and evil, then, it is easy to see how a human cannot be wholly good or wholly evil. An architect may be trying to emulate the style of Frank Lloyd Wright, but his or her work will, ultimately, be different from Wright's in some ways. The emulating architect will create some aspects of his or her building that are entirely his or her own. In the same way, a person may be emulating the metaphysical creator of good or evil, but he or she will be flawed in some ways, meaning that he or she is not wholly evil or wholly good. Edgar Allen Poe gives a good example of this in his story "The Black Cat." While the main character commits atrocities to his cat, Pluto, readers are able to find a glimmer of good through his actions before he commits his atrocities. The narrator says, "From my infancy I was noted for the docility and humanity of my disposition" (Poe 597). Thus, while he eventually does evil acts, the narrator is not wholly evil; for at one point in his life, he was good.