evil is a superstition
by Mark Hunter Mulvey
Published: July 2, 2008
“Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881)
“The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.”
- Joseph Conrad (1857 - 1924)
The concept of evil was initially invented to avoid dealing with subtlety. It is a construct used to homogenize and generalize a certain type of hatred or ambivalence, the source of which we cannot understand.
Someone is said to be evil if that person acts horrifically and seemingly without any clear, rational motive. The concept of evil conveniently ignores the fact that human beings are, by nature, rational creatures. They operate under pretense and reasoning, and are the product of a finite number of factors that can be listed and explained. Man’s patience simply demands a simpler way of dealing with this complexity.
I bring all of this up in light of our tribulations in Iraq, the latest in thousands of examples of man’s obsession with the pageantry of warfare. The first recorded war may, in fact, be responsible for the notion of “evil” that we carry with us today. (This Sumerian war occurred in present day Iraq, which means nothing except that history has a curious way of drawing circles.) I say this because soldiers in war cannot be effective without a clear and simple enemy to fight against. For an order-abiding soldier to consider subtlety, nuance and humanity when facing their collective opponent would be disastrous. An army needs an overarching conviction to fight against lest doubt enter the battlefield. This is Military Effectiveness 101.
Currently, in the United States, terrorist insurgents in the Middle East are designated as “evil.” This is not an altogether awful conclusion, as one of the terrorist groups in question killed nearly 3,000 Americans in a single morning using domestic airplanes and impressively suicidal tendencies. Evil would be a fine description for the people behind these attacks, except for the fact that the concept of evil is entirely imaginary.
What society calls “evil” is simply a wickedness that which we do not care to investigate. Evil is a title of convenience. It is offered up in lieu of critical thought into the actual cause of the behavior in question. This is important for global commissaries and military generals to understand and convey to the public.
Terrorists are not evil because evil is just a lazy idea. As frightening as it may be to consider the perpetrators of indiscriminate violence “human,” it is imperative to do so lest we commit indiscriminate violence ourselves. It does not take long for our concept of “evil” to encompass more than just the enemy. Soon, “evil” becomes anything in the vicinity of our enemy, and anyone known to have spoken to our enemy at any point in a distant or not-so-distant past. Evil is an oily slick of a concept to tread on, and leaves innocents in its wake.
Humans have thoughts, motives, mothers, fathers, religious beliefs, hobbies, passions, losses and vices. Without bringing each of these elements into the fight, we lose the best chance we have of succeeding. Resorting to the word “evil” is an easy conclusion to reach and only absolves one of the tedious task of actual understanding.
Until we can penetrate completely the mentality of attackers and perpetrators of terrorist attacks, we will only succeed in the very type of indiscriminate killing that pulled us into this mess in the first place.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 am
Mulvey,
I can feel you but… come on. I just can’t bring myself to attempt to get into the head of someone who’ll walk into a shopping mall and blow up mommies and children and brothers and dads. The only humane way to “get into their head” is with a high caliber bullet - before they detonate themselves.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
Call them evil, heck call them pure or heavenly, i dont care. Point blank, these jihadists need to be dealt with. The jihadists are 20th century terrorists who want to resume the wars unleashed by Islamic empires nearly 14 centuries ago. But in the absence of an actual unified Islamic empire like that of the Ottomans, today’s Jihadists have to act on its behalf, committing violence in the name of a whole community and an entire releigion. They are on a mission to resume what their ancestors began. The jihadists believe that what was initiated in Muslim history ages ago is still moving forward today, just as it was in the beginning. They also believe that Allah is still commanding them to perform these duties without interuption. And they are firmly convinced that the enemies of their ancestors as perceived in those times are still the enemies of today, in a war that has not ended for the last millennium and a half. These enemies would be ALL THOSE WHO DONT CONFORM TO THEIR BELIEFS, ACCORDING TO THEIR RELIGION. YES, THAT INCLUDES UNITED STATES. For example, al Qaeda’s statements in the 21st centiry, before and after 9/11, describe the U.S. and Europe as “crusaders.” Osama bin Laden talks about the West as “al Rum,” or “the Byzantines,” and all Islamists describe Christians and Jews and “kuffar,” or infidels. The enemies of Jihadists are not who people really are today, but who the jihadists believe they still are-the same as they were over a thosand years ago. Those who see jihadists followers as mere freedom fighters, or national resistance militants have totally missed the deep essence of who alQaeda and other jihadists are.
When Osama Bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan, he was executing the orders of Allah: fighting the infidels, reestablishing the pure Islamic state, and laying the groundwork for the return of the caliphate. When the Taliban took over, they applied the 800 year old code of Jihad: destruction of non-Muslim religios symbols and Muslim non-Salafi symbols, elimination of infidel arts, implementation of medeival traditions of punishments against women, and separation of genders. It may be hard to accept (outside novels and hollywood) that the modern jihadists of al Qaeda and its sister organizations embody 13th century jihad in the framework of 21st century global politics. But this reality explains most of the irrational behavior of modern-day jihadists, including suicide bombers, and the litany of extreme, violent acts and statements for which they have been responsible-which to reasonable people seem to belong to another age.
You think that they attack because we are on their soil, but in reality they are mad because we are making it harder for them to restore their caliphate and rule the world. If we dont put pressure oni them, they will build nuclear weopons, as they proved they have the capability to do so and bomb us again and again….and again. Jihadists can also recieve weopons from countries like Russia and China, no problemo bobo. Look at some of the terrorist events below which have targeted the entire world, including United States. These events happen almost everyday and go unheard of.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
November 20, 2003
Turkey
More Suicide Truck Bombings in Istanbul. Two more suicide truck bombings devastated the British HSBC Bank and the British Consulate General in Istanbul, killing 27 persons and wounding at least 450. The dead included Consul General Roger Short. U.S., British, and Turkish officials suspected that al-Qaeda had struck again. The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul was closed, and the Embassy in Ankara advised American citizens in Istanbul to stay home.
November 8, 2003
Saudi Arabia
Suicide Bombing in Riyadh. In Riyadh, a suicide car bombing took place in the Muhaya residential compound, which was occupied mainly by nationals of other Arab countries. Seventeen persons were killed and 122 were wounded. The latter included 4 Americans. The next day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said al-Qaeda was probably responsible.
August 5, 2003
Indonesia
Hotel Bombing in Indonesia. A car bomb exploded outside the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing 10 persons and wounding 150. One of the dead was a Dutch citizen. The wounded included an American, a Canadian, an Australian, and two Chinese. Indonesian authorities suspected the Jemaah Islamiah, which had carried out the October 12, 2002 bombing in Bali.
May 16, 2003
Morocco
Suicide Bomb Attacks in Morocco. A team of 12 suicide bombers attacked five targets in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 43 persons and wounding 100. The targets were a Spanish restaurant, a Jewish community, a Jewish cemetery, a hotel, and the Belgian Consulate. The Moroccan Government blamed the Islamist al-Assirat al-Moustaquim (The Righteous Path), but foreign commentators suspected an al-Qaida connection.
March 7, 2000
Spain
Car bomb attack attributed to ETA injures 7.
February 20, 2000
Philippines
Abu Sayyaf bombings of restaurant, 2 police stations in Basilan town, kill 1, wound 17.
December 26, 1999
India
Usama Bin Ladin again declares India, US, Russia, ‘Enemies of Islam.’
September 18, 1999
Bin Ladin declares jihad against India.
une 1, 1999
France
Trail begins for 22 Islamic extremists for July-October 1995 bombings including Paris metro attacks.
May 19, 1999
United States
Ali Mohamed charged with plotting with bin Ladin group in global conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens abroad.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Wow Nick! Way to come in strong for the war on terror.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Thanks for your contribution, James! Maybe next time you’ll have something valuable to say.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Somehow this thread has come off the rails. The essay is a refutation of the very concept of ‘evil’, using our contemporary circumstance as its examplar case.
If the 20th Century taught us anything, particularly in the interim between the 2 great wars, it is that many on the left, while espousing Darwinist Evolution (boiled down to ‘Survival of the Fittest’) as the model for human development to this point, steadfastly hold to the idea that ‘all are born innocent’, or ‘people are basically good’, and worse ‘God is Love’. Most post-agrarian societies erected their network of rules, laws, religious traditions and social mores in order to contain the individualized urges in such a way that they didn’t threaten the ‘greater good.’
Evil may not be best explained in supernatural terms, but perhaps in Psychological ones. Evil. as a practical notion, exists somewhere in the nexus occupied by megalomaniacs and sociopaths. Whether we look at the heavy hitters like Pol Pot, Charles Manson, Stalin or everyones favorite, Hitler; or we turn our eyes to the smaller, more personal ,boutique’ evil doers like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or Jack the Ripper, we must as a society recognize that not everyone is rational, and not every irrational person is easily spotted at first, and that some of them have their finger ‘on the button.’
I won’t end with the typical Edmund Burke quote, I’ve chosen something more contemporary and apropos:
“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Wherever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.
Ayn Rand 1966
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
A question for Mark: what, in your mind is ‘wickedness’ as you see it differing from ‘evil’?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Russ:
The word wickedness, and even my initial discourse on evil, is a question of semantics. “Wicked” and “wickedness,” as they’re used today, describe malcontents and general devious behavior. ‘Evil,’ however, brings the discussion to an untouchable level. Describing someone as evil submits that the evildoer is beyond hope, and whose mindset is impossible to understand. It evokes a sense of base mythology, and polarizes an otherwise nuanced discussion of war and conflict.
I’m speaking out against the use of the word “evil” because it is always used as a dismissive. It is a word used to end a discussion, not to begin. It keeps one from probing further into the nature of these killers and, as a result, the most effective solution for dealing with them.
It is an irrefutable certainty that supporters of an American lifestyle are diametrically opposed to these Islamic extremists, and threats to this lifestyle need to be challenged strongly, forcefully and, most important of all, intelligently. Using the word “evil” to describe our enemies does nothing to assist any of these means. It simply makes us more imprecise in our attacks.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Mark,
It sounds like you are objecting more to the context that the word is used in and the meta-message it contains rather than the word or concept itself. I would caution that we must maintain the courage to classify particular actions as evil lest we lose the very foundations of our morality. However, I would agree that the word becomes dangerous when used to categorize countries, people groups, and even all but the most sociopathic of human beings.
I’m guessing that your biggest objection is to the lack of subtlety and nuance on the part of many of our politicians, military, and religious leaders. While I would argue that there may be situations in which such nuance is impractical, particularly those of a military nature, it is still infuriating to hear people of each and every political affiliation reduce an argument to two polarized options.
Though “evil” currently seems to be a buzzword of the Republicans (right up there with “freedom”), the fundamental problem crosses party lines because it has its roots in our common human nature: the pride and self-centeredness that prevents us from seeing perspectives that differ from our own, and cause us to try and win an argument at all costs. I would suggest that the concept of “evil” is not flawed - instead it is we, ourselves, who our flawed in our insistence on applying it or any other gross categorization for our own self-interest.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Dave:
If you concede that many uses of the word “evil” are inapporpriate, the questions becomes: what SHOULD be considered evil? Is there anything in the actual world that deserves this designation and, if so, does calling something “evil” assist to combat it in any way?
I will admit that the concepts of “good” and “bad” are important ones, and that children need to be raised knowing “right” from “wrong.” But I argue that designating a person as “evil,” literally, is a dangerous moniker and not an appropriate reason or justification for killing. It’s akin to justifyng a murder because that person is “the bad guy.” The bad guy according to whom?
I argue that the overarching concept of “evil” has a place in society, but should never be used as a practical adjective describing actual human behavior. In wartime, there are far better and more rational reasons that can be used to justify action.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
But what’s more dangerous, a dangerous moniker or a psychopath dictator. Take Mugabe for instance, instead of bowing out of an election he lost he starting killing his opposition, burning peoples property and as a result of hir “reelection efforts” over 100,000 people have been displaced from their homes. That man’s evil. Killing people is evil. If someone where to bump him off, I would celebrate. Why should anyone have any qualms about that?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
James, you’re sliding on a very slipperly slope here. “Killing people is evil” you say. Then America is evil. And the American military is evil. And the American president who ordered the killings is evil. Wars in general should clearly be considered horrifically evil. According to your statement, every American soldier who has killed a man in battle is, quite simply, evil.
I have a feeling you do not agree with these statements. But you can see what happens when you give up, throw your hands in the air, and make a blanket statement regarding “evil.” Nothing gets solved, there’s simply more killing. Mugabe is acting despicably on many grounds, but it’s not because he is evil. He’s doing what he’s doing for reasons, and only by acknowledging those reasons and understanding them will our government, and other governments, find a way to deal with him effectively.
Just because you don’t understand his motives and mindset doesn’t mean he is unequivocally evil. Global affairs deserve attention to detail and rational thought.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
“If you concede that many uses of the word “evil” are inapporpriate, the questions becomes: what SHOULD be considered evil? Is there anything in the actual world that deserves this designation and, if so, does calling something “evil” assist to combat it in any way?”
I believe that there are people in this world that deserve to be called evil. Calling someone evil doesnt combat and doesnt need to combat a person’s “wickedness.” When a person commits a wicked action, its up to his intent that deciphers whether or not he is evil. If a mentally ill person kills someone, he committed a wicked act, but he is not evil because he didnt attempt to kill the person willingly, it happened because he was born with a defective brain, something that brings out the rational in humans. Contrastingly, when you have a person who knowingly commits a wicked act, he should be considered evil. Now, what is evil? Is a boy who trips another boy considered evil if he meant to do it on purpose? No. It has to be taken in context. The boy is growing up and he doesnt have the same rational as a grown up. You can take this further. Is a 40 year old man who trips another 40 year old man considered evil? I wouldnt call him evil, but hes crazy, stressed out, or whatever you want to call him. I see evil being used to describe…well…evil people. So you are probably asking, where is the book that lists out all the evil acts? We dont have one. We have judges that interpret the law to decide what is evil and what is not. In essence, we, the people, decide ourselves what is evil and what is not. There is no definition for evil because we decide what is evil and what is not. It gets more complicated than that because evil is different among different cultures and societies. You can take this even further by saying that evil changes with time. In the past, raping a woman was not considered evil. Being a racist was not considered evil. However, a couple of evil acts are common to all cultures and socieites such as terrorism, rape and murder. To us, communism is evil, but to communist countries, its not. So, what is really happening here, is each society defines the word evil. So mark, I agree with you that we shouldnt use evil as often as we do, but there are times, within context, that the word evil should be used to describe an action or a person.
Excellent article though.