On the nature of evil

What exactly is it that defines “evil” for us? I have been playing around with it and it seems that the distinctions between levels of “evil” (and I'll drop the quotation marks for simplicity's sake) says more about us than it does about the evil. Definitions of words are expressions of our own attempt to codify thoughts and as thoughts begin in the individual, language, is a manifestation in sights and sounds of our own personal sense of the world. Though it is communal and shared, the subtleties of meaning stem from the fact that even were we to have a universal and perfect language, thought is unique and no two people can share exactly the same opinion on things. So what I define as evil may be different from what you call evil, simply because we agree on neither the exact definition of the word or the members of the category to which even an agreed upon definition might apply.

This, is not, however, where I started. My first thought about the issue this morning was actually bordering on the notion of religion. Religion, it seems, could be the expression of the hope that evil can ultimately be redeemed and not just repaid in this world, and ultimately that evil will be judged by some scale to which we don't have access [though religion is often the belief that we have a path toward to transcendent categories of good and evil].

But can we, in faith, even say that we wish for evil to be redeemed? Is that the ardent belief, that the evil person, through an act of contrition or confession, or by some incredible act of “good” can be called less than evil? Do we really want this redemption or does the possibility of redemption for evil inspire the rest of us to be less good because of the ultimate promise that we can change our ways and be forgiven? Because of this fear that evil's redemption makes good's efforts a less worthwhile pursuit, we create levels of evil so we can put some beyond that redemption.

Do we equate the evil of Darth Vader with that of the Emperor in the Star Wars series? By the end, the Emperor is dead and Darth has performed a single selfless act which (through saving the life of his son) proves that the bit of good in him has been brought back to the role of dominant he is now good.. Sure, he has had people killed, enslaved star systems and been a 7 foot tall meanie, but his kernel of goodness can be pulled to the fore and his final judgment can be predicated on that and not his blowing up of Alderaan. The Emperor Palpatine, though, is not deserving of our mercy (defined as forgiveness or redemption even when the proportion of evil outweighs that of good) because there lacks some essential goodness. Is it that the pure evil shows itself in the innovation of evil while redemptive evil is hallmarked by the participation of evil? The second level is simply a follower who, given the right context, could very well have followed goodness, making the fault that of society and not internal to him?

Could Voldemort have ever been good? No, and he therefore requires ultimate judgment and punishment. We don't want him to be possibly good because it will affect our hatred for him and our ability to separate him from ourselves. Malfoy, though sniveling and annoying, is allowed to live because he is simply a soldier and can, with the right influences lead a life of good, or of substantially less evil. Is this argument of “I was just following orders” persuasive? Should it be a meaningful distinction? Does Hitler get burnt for eternity but any other soldier can have an escape because he wasn't the mastermind? Are jail term conversions, even if sincere, enough to prove that the criminal has changed enough to erase earlier sins? Can we (afford to) be as magnanimous in our forgiveness and recognition of redemption as the divine?

Maybe we don't want any evil to be redeemed. Maybe, we see the foot soldier and tell him that he had free will and was not determined to follow orders and his decision to do so is as problematic and unforgivable as the guy who thought of the evil plan. Maybe his actions are worse – an idea without anyone to carry it out is nothing, and the willingness to die for good should be the goal. Does anyone really thing that sincere change is even possible? Isn't that what our definition of evil hinges on – the possibility that the vast majority of people can change and there3fore become a different person and not deserve punishment. Only the purest evil cannot (note – not will not, but actually cannot) change no matter how long we wait, and are therefore deserving only of the harshest of judgment.

Don't know. Just something to think about.