By Bill Faw
January 26, 2025
Good morning. Merle asked me 2-3 months ago if I could speak on “evil” at HUU. So this is a “commissioned address.” For my 15th message at HUU, I will talk about how folks, who don’t believe in Satan or hell, can talk meaningfully about evil.
This talk draws upon research I did a few years ago for a conference lecture on psychopaths; also draws on philosopher Todd Calder’s article on “The Concept of Evil” in the on-line Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia; and on a chapter titled “Confronting the Demonic” in a book on the theology of Unitarian theologian James Luther Adams, from a book brought to my attention by Les Grady.
DOES ‘EVIL’ EVEN EXIST?
If evil does not exist, then maybe the terms “very wrong” or “very bad” are sufficient, without getting into controversial terms like ‘evil’. Perhaps the concept of ‘evil’ is outdated, that is, maybe we have to believe in an actual “devil” or “dark spirits” to use the concept of “evil”. And, perhaps calling persons or situations “evil” stigmatizes and dismisses them unfairly.
There has been a definite tendency in progressive religions like UU to see human nature as being basically good – and not “depraved” — and to look for the good in even the most despicable person.
We see this in 3 of the 7 official UU principles, with phrases like “affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person;” “acceptance of one another;” and “respecting the interdependent web of all existence.” So, maybe UUs cannot think of any person as ‘evil’.
But, on the other hand, the official UU “living tradition” speaks of the challenge “to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love”. So, maybe UUs can talk about ‘evil’ – at least evil powers and structures.
If evil – even evil powers and structures – does exist, then we need to find a way to talk about it. It might be more dangerous to ignore evil than to acknowledge it, and having the “concept of evil” might help us know how to prevent future evils.
So, along with philosopher Todd Calder and theologian James Luther Adams, I am convinced that the terms ‘very wrong’ or ‘very bad’ do not suffice to describe the personal and social manifestations of evil. Only that concept captures such moral extremes as sadistic torture, serial killers, Hitler, and the Holocaust.
POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS OF EVIL
It is much easier to point to, than to define evil: for instance, pointing to evil as “wrongful actions to which we have…a response of moral horror”. But let us at least attempt some definitions. We might each end up with somewhat different characteristics of what we call “evil.” But, let us begin.
A full understanding of “evil” would include examination of evil intentions, evil actions, evil personalities, evil situations, and evil institutions. We will at least touch on each. Clearly only the most morally despicable actions, characters, or events should be called “evil”.
Natural vs Moral Evil: Moral Agents
Hurricanes, tornados, and wildfires can devastate lives and communities – with clearly evil effects — far more than, say, an evil mass murderer. But we would not generally say that such natural disasters are ‘evil’. Nor would we say that a grizzly bear who kills a hiker, or a cat who kills a rare bird, is ‘evil.’ Why not?
The bear and the cat probably did make their kill intentionally. But we don’t see them as “moral agents”, who, somehow should “know better” or who could be expected to live up to a moral code. We probably limit such “moral agent” designation to sane, reasonably intelligent, and experienced humans – at least until we are discovered by extra-terrestrial im-moral agents.
We also generally do not say that a person who accidently knocks someone off a cliff is being “evil”, because they did not intend to hurt the person. Unless their negligence leads to that person’s fall, in which case we might say that they were evil in their recklessness.
Evil Actions with Evil Harm
We probably would say that to be evil, actions must be connected to significant harm; that is, to cause or allow or at least attempt significant harm. There clearly are degrees of evil acts based on the degrees of harm; but also on the degrees of evil intentions, on the degree of evil character, and on what societal norms are involved — distinctions we make in our laws and court convictions.
Thus, killing someone might be seen as more or less or not at all evil. Consider the differences between: First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, criminal negligent homicide, self-defense, executions on death row, killing an enemy in war, and accidentally pushing the person off the cliff.
Although less serious than killing, lying and many other actions might be seen as evil or not, based on intentionality and degree of harm. Thus, Calder’s summary of this issue: For it to be considered an “evil act”, the agent must be morally responsible, act voluntarily (intending or foreseeing the suffering) and their actions must be morally inexcusable.
Evil Emotions and Types of Evil
Some philosophers point to ‘evil character’ as containing one or more of the following emotions: sadistic pleasure from another person’s pain, malicious envy, strong hatred, heartlessness, or sheer recklessness.These seem to be the feelings found in extreme types of evil, but perhaps those feelings are not found in all forms of evil motivation.
James Luther Adams pointed to “demonic evil” as a subset of evil, an evil that has a possessive and compulsive character: a perversity with a life of its own. He lists Satanism, White Supremacy, and Nazism as demonic evil.
Others point to ‘pure, radical, or diabolical evil’ as descriptions of persons intending the destruction of others for its own sake.
Evil Character: Can We Call Someone Evil?
While we might say that a person committed an ‘evil act’ out of ‘evil intentions’, when – if ever – might we say that that person, him/herself is ‘evil’?
Well, sometimes we call someone evil even after one single evil event: like calling those specific Hamas fighters “evil,” who killed, tortured, or kidnapped Israelis on October 5, 2023; and, if it is true that some Israeli troops have intentionally targeted Gaza hospitals and aid shipments, that would be evil; or, closer to home, we might say that about those who deliberately caused bodily harm to police at the Capital building four years ago. All single events.
However, we are more apt to call someone ‘evil’ if they perform evil actions or show evil motivation frequently – such as mass or spree murderers and the Holocaust exterminators.
Perhaps the UU way is to never call any person ‘evil’, while responding to evil intentions, evil acts, and evil institutions. But, let us look specifically at human nature — the ‘goodness’ and ‘evil’ in human nature.
Goodness of Human Nature
In the 1853 sermon where Unitarian pastor Theodore Parker initiated the claim that “the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice,” Parker asserted that a sense and desire for “justice” is built by God into human nature.
I have affirmed in an earlier talk here that there is good scientific evidence for a sense of justice being in normal healthy human nature: within our first couple years, toddlers help others in need (pro-social altruism), seem to feel others’ emotions (empathy), and show three types of a “sense of fairness” which can develop into compassion for others (sameness), a sense of justice (deservedness), and a special compassion toward those in need (need).
Evil in Human Nature?
Remember that I had lectured at a conference on psychopathy – psychopaths. If there is any place where we might look for “evil in human nature” it is, roughly, in psychopaths. However, not everyone diagnosed as a “psychopath” has evil motives or performs evil actions. And, not everyone who has evil motives or commits evil deeds is a psychopath.
But there is a lot of (Venn Diagram) overlap. It is estimated that 1% of the general public have “clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits”. About 2 men for every woman. But that 1% commit 30% to 40% of all violent crimes, and make up about 25% of prison inmates. One percent of the population!
The fact that 1% have significant levels does not mean that 99% have no psychopathic traits. On the contrary, about 30% of the population have some such traits, at either low, medium, or high levels. Let’s look at psychopathy’s traits.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder with a lifetime pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. More specifically, there are four basic ways that they lack or are low in normal human qualities:
lack of empathy and concern about others, leading to them being manipulative and grandiose.
lacking the emotions of shame, remorse, and guilt;
lacking normal behavior control – thus prone to antisocial behavior and criminality; and
lack of impulse control.
Most common are the first two: lack of empathy toward others and lack of shame, remorse and guilt. Those with moderate scores on these two factors, but not on the other two, are most likely to become “successful psychopaths” in business, politics, academia, and presumably church hierarchies. Those with a lot of the last two: lack of behavioral and impulse control are apt to become “unsuccessful psychopaths” – making up a quarter of the prison population. But 30% of us have some level of one or more of these traits.
Adoption studies indicate that both genetic and environmental factors (like being abused or neglected as children) contribute to all four traits and both types of psychopaths. Brain damage in the “gut feeling evaluator” part of the brain can also produce psychopathic traits.
Let us look at the interaction between genetics and childhood trauma. A substantial percentage of psychopathic adults were abused or neglected as children.
Children born with high psychopathic genetics can – but not necessarily — become psychopathic even if they are not abused or neglected.
Children born with no or very low psychopathic traits might become psychopathic in response to severe abuse or neglect.
Children with both psychopathic genetics and who are abused as children tend to the most aggressive behavior as adults.
So, coming full circle from a basic U.U. faith in human nature and historical progress, the low percentages of psychopaths in the general population help identify it as a “lack” in a basic goodness of human nature.
Understanding the contributions that genetics and upbringing make to psychopathy can make us more empathic toward even mass killers, while not being naïve about their evil personalities, evil intentions, and evil acts, andabout evil situations and institutions.