Living well is primarily about pursuing good. But what about evil? A good person recognizes evil and responds appropriately. Better yet, they work to prevent it.

The focus here is on the people, actions, and even ideas that far exceed standard definitions of bad. People encounter and address bad behavior daily. It is routine. It is more challenging to deal with people and behavior when its scope, scale, and impact puts it into an entirely different category. These actions make headlines, cause us to wonder how it could happen, and leave us unsettled. It involves the most extensive and severe violations of our expectations for human behavior.

The concept of evil raises complicated questions. What thresholds and criteria separate evil from merely bad? Are they fundamentally different? Is there a practical definition of evil useful for guiding our behavior? What causes and enables evil? Should context affect what is evil and our reaction? Is evil always present, or can it be prevented?

I sought answers to the basic questions about evil to help me live better. Evil may be encountered rarely, but I wanted to know it when I saw it. The axiom “do good, avoid evil” assumes knowledge of what is evil. I also wanted to learn how to reduce or prevent evil.

Differing Views of Evil

My understanding of evil, its causes, and the proper response has changed considerably. Google had the tagline “don’t be evil,” suggesting it was a simple choice. Evil could be stopped by simply telling people not to do it. I found it was not so simple.

I initially saw evil as a separate, mysterious, and malevolent force. Most people were good, but a few persistently bad. They were the dark side of humanity. For some reason, they followed an evil path. Evil was described as tempting, suggesting there were rewards for taking that path.

Many myths and stories reinforce this appealing but simple view of evil. For example, Star Wars is primarily about the clash between good and evil. The characters are either on the side of good or evil. The good side exhibits positive traits such as selflessness and humility. The evil side has negative characteristics such as selfishness and domination. You were in one camp or the other. Sometimes, good people go to the “dark side” and become evil. Some struggle with which side to be on. There was little nuance or gray area between the two.

I thought it was easy to identify evil. Hitler and the Nazis, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot were evil. So were the serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Jeffry Dahlmer. Evil people weren’t normal. When I was young, it seemed there was agreement on what and who was evil.

However, I noticed something unsettling as I learned more about the world and its history. Individuals, groups, and cultures could disagree substantially, even violently, on what was evil. Can evil be a meaningful concept without agreement on what the word means? How could I avoid evil when getting conflicting advice on what it was?

These differences appeared everywhere. In contemporary society, many political and cultural factions view the other groups as evil. Each claims to be on the “right side of history.” Each side describes the other in apocalyptic terms. One side’s hero is the other side’s villain. Contentious public policy issues could devolve into a good versus evil debate, with each side believing they were the good guys. The contest between capitalism and communism often devolved into each characterizing the other side as evil.

I thought religion would provide more consistency and less divisiveness. A central function of religion is, after all, separating good from evil. But contradictions and conflicts exist even here. Many wars have been fought partly because each side saw the other as evil and practicing evil customs. Many religious wars going back millennia have in part, involved fundamental differences in what is evil.

The split between Catholics and Protestants is an example. Both are Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yet, during the 130 years of the Protestant Reformation, each side saw certain beliefs held by the other side as evil and preventing admission to heaven. Spreading these beliefs warranted death to save the souls of others who might be persuaded. While political and power issues were a part of the conflict, it is hard to ignore the essential differences on important moral questions.

I found contradictions and moral ambiguity in so many cases of supposed evil. Even in clear-cut cases such as Stalin, some people saw him as a hero. There are many cases where people responsible for massacres of innocent people are viewed as evil by one side and as heroes by the other.

I also found confusion about the roots or causes of evil. For some, knowledge was the source of evil. We were good until we lost our innocence and could follow evil. Here, individual agency and free will can lead to choosing evil. For others, it was caused by an external power, such as a devil or some malevolent force, rather than an internal one. Still others saw evil as the outcome of circumstances and the environment.

This situation left me confused and lacking satisfactory answers. I had to make decisions about my behavior in the light of conflicting advice. I learned I was not alone. People have debated the nature of good and evil since civilization began. Many thinkers have attempted to clarify this issue, even if the results weren’t universally accepted.

Investigating and debating evil is worthwhile. I did not want to ignore the topic simply because it was confusing. For my purposes I needed to define evil, learn about its roots, and formulate a strategy for responding. This is important for human flourishing because it focuses attention on acts most needing collective action. This can unite people and create a culture where evil is rare and quickly controlled. People thrive much more in cultures where evil cannot grow.

A Better Definition of Evil

I needed a practical definition of evil to help guide my actions. For my purposes, evil can be defined as systematic and extensive acts violating widely accepted moral codes and principles, resulting in extreme harm and suffering. Deliberate cruelty and indifference to fundamental human rights and dignity are involved. Evil behavior is intentional and conscious rather than accidental. Malice and personal gain are also factors, as is a lack of remorse.

This definition goes beyond individual act of cruelty by considering the scope and scale of actions. Evil behavior must clear a high threshold. It needs to be extreme in its violation of moral codes and produce substantial harm to many people.

It is not simply an act that is evil. It is also the people who commit the acts and the ideas that motivate people to do evil things.

Hitler and Stalin and their acts meet this definition. They systematically killed millions of innocent people with little or no remorse. They also had an ideology that led to that behavior. Bernie Madoff might meet the definition since he knowingly stolen the life savings of thousands of people through fraud. Evil can be found in armed conflicts between countries, peoples, and religions where there is systematic and horrendous torture and slaughter that is condoned and encouraged. Evil is an appropriate description for individuals making a career out of harming people while fully understanding what they are doing and having the capacity to behave differently. Criminal and violent gangs could also meet the test.

Violating accepted human moral standards and principles to define evil may seem a vague and ambiguous definition. Individuals and cultures vary in moral codes. However, some basic moral codes are standard across most cultures. There is a long history of agreement in modern times about what constitutes an exteme violation of moral codes. Few would argue that genocide is evil, for example. When considering the cultural standards appropriate for defining evil, we should look to standards that have been widely accepted over time. Evil should not be redefined with each passing cultural fad.

The Roots of Evil

A better understanding of human nature led me to one major cause of evil. I found this explanation persuasive and useful. Certain human behaviors and tendencies are innate and have evolutionary roots. Human nature provides a plausible explanation for why people do terrible things that seem irrational to some people.

My opinions also changed as I learned more about individuals considered evil. Understanding their upbringing, education, and the context of their actions often revealed some rationale for their actions, flawed as it may be. The environment does not excuse bad behavior but can help explain why it happens.

Insights from Animal Behavior

Animal behavior provides a helpful context for human behavior and evil. Animal behavior, especially highly intelligent animals living in complex societies such as primates, provides a valuable perspective on human behavior and morals.

Scientists studying animal behavior do not label species or individual animals bad or evil. In the scientific view, animals behave as they must to succeed. Some species may be aggressive, such as the honey badger. Animals such as sharks may be considered dangerous to humans. Certain animals (e.g., snakes, wolves) are considered evil in myth, superstition, and religion. But that moral framework, with a few exceptions.[i],  has been dropped as scientific methods have been applied to animal behavior.

It is revealing that many animals behave in ways considered wrong or even evil if done by humans. Some animals, such as dolphins, “rape” females. Some animals murder rivals. Infanticide is not uncommon in lions and primates. Several species kill for pleasure and not for food. There are species, particularly ants, that practice slavery. There are even examples of genocide-like behavior where one group will annihilate another group of the same or similar species.

These abhorrent behaviors are considered natural and adaptive. The behavior might make us queasy; the female praying mantis killing the male after sex comes to mind. But we don’t label a species as bad or evil or under the influence of Satan. They are behaving in logical ways from an evolutionary perspective.

Are Humans Different from Other Animals?

So why consider similar human behavior bad and the perpetrators evil? The standard answer is free will. Many believe only humans have free will. Only humans can consciously choose to behave one way or another. We can consciously decide what actions are wrong and choose not to take them.

Is the assumption that only humans have free will valid? The evidence suggests that some animals have a degree of free will. Dogs and some primates show the ability to delay gratification. They can pass the “marshmallow test” and not eat the treat in front of them if they think they will get a better treat in the future. Some animals, such as dolphins, will care for sick and injured members. Several primates adopt orphan infants. There are numerous examples of complex problem-solving and using tools by crows and chimpanzees. There is recent evidence of animals using natural ingredients as medicine.

Some animals, such as certain primates, elephants, and dolphins, seem to follow some moral principles that are partly learned. Learned behavior suggests the ability to choose and the existence of will. Their ability may be much less than humans, but it likely exists to some extent.

Humans are not very different from other animals in much of their behavior. Humans’ innate behavioral tendencies result from the same evolutionary processes affecting other animals. Nearly any human behavior now considered bad or evil is likely a successful evolutionary adaptation. These adaptions include our aggression, desire for status and sex, a predisposition for hierarchy, an affinity for family and tribe, and the often unconscious drive to have offspring that survive. Somehow, individuals prone to these behaviors had more children. Human history frequently shows that evil behavior produces success for the perpetrators. The behavior we consider evil today likely was a successful evolutionary strategy whether we like it or not.

The history of conquest clearly illustrates this point. Tribes and early civilizations aggressively attacked one another, committing atrocities in the process such as torture, slaughtering of innocents, and, importantly, rape and slavery. The visitors gained needed resources. They also gained access to more women. The result was more children. Our aggressive and brutal nature works for the selfish gene.

Evil as a Cultural Adaptation.

Our greatly expanded ability to learn and create culture sets humans apart. Other animals learn and have culture. Learning can be passed on. But the ability of humans to capture knowledge and pass it on dramatically exceeds that of other animals. No other animal, for example, can write or has complex language.

Evil is likely a human invention incorporated into culture to help us succeed. Rather than a pre-existing force acting upon us, we imposed the idea of evil on ourselves. It is a mechanism to discourage no longer advantageous behavior and encourage helpful behavior such as group cohesion.

DNA drives much of biologically determined behavior, making it hard to change. Culture can also alter behavior and, converely, can respond more quickly to changing conditions. Evil may be seen as moral restrictions humans have imposed to produce a society more conducive to thriving. It is the antidote to letting our natures run free without controls in a world where that is now dysfunctional.

The idea of evil likely evolved slowly, long before the start of recorded history. However, the concept became more developed and entrenched as humans moved from small tribes of hunters and gatherers to early civilizations with larger communities, domesticated animals, and farmed crops. A new set of rules was needed. Reason, logic, and experience were producing better ways of surviving.

The concept of evil has many impacts. Controlling maladaptive behavior within a society is a major one. But it may also facilitate group cohesion. It can reinforce our innate suspicion of outsiders to strengthen the community. Paradoxically, this impact may cause evil behavior focused externally on a community’s enemies.

Social systems (economic, political, religious, cultural) through customs, morals, and laws now govern most of our behavior. It is our collective wisdom, tested over time, on what works best for human well-being. Human culture, in most cases, incorporates the learning that there are better ways of achieving survival success than following some of our instincts.

The uneven process of cultural adaption continues, even accelerates, in modern times. Commonly held views of evil have changed markedly in the last several centuries. The enlightment changed culture substantially concerning evil and morality in general. In ancient times, behaviors admired and considered proper and good are now viewed as abhorant.

Overall, cultural progress has reduced the magnitude of evil. Culture has exerted some control over evil and moved us toward a more peaceful world. Overwhelming evidence such as the number of violent deaths shows we live in a far safer world, with less evil, than the one we evolved in. Human nature has not changed in the last 6,000 years. But civilization has. However, we are a long way from solving the problem of the mismatch between parts of our nature and our environment.

The Context for Evil

Context provides insights into the cause of evil. Few people see themselves as evil, even if others do. Often, they believe they are doing what is right and good. Stalin, responsible for the death of millions of his people, was a true believer in socialism. He saw the actions he and his comrades took as necessary to bring the benefits of socialism to his country. His country was emerging from feudalism, and he saw capitalism as more of the same. Even recognizing that innocent people would be killed in his purges, he believed it was essential for the overall good of his people.  

Humans have a strong propensity for group cohesion and loyalty. Sometimes, circumstances arise where that predisposition is reinforced and strengthened. Killing enemies, internal and external, has a strong foundation in human nature. Throughout history, times of great change (technological, political, population growth, etc.) have spawned strong group identities, leading to conflict and evil. A cause (socialism, religion, conquest of territory, opportunities for a better life), often paired with the deterioration of an existing culture, create the context where primitive instincts (killing, rape, destruction) can be unleashed. These situations can produce a social environment where evil behavior seems appropriate and even praised.

Atrocities have been a regular feature of human history. The historical record has many examples of atrocities committed to pursue a larger goal. Commonly, the perpetrators were considered heroes. The details of today’s atrocities are eerily similar to historical atrocities. Circumstances can strongly affect the expression of the darker parts of our nature.

Context does not absolve mass murders. What they did was outside the current norms of behavior. But it should temper our response with the understanding some of this arises from our nature.

Mental illness is another factor in understanding evil. It has long been a legal principle that some people lack the cognitive ability to understand and control their behavior. They can have abnormal desires and emotions. Some people may be driven by their nature to do bad things, and some may not be able to control those urges.

A subset of the mentally ill are the sociopaths. A small portion of the population is born lacking the ability to empathize. Empathy is one of the fundamental “moral sentiments” that helps us treat others as we want to be treated. Without feedback from empathy, people do not feel guilty about bad behavior. They may know it is bad, but it does not bother them. They must rely solely on conscious awareness of social rules and have the will to adhere to them. Often, that fails, and they can do terrible things without remorse.

Are people who are mentally ill and psychologically damaged who do bad things evil? In some cases, yes. A person may have unnatural urges, sadism, for example, but still can control their behavior. If they act on their desires, then perhaps they are evil. However, others may lack the ability to control their behavior. Here, maybe evil is not a good description.

Understanding the context within which evil arises helps explain how it can happen. Context doesn’t make evil into good. However, it does provide insights that are important for formulating strategies to control and prevent evil.

Confronting and Preventing Evil

With a conceptual foundation in place – a definition and an understanding of the roots and enablers for evil- the task is to figure out what to do about evil. What should someone do when they encounter evil and how do we what is our role in preventing evil?

Use the Term Evil Sparingly

Avoid labeling people and actions evil when they aren’t. Too often, typical bad behavior is labeled evil. Even objectionable opinions and beliefs, not actions, have been called evil. Much bad behavior does not rise to the level of evil. People can be rude, thoughtless, liars, obnoxious, and mean. People may hurt others on purpose. People may advocate for policies that some find abhorrent. Describing these people and actions as evil makes the concept overly broad. Bad and criminal behavior must be opposed, of course. There are well-established means for addressing bad behavior.

However, preventing and punishing evil behavior requires greater collective action and, sometimes, sacrifice. Some evil warrants extreme actions, such as war. That is the reason for applying the term evil selectively. Evil needs to be a term with impact, not merely an expression of our displeasure or opposition.

Confront Evil, Don’t Avoid It

Action is necessary when encountering evil. If, after careful examination and thought, we find that a person, group, or set of beliefs is evil, we should not stand by. The quote, attributed to Edmund Burke and others, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” captures the need for action.

Individuals can do much to confront evil. One simple but powerful action is speaking up when encountering an evil action, person, or idea. Ignoring evil is often too easy if it is not yet at our doorstep. Sharing our views and rationale can be bold and risky. But by speaking up, others are encouraged to think more deeply about the situation and perhaps speak up themselves. Those actions can lead to a consensus opposing evil. Many evils can be controlled only through the actions of many. That is possible if people speak up about the evil they see.

There are, of course, formal actions to oppose evil. People can be prosecuted if laws are broken. New laws and policies can be enacted if needed. Organized collective actions can be taken.

It is only practical to pick our battles. There is much evil in the world. We cannot right every wrong. But we should not always be on the sidelines, either. We should wisely use our time and resources where we can be most effective.

We should avoid countering evil by being evil. It is tempting when exposed to the horrors of evil to visit the same horrors on the perpetrators. It may be emotionally satisfying, but it merely perpetuates evil. Some of the most protracted conflicts come from evil responses to evil, producing even more evil.

There are cases where conventional sanctions are insufficient. Most involve countries or groups operating outside the purview of our laws. Sometimes, force is appropriate. The US rightly went to war against the evil behavior of Germany and Japan. Groups and countries can get swept up in ideologies and violent passions that lead to evil behavior. They exist; they feed on the worst parts of our nature. They will prevail without committed opposition.

Forceful actions may have bad consequences for innocent people. That is why it should be the last resort. It is essential to fully understand the situation and consider alternatives to force for curtailing evil behavior. Only proceed down the path of force when no alternative is practical.

Contribute to Preventing Evil

Prevention is the best strategy for evil. We should make it difficult for evil to emerge. Culture is the most potent tool. A strong culture with good laws and accepted behavioral norms creates a hostile environment for evil. Over millennia, human civilization and culture evolved to control or at least moderate the dysfunctional parts of our nature that can lead to evil.

Some basic principles have emerged, primarily since the Enlightenment, that have significantly facilitated human thriving. These principles include the rule of law, reliance on reason and science, free speech, religious freedom, and government by the consent of the governed. These foundations of modern Western civilization have worked to create high-trust societies where people can strive to be happy. Underlying these principles is the basic fact that humans do better when they cooperate than when they fight.

Culture does not always get it right. Civilization is forever a work in progress. Every culture has features contrary to thriving. Some cultures are better at facilitating human flourishing than others.

Cultures and civilizations do not always move forward. Many backslide. Countries once safe and prosperous can become dangerous, poor, and corrupt. We should not assume a thriving society will continue to succeed. People should not take the foundations of success for granted. Constant attention to the critical foundations of culture is needed.

Despite the problems, culture or civilization is the antidote to our nature’s dysfunctional and poisonous tendencies. The benefits of a successful culture are readily apparent. A review of many ancient and modern examples shows the horror resulting from a collapsed culture.

All this leads to the need for individual responsibility to strengthen culture, reinforce positive behavior, and sanction bad. We have daily opportunities to do as part of our civic, work, and private lives. It is an argument for active engagement in civic life where we do our part to build and maintain a strong culture.

Virtuous behavior is an essential way to strengthen culture. America’s founders were concerned that a democracy, no matter how well designed, would not survive if the people were not virtuous. Political and social scientists’ theory and research show that high-trust cultures are more successful than low-trust cultures. Virtues play a significant role in high-trust cultures. They provide proven common values and norms of behavior that enable cooperation and mutual support. It is hard for evil to gain traction in a high-trust society. Bad behavior stands out when everyone expects good behavior.

The rules set by governments, companies, and other institutions are a necessary part of culture. They are how much behavior is controlled and guided. We have many opportunities to participate in setting those rules and policies. It can occur through our political processes. However, it can also happen through work and our involvement with other organizations such as churches.

Making rules and policies in a free society is a messy business. Developing and implementing policy in a complex society is difficult. Simple solutions are rare. And there are different perspectives and ideas from well-meaning people. Debates are necessary and good. A society’s collective wisdom can be applied to solving its problems only through the contest of ideas.

Engagement in the rule-setting and policy process should be done with respect, good intentions, and a willingness to understand other points of view. The goal should not be to have our way triumph. Instead, the goal is to make sustainable progress. No rule, policy, or moral norm survives long without the broad support of the affected people.

A part of engagement in building a solid culture is our role in addressing common bad behavior. This is behavior far short of evil. But left unchecked, it can grow. But how we go about correcting and punishing bad behavior is critical. An approach that is too lax or too harsh doesn’t work.

A few principles have helped guide me in addressing bad behavior. One is having some empathy for the person misbehaving. This does not mean we feel sorry for a person, but we can understand why they might have behaved as they did. All people have the capacity to do terrible things. That understanding alone should help us pause in judgment long enough to understand the situation.

Another principle is seeking wisdom in applying justice. Wise people use judgment when administering justice to achieve better outcomes than black-and-white rule-following. Seek what is fair to all parties and will likely reduce future bad behavior. This is difficult because so many factors are at play when someone misbehaves. Separating and appropriately weighing the various factors takes considerable knowledge and thought. However, wisdom in applying justice is one of the hallmarks of a flourishing civilization.

To conclude my thoughts on preventing evil. We are essential in creating and maintaining a strong culture where evil cannot get the upper hand. It involves working on both sides. We need to do our part to encourage and reward good behavior. At the same time, we need to discourage and punish bad behavior. Bad behavior cannot gain the necessary traction to become evil in societies where citizens are committed to the principles of a high-trust culture.

[i] Occaionally some species are referred to as bad because they have been labled invasive. There are even scientifically approved genocide campaigns to rid us of certain invasive species. But these seem more an ideological battle about human influence on nature aesthetic preferences.