RETURN TO SPIRITUALITY PAGE | E-MAIL ME

DEFINING EVIL

One complaint often made about free-lance spirituality is its perceived tendency to ignore or minimize the issue of human evil. While religion is seen as the corrective to evil, spirituality is often accused of being blissfully blind to it, preferring to see it not as a problem to be corrected but a part of nature to be understood. It is as if evil can simply be explained out of existence, the objection goes, resulting in a "head-in-the-sand" approach to the what seems to be a very real problem for humanity.

So how does spirituality see this thing we call evil? Does it turn a blind eye to human suffering and tyranny, preferring instead to concentrate on more pleasant things, or does it have something to say about it after all? The answer might surprise you.

Spirituality does not minimize or ignore evil. It's just that while religion tends to spend its energies defining, bemoaning, absolving and punishing evil, spirituality prefers to recognize evil as a natural element of our nature and a reflection of both humanity's and an individual's spiritual state. In other words, evil (as well as good) is a type of spiritual report card that charts our progress, both collectively and personally, along our spiritual path.

But this does nothing to solve the problem of evil, the religionist may say, which is true enough. However, this statement betrays two misconceptions: one, that which we call "evil" is an imperfection or flaw in our nature and, second, that it is something that must be "fixed" before we are acceptable to God. In other words, religion says that we are a fallen race that started out pure but slid into sin, and that it is religion that is attempting to bring us back to that original sinless state—if not in reality, at least from God's perspective. That is the rationale behind most religion: it is an attempt to purge ourselves of the lusts, selfishness, and immortality that assumedly make us less than human.

Yet it is these very "shortcomings" that make us human in the first place and, effectively, give religion any role in our life. After all, if we were not fallen angels—so to speak—we should have no real use for religion at all. In fact, we would have no use for God in general, as we would be perfect reflections of the Divine nature. In effect, God would become redundant if humanity was sinless.

Before examining this issue further, however, it might first be helpful to better define what evil is. Evil is a word which everyone imagines they understand, yet when pressed for a firm definition it becomes quickly obvious that the word has as many different meanings and applications as does the term love—another phrase which is so overused that it has lost nearly all of its true meaning.

Evil is generally thought to be an act—or, sometimes, an attitude—that is at variance with a society's generally agreed upon set of moral imperatives. In effect, it is the position that there are certain behaviors, actions, or thoughts that the larger population in general considers to be so unacceptable and inappropriate as to be considered "evil." For example, sexual promiscuity is generally perceived to be an evil (of lesser or greater degree depending upon ones personal opinion) but what makes it so? The promiscuous person is engaging in an action—sexual intercourse—that is commonly done by the majority of adult human beings. If engaged in within the proper context of monogamous marriage, it is considered a natural and even a healthy form of human expression. Yet this same activity, done outside the social institutions of marriage and monogamy, makes the act evil. The act itself is technically no different whether performed within the context of marriage or in the context of a one night stand, yet done outside the properly designated social conventions it is considered a sin by most and a great evil by many. Obviously, in many cases it is the culture or collective consciousness that determines which things are to be considered good and which things are to be considered evil.

To further reinforce this point, suppose one lived in a society in which sexual expression of all kinds were given free reign. In fact, imagine that in this "culture of love" it was considered inappropriate—even "sinful"—to withhold the free expression of one's sexual nature. In this case, such a society would decide that evil resided in a person's refusal to indulge their passionate nature as that nature demanded. One could become a social pariah for insisting upon monogamy and celibacy would be looked upon much the same way we tend to look upon promiscuity. In this case, everything we understand about the term "evil" would be turned upon its head and our sacrosanct definitions of good and bad would go out the window.

Additionally, the definition of sin or evil varies from individual to individual as well. Someone raised in a rigid, legalistic home might consider nudity in any context to be evil while those raised in a more liberal environment might not be particularly offended by even the most graphic pornography. In fact, entire cultures alter their opinions of what constitutes evil, often with remarkable speed, simply as an element of their growth. For example, when I was a boy, cohabitation and pre-marital sex were considered great sins while ethnic jokes, racism, and sexism were not. Today unmarried couplings—both straight and gay—are becoming increasingly accepted while sexist or racially stereotyped humor and both overt and subtle racism are considered the great sins of our day. Of course, some actions remain unacceptable and are considered as evil today as they were then, but for the most part society changes to fit the new moral dynamics of its age, both responding to the new mores and serving to reshape them at the same time. Definitions of morality, then, are constantly shifting and have been throughout history, with one generation considering another generation either irredeemably wicked and degenerate or hopelessly naive, quaint, and old-fashioned.

Even if we accept, however, that tastes and morals shift from era to era and culture to culture, what of actions we normally consider universally evil such as murder, lying, stealing, and rape? Doesn't this demonstrate that an objective standard exists?

Again, it's all a matter of context. Most people would agree that murder is always wrong, and yet in the context of abortion, capital punishment, self-defense, and war murder is usually considered acceptable (though it usually is not labeled as such. That is the value of euphemisms.) It can be imagined that almost every act we define as "evil" might be considered acceptable—even "good"—in the proper context. The point being that the carefully articulated standards of "right" and "wrong" we have spent so many centuries crafting for ourselves are largely illusory and subjective, making any definition of the term "evil" suspect at best and most probably impossible.

But what of the Nazi's and the Holocaust, or Stalin's brutal gulags, or the genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda? Clearly these are great evils that can't be dismissed as mere cultural anomalies.

Again, regardless of what you or I think of men like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot or what our opinions of the Holocaust or the killing fields of Cambodia are, it must be remembered we are looking at all of it from a single perspective. Obviously, the Nazis did not consider the Final Solution to be evil (although perhaps a few of them may have had some misgivings about it some point) but considered it a means of improving the quality of life for the "Aryan" race by exterminating the Jews and other "sub humans." Stalin was bringing—from his perspective—stability and the fruits of blessed Communism to the masses with the exterminations of "traitors" and other undesirables the necessary price to be paid for a Socialist utopia to be eventually realized. Perhaps much the same mindset was in play in Cambodia and Rwanda as thousands were slaughtered for the "purification" of the state or the "safety" of the tribe. The point is that the very mindset that produces an Auschwitz also produces a Hiroshima; the difference being that who's perspective is right is always determined by the victors. Had the Germans won the Second World War and gone on to create a powerful and prosperous Third Reich as Hitler and his henchmen dreamed, the Holocaust would have been portrayed as a necessary—albeit unpleasant—step in achieving that goal. Is this any different from America using the desire to end a war to justify exterminating thousands of civilians with an atomic bomb? Both sides had noble goals in mind—at least from their perspectives. Both destroyed innocent civilians in an effort to achieve those goals. The difference is not one of tactics but of motives, and yet it is only within the context of history that the final determination of who's motive was more pure or justified is made. Goals are always noble when seen from the proper perspective, and almost always evil when viewed through another lens.

So what does this do for our definition of evil? Are we to assume there is no such thing?

Not at all, for while our definitions are not necessarily universal or absolute, they are valuable in that they define ourselves as a culture and as an individual. They make a statement about where we are collectively and personally on our spiritual path, and therefore are a necessary part of the process of growth. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world serve a function in that process, for they hold mirrors up to ourselves and make us look hard at the reflections they cast. Hitler did not create anti-Semitism; it had been ingrained in European culture for thousands of years. He simply used it to show us what such an attitude, when given free-reign and codified into a nation's laws, would look like in practice. The evil we do as a community and as an individual, then, far from condemning us, merely reflects what we are on the inside. The ugliness is not in the mirror but in the visage of the person who's reflection it is.

In so doing, however, he give humanity the opportunity to pause and carefully reflect upon its own attitudes. To our credit, usually we did not like what it shows us about ourselves and we changed, yet would we have had the incentive to do so without the mass graves and cremated remains of millions of innocents? Hitler and the Nazis demonstrated like nothing else could what cruelty could be perpetrated upon humanity in the name of "progress" if we did not change our attitudes. It was a hard lesson that nothing short of a Holocaust could have taught us. He and those "dark" souls like him show us—albeit unintentionally—what a cancer racism can be if left untreated. For that, they've earned our gratitude alongside of our scorn.

As such, it could be argued that without evil, spiritual growth would not be possible or even definable. If we have no racism to combat or despot to overthrow or Auschwitz to get angry about, we have no context within which to understand goodness. There is no context by which good can be defined without evil; in effect, it is evil which defines good (and vice versa.) I suppose in the realm of pure spirit goodness is all there is, yet I suspect it is our experiences on this plane of existence which makes it possible to appreciate it at all. In effect, it is hell on Earth that makes Heaven heavenly.

Unfortunately, this makes it seem that evil, then, is in a strange sort of way, a "good" thing. In fact, we might even be tempted to argue that the more evil the better, for it will only enhance its opposite all the more. In effect, evil behavior might even be encouraged, one could argue, to make Heaven all the more pleasurable. But such an attitude is looking at only half of the equation. Yes, evil does enhance the benefits and joys of goodness, but the same holds true for evil as well. It is goodness that makes evil so despicable. It is selflessness that makes selfishness so unbecoming; it is the death of a "good" man that makes his murderer so reprehensible (notice how people rarely hold great animosity for the murderer of an "evil" man, even if done in cold blood.) But more to the point, whether evil is beneficial to our spiritual progress or not is irrelevant because those actions that we label as "evil" are an inevitable part of existence. Evil was not created nor did it come into the world through Adam and Eve's disobedience in eating a forbidden fruit. It simply is and, presumably, always will be as long as sentient life takes on physical form somewhere in this universe. It is the price of existence and of cost of experiencing that existence. To wish it away or invent magic formulas designed to "wipe out" evil is pointless and futile, which is where religion ultimately fails. Evil cannot be destroyed any more than cold can be destroyed, leaving nothing but hot in its place, for the one cannot exist without the other. The point is not whether there is evil and whether we can or should do anything about it; the question is how does that which we define as evil define us and how do we choose to respond to it? How you answer that will say more about yourself than anything else could.

Yet we still haven't defined what evil is from the perspective of spirituality, beyond to suggest that evil is what we decide it is. This, however, is an oversimplification. There are certain characteristics of evil that are unmistakable and generally definable, and are understood only as we define what spirituality is trying to teach us. Therefore, perhaps the best way to define evil is to look at every action, every thought, and every deed from the context of what spirituality or, more precisely, love is trying to do. For example, all actions, thoughts, and deeds should be examined from the perspective of whether it encourages, enhances, and helps us in spiritually advancing or whether it impedes, retards, or diminishes that walk. In other words, if I do such and such to you know who, will it help me achieve spiritual understanding and enlightenment, or will it arrest it? Notice, it's not a question of whether it will personally benefit me, or if it will be good for America, or whether it would make things easier for my family, but will it personally help or hinder me in my spiritual walk. It is not about individual or collective gain, but spiritual gain, and spiritual gain may not—and, indeed, often is not—personally or collectively beneficial. It may mean sacrifice. It may mean doing without or not being proven right or letting someone else have their way. It may be difficult—even nearly impossible.

Yet when every decision, thought, and action is viewed through such a lens, the issue of good versus bad is less prone towards bias and subjectivity, at least if one is serious about spiritually evolving. If my decision is based upon what is best for my spiritual evolution, decisions of right and wrong become obvious. Which course we are to pursue comes from within. It is our heart that tells us—if we do not suppress or ignore it—which is the proper course of action in any situation.

As far as I can see, it seems to work something like this: we are two part beings—part physical and part spiritual. Our physical inclinations are determined by our conscious decisions: we consciously desire things and so we consciously pursue them (sometimes to our own detriment.) Our spiritual inclinations, however, are determined by our subconscious (or, if you prefer, our 'higher conscience'). It tells us on a "gut instinct" level what we need, not necessarily what we want. The subconscious is interested only in spiritual growth in the same way that all living things are determined to grow. That's not to say it ignores the needs of the physical body, but spiritual growth comes when we give our highest, purest, and most giving instincts free-reign, even when it means denying ourselves some earthly pleasure or possession. It is the price of evolution, but in the end it is well worth it for there is a payoff: when we routinely endeavor to follow our highest instincts, eventually our physical, conscious nature learns to conform to the goals of the subconscious, spiritual nature and a type of perfect emotional and spiritual unity follows.

I firmly believe most mental illness and dissatisfaction with life stems from the failure of our natural and spiritual natures to mesh. That is why we are at war with ourselves, as our two sides battle for dominance. This is not a battle between good and evil—though it frequently appears that way—but a battle between two wills; one towards fulfilling the desires of the flesh for physical pleasure, comfort, and security, and the other towards fulfilling the higher obligation towards spiritual development.

Think of the physical or conscious nature as being the child part of ourselves and the spiritual or subconscious nature as being the parent part. Now the child wants all kinds of things it really doesn't need, often attaching great importance to genuinely trivial things and pursuits. It hates to take no for an answer and pouts if it doesn't get its way. It throws temper tantrums and refuses to take responsibility for its emotional laziness. It believes the world owes it a living, and imagines itself a good little boy or girl, loved by all. All the while this is going on, however, the subconscious, like a patient and loving parent, is standing by, watching the child, giving it advice as requested and gently leading it away from danger. It works behind the scenes, so to speak, quietly leading the child through the dangers and temptations of life, trying to protect it from its own stubbornness, ignorance, and foolishness. Most of what it does goes unrecognized by the child, who actually considers the parent a hindrance to its fun. Additionally, the parent is limited in what it can do. It must fight between its desire to protect and its desire to let the child learn from its mistakes. Sometimes the child wins out and the parent can only watch helplessly as it rebels towards its own destruction, but in most cases—especially if there is a desire for spiritual growth evident in the child—the little one will eventually grow into a mature and responsible adult itself. Then, at last, just as a rebellious teenager sometimes returns to the wisdom and counsel of its parents later in life, the two halves form a close bond of mutual love and respect, the child now acting as a voluntary conduit for the wisdom of the parent. In effect, in highly advanced spiritual beings, the two halves merge to form a single whole, resulting in a perfect peace and contentment that is the essence of the Divine. That is enlightenment. That is Nirvana. And that, my friend, is the whole point of the game and, with it, the point of this thing we call evil.

TOP | SPIRITUALITY PAGE | HOME