you're reading...
ethics, happienss addiction, Ironic games, My Voice, Odds and Ends


Evil Looking On to itselfEvil tries to be complicated.  Its methods are tricky–working by indirection and opposites, by mirror-effects and sleight of hand.  But how evil operates is not the same type of complexity as it is in every day thought.  What evil means in our context relates to a collapse of faith in the markets.  If radical enough, and global, evil opens a trapdoor upon yet another dimension of chaos, wherein unarguably evil characters emerge–evildoers, indeed–and do terrible harm in the world.  This is the point that evil harkens back to its roots of the word in Old English (yvel) suggest ” exceeding due measure” or “overstepping proper limits.”  Therefore evil in the organizational sense is the word we use when we come to the limit of humane comprehension.


The question of evil is one of why we, as rational and capable beings, cause avoidable suffering?


Permissible evil has the sanction of custom and experience.  It is the human compromise with a force otherwise too corrupting, too radioactive, too horrifying, for ordinary life to tolerate.  Permissible evil accommodates hypocrisy and, in doing so, domesticates evil.  Permissible evil is the evil we can live with.  It allows us to escape from the intimidating absolute that the word “evil,” used alone, implies.



We have good reason to fear the understanding of evil, because understanding seems to involve some sort of identification. But what we do not understand at all we cannot detect or resist.  We have somehow to understand, without accepting, what goes on in the hearts of the wicked.


So, for example the retributive function of justice, exercised in the name of outraged society, overrides the prohibition against killing, even thought that prohibition comes with nothing less than the warrant of Sinai.  So as war makes evil permissible.  So, at its worst, does religion, which, like war, has its rationales of righteousness and grants itself moral indulgences.  The evil is often transformed by war and claims of necessity: laundered from spotty and veil to gray and tolerated.


What is the law then?  That the atrocious act committed in retaliation for great evil is permissible and therefore, somehow, not evil?  If you initiate the evil, you are evil; but if you reply to evil with more evil, then that retaliation is not evil, but something else?

About Reputationist

When I started this blog in 2007 the following is what I was up to - things have changed - some. I'm what my handle states - an Oldude. The problem with this acknowledgment is my thinking and ambitions have not quite got the message of my "oldness". I've started an online Coaching practice and my rant is about how to improve long term happiness - For the World. My thing, I believe I can change the world - isn't that a hoot. The way I intend to change the world is to foster a wider and deeper appreciation for "mindfulness": The daring, flair and grace of Jayz; the political savvy of Cornel West; the creativity of Mos Def with the business and cultural daring of Richard Simmons. I've thought enough - being a philosopher of sorts - and trained hard with some of the sharpest minds ever on the planet - Cornel West and Michel Foucault to know the total absurdity of trying to change the world - but I do and I will. There it is showing my age again.



  1. Pingback: Evil « Hwaito's Blog - July 21, 2010

  2. Pingback: Evil is as Evil Does!(Reciprocity Series 3 of 4) « On Happiness - April 12, 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Happiness is being followed

%d bloggers like this: