The Illusion of “Evil”Evil is an entirely subjective concept created by humans, and there is nothing inherently evil in nature or the universe. Primitive cultures believed that natural calamities were manifestations of evil. It was in this way that humanity first began to personify adverse circumstances or tragedy so that they could attempt to master attendant anxiety. Yet in the formal structure of evolutionary theory and natural selection, there is no designation for evil. The relentless and often brutal manner of natural selection may dispose us to a belief in so-called natural evil, while the reality is that this is nothing more than our own subjective interpretation. Further, our own interpretations are invariably ambiguous, culture-bound, and likely to evolve over time.The word evil has very ancient origins. It is “emotionally loaded, morally judgmental, full of brimstone and fire” . When evil is used to define an individual, it has a strongly damning consequence. The word evil inescapably invokes religious and mythological mind-sets, which were responsible for its origin. It summons the supernatural, the mystic, and the esoteric. Labeling someone as evil suggests that he or she is beyond redemption. Defining someone as evil also suggests that the person is permanently beyond human understanding, a sentiment that is contrary to scientific principles. Perhaps the most objective conclusion one could reach about evil is that it is a term associated with considerable linguistic ambiguity, with various meanings to different people.At best, the label evil is a mere subjective abstraction. Indeed, having it remain so obscured may serve a useful psychological purpose, that of disavowing any similarity with ourselves. When confronted with a group of “others,” history has shown our natural proclivity for falling into the trap of projection, which allows us to demonize our “enemies.” Further confounding the concept of evil is the conundrum: Evil from whose perspective? The victim's perspective? The perpetrator's? The layperson's? All will be different, and all will simply consist of that individual's subjective conception of how evil is portrayed. Biases and distortions can be expected to be the rule and not the exception. As Baumeister notes, the victim's perspective is essential for a moral evaluation of the evil acts, but is ruinous for a causal understanding of them.Ultimately, viewing evil as a distinct or quantifiable concept is an illusion. The real causes of violent or harmful behavior are always different from the way people think of evil, because it is myth and illusion that provide the definition. Baumeister10 has termed this the “myth of pure evil,” and notes, “the face of evil is no one's real face—it is always a false image that is imposed or projected on the opponent” (Ref. 10, p 62). In contrast, what is not illusory is man's history of feeling justified in committing atrocities against individuals who are labeled evil. Herein lies one of the strongest cautions against embracing a subjective moral concept and portraying it as science within the misplaced certainty of religious morality.To the best of our current and limited knowledge, people are led to commit acts of intentional harm by a complex interaction of biological, psychological, and social forces in concert with situational variables. One set of factors affects and is affected by the others and very likely cannot stand on its own. Behavioral science has made efforts to study objectively each of these factors, mostly in a reductionistic approachIn any individual case, the forensic psychiatrist must objectively weave them together in an accurate, coherent narrative.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/yours-cube/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.