What is the Nature of Evil?

[huscarl]

Greetings,

This is my first post here and I have just got back into writing recently - after a decade off. I hope to write a novel to cut my teeth on and then a trilogy set in the same world. The setting is medieval low-fantasy with a little magic thrown in. The distilled plot line might be hero(es) versus evil.


I have dozens of scenes and many pages of notes that have been written over ten to twelve years. I am trying to set myself some parameters to continue and I am wrestling with the following:

What is the nature of Evil?

My first thoughts are that humans are the agents. Now what motivates them? Their own greed, fear and lust are prime movers, but is there anything underneath those “sins?” Who or what seeks to use those desires to manipulate the players to an end that (the) evil seeks?


Evil does exist in people and is evident by their actions for self enrichment and self preservation. Now is that Evil sentient? Some might say the Devil or Demons or Spirits…. That is the story here on Earth. What is the answer in my story?


I have recently read R. Scott Bakker’s Darkness Trilogy & the Obsidian Trilogy by Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory and am currently reading George RR Martin’s Game of Thrones. I have liked each book immensely and it was after reading Bakker’s work that I wanted write again.


Each story has its agents and string pullers. The Obsidian books good versus evil goes the route of heroes versus Demons and their gods. Martin’s good versus evil seems to just have the inherent evil that exists in humans. Bakker on the other hand has something so very insidious that even he may not know who or what is pulling the strings.


What exactly is the nature of the MY evil to be? Should it be internal, external but human or something supernatural? Could it just be SUPER natural?


…but I think that I want something else. Something darker wielding the strings and gently or not so gently guiding character actions to make them truly evil – an evil that is primordial. I just have to think about how that influence wields its power. Another consideration is whether it is REAL (read sentient?) or nothing more than the cold hard universe (read the author?), pointing the character in just the right way.


I guess my conundrum lies in what kind of evil do I want. If any of you have had this dilemma yourself please be kind and provide me any insight as how you solved this particular mess. Or pull my strings and point me somewhere…. ; )


Thank you and Good Night.

[Aes]

Originally Posted by huscarl

Greetings,

This is my first post here and I have just got back into writing recently - after a decade off. I hope to write a novel to cut my teeth on and then a trilogy set in the same world.

Hi, welcome to my world! (I kid you not) Anyway, given what you've said, I'd say the more interesting route would be the concept of internal, inherent evil and how it guides your character, especially if he believes he's being manipulated when it's him all along. Just be aware that this will be more difficult to write about without making your readers hate your character (and possibly put them off to any future stories in this universe) by the time the story reaches its end.

It's been awhile since I posted here; I had to log in.

[The Curious Orange]

See, in the real world, I don't believe in good and evil. People do things that other people regard as evil, but I don't think they are necessarily acting out of evil, black-hat wearing, moustache-twiddling motives.
Yes, there are serial killers, paedophiles, etc, that many of us would regard as evil. But if you were to visit inside their heads, I'm sure that you'd find they were mentally ill and severely disturbed. Same as people like Hitler or Pol Pot - I'm sure they would be able to offer positive justifications for their actions - all for the good of the country, that sort of thing. Unsavoury as it is to admit, Hitler had huge popular support for his policies.

On the other hand, even good people do things that have a negative effect on people. We've all hurt people, broken up with them and made them cry, or bought cheap clothes manufactured in Third world sweatshops. Very few of us can claim to be truly good.

I think what I'm trying to say is that presenting your hero in a white hat and you villan in a black one results in cliched melodrama. It's far more interesting to read about shades of grey. Odd that you mention Martin and Bakker - Who are the bad guys there? Kellus may look like a bad guy, but isn't he just working to a greater good, one that treats people as expendable? The nearest Westeros comes to a good guy is Ned Stark, and look what happened to him. Everyone wears a grey hat. It's what makes those books so interesting.

[Ursa major]

When someone tells you about "the Greater Good", it's time to worry.

I'm almost drawn to the thought that, just as evil doesn't really exist as such, although there are evil acts, the same can be said of "good". Good for whom, is always a good () question to ask when presented with something said to be "good". (Being somewhat sentimental, though, I still cling onto the thought that there is real good out there.)

I think some of this has been rehearsed in the Goodkind Wizard Rules thread (whatever it's called). Good isn't good just because someone says it is.

What your characters (and you, as the author) are left with is a more complex scenario, as The Curious Orange has suggested. It is up to you how much of this you show in your story.

Personally, I think a really good antagonist for your hero is one with depth, one who may cut corners, may ignore the feelings and rights (including that of life) of others, but who, in their own mind at least, is out to achieve something "good". An out and out mindless sadist is usually dull, beyond the invention (you the author) put into their cruel acts.

[Nik]

When you sieve the 'sick-mad' from the Evil mix, you may find a few sociopaths. IIRC, the loose definition is they are indisputably rational except for a lack of regard for others.

Um, I'd draw a careful distinction between those 'born', and those 'made'.

The former seems to be a developmental thing, the latter's a 'hurt'.

Either they lack one vital aspect of empathy, or they've lost the 'extended' game-theory that holds societies together...

If they find a legal niche, they have their uses. If they stay 'loose cannon', they're going to create a heap of hurt. If they slide over the line into self-gratification, their potential for evil is remarkable...

FX: Shudder...

[Giovanna Clairval]

Huscarl, I am sorry, but Primordial Evil does not exist.

It is a human fantasy.

As Nik said, evil person equals ill person. Among the so-called crazy people, this is the only, real in-sanus, where "sanus" means "healthy". The unhealthy one becomes insanus in her first years.

Picture a toddler who is trying to insert a metallic slide (a barrette) into a socket. Mum shrieks like a siren, 'NO! Don't touch that!' The toddler jerks her hand away and looks up, marvelling at the awe painted on Mum’s face. Mum is omnipotent. Mum is wise. Mum can even move chairs; and she can haul the whole Toddler up into her arms. She can’t be so upset over something negligible; ergo, the Toddler must have committed a capital crime. This experience marks her to the point that, when Mum enters the room where the crime was consumed, she, the Toddler, points a finger toward the sinful socket and says (with feeling), ‘NO!’

This is called internalisation of interdiction. The child does not need her mother to be present any longer, in order to abide by the Law. The Law (thou shall not touch the Electric Socket) is etched in her heart forever. Sigmund called it “Super Ego”. It is the constable within.

The Toddler grows up and learns to circumvent the Law, but she does so with guilt.

When, at university, she meets the Rebels of the Burning Socket, she can change her basic beliefs, and learn that Electrocution is Joy, but she will always consider the Socket something sinful. Hence her delight in being a Rebel.

Well, my rant is meant to describe to Normal Human Being, the one that respects the Law out of Guilt.

Roger Zelazny depicted guilt as the one element that makes us human. The normal person doesn’t want to (cold-bloodedly) hurt another person. That is because the normal person can imagine the other’s suffering. When the N. P. is Bad (following the local, current definition of “Bad”), she can’t look at her own reflection in a mirror. The normal person, religious or not, can be very upset when she sees the consequences of her actions on other people. A common reaction is not to recognise one’s responsibility: guilt would harm the perpetrator, the image the offender has of herself. Guilt demands courage for one to accept it and overcome it.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a million ways of teaching a normal person how not to be normal, at least in some situations. It is part of the training of soldiers in every army.

But, inside, the Normal Person is still there.

On the other hand, psychopaths never internalise the Law. They grow up with the ability of mimicking it, and many of them learn to be an accepted part of a community.

Once, a psychologist who worked in a psychiatric hospital told me that he had observed X, a psychopath, poking old people’s hands with a fork. X was not “evil”. He just didn’t know that other people were like him, just like him. X could never really feel how another person feels. He was pricking other people’s hands to see what happened to them. If I cut them, do they bleed? X had no empathy whatsoever.

Isn’t empathy the strong movement of the soul, the moment in which we feel for the person who suffers, the moment when we are as one, and we imagine that we are suffering in our own flesh or spirit? She is like me. I can’t hurt her.

Very few people commit atrocities without feeling guilt.

These persons can be horrifying. It is tempting to call them “evil”, if only Evil existed.

Instead of Evil People, we are left with People that are Insane. I think the latter is far more scarier.


If Primordial Evil is a human fantasy, Evil, for us Normal* People, is a just another bad choice in our lives,

such as:

1) Eating toasts, chocolate and Forêt Noire Cake when we have high cholesterol,

2) Eating toasts (and the above) when we have no bad cholesterol, and doing so in front of people listed under (1).

3) Posting instead of writing,

4) Writing when we should be posting.

5) Posting pictures of food in the late hours of the night, when Deli’s are closed.


If 1; 2; 3; 4 induce GUILT in you, you are Normal.


Those who commit 5 are beyond hope.




*This is just a statistical term. Forms of Normality other than statistical do not exist.

[mosaix]

Funny isn't it? Evil is evil unless the Government says it's OK for the Armed Services to do it in defence of the realm, then it's being heroic.

[Sephiroth]

The Government is also kind enough to tell us who is evil, and who isn't.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Exactly, Mosaix. And in that case, you must learn how to behave like a person that doesn't feel for the others.

EDIT: I hadn't seen your post, Sephiroth, and yes, it is funny; and thank you, Ben.

[HardScienceFan]

marvelous expostion,Gio

Damn,husband

ain't she wonderful?
Gio

a short incisive essay

like it
VERY MUCH

[Sephiroth]

In a word, yes.


I'll post my own comments when I've thought some more about it. Or, when I've thought about it some more.

[Aes]

In my original post, I tried to avoid any good/evil perspectives and debates, but since it's come up, I believe an accurate, almost scientific way to view good and evil is like this:

- If an action is performed out of self interest, especially with blatant disregard for the interests of others, then it is evil.

- If an action is performed as a service to others, especially with blatant disregard for one's own interests, then it is good.

Originally Posted by The Curious Orange

I don't think they are necessarily acting out of evil, black-hat wearing, moustache-twiddling motives.

Speak for yourself. When I'm out and about, I carry around large, burlap sack that I use when foraging for orphans to feast upon. Also, I tie maidens to railroad tracks and wring my gloved hands in anticipation of...well to be honest, I'm not quite sure.

[Lith]

The insane seem to also fail to be able to ask themselves if their actions are rational (in short, if they are themselves crazy).

I do think Good and Evil exist, though I think in the real world the two can become so intermixed that you literally can't do one without a little of the other (especially where resources and courses of action are limited).

Reasons people commit evil acts vary; some do it inadvertently, some do it to get even, and some do it for no good reason they can think of, other than to see it happen. Apart from fiction, I don't think there are any people that are simply out to destroy the world. It doesn't pay, and you won't have much fun ruling a dead world. And if you destroy it, your work isn't complete until you destroy yourself, so in a sense, "ultimate" evil doesn't exist, because it implodes.

Your fictional character needs to want something, whether or not it is something we can relate to, though if we can relate, then it instantly makes the work more complex for the reader. And they need to want it badly. Jealousy, desire for glory, desire for power, hatred, selfishness (or the failure to see beyond your own desires or the effects of your actions on others)- all things we feel but are told not to embrace. And we either listen, or learn the hard way (sometimes).

Giovanna- and interesting post, though I would add that it is possible to feel guilt without having been told not to do something. When you see a negative effect your actions have had one someone else (suppose this gets into ability to sympathize, or have "same-feeling" towards another), even if the intended effect is even a good one. Or, as an example, a child taking a fish out of their fish tank, and then feeling bad that their fish died.

This reminds me of the experiment with the monkeys, and the rope with food at the top. Every time a monkey climbed the rope, a door opened inside the cage area and a hand pushed them back down. After enough time, the monkeys started pulling each other down off the rope, so they wouldn't get pushed. A monkey was replaced, and then another, until there were no original monkeys left, and no monkeys climbed the rope- they all pulled each other down, though none had ever been pushed off the rope or even climbed it. It's an example of conformity, but there was a real danger there at one point that they kept each other away from. But I'm starting to ramble.

Re: Martin- I would call Jon Snow and Sam (I forget his exact name) "good guys". They always try to do the right thing. (His last name isn't "Snow" for nothing.)

[Giovanna Clairval]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Lith

Giovanna- and interesting post, though I would add that it is possible to feel guilt without having been told not to do something. When you see a negative effect your actions have had one someone else (suppose this gets into ability to sympathize, or have "same-feeling" towards another), even if the intended effect is even a good one. Or, as an example, a child taking a fish out of their fish tank, and then feeling bad that their fish died.

You are right, Lith. This capability of feeling guilty even if nobody told you not to do something comes once the possibility of internalisation has somehow been built within. And then, it is spontaneous, as you say.

Every mother (father) can testify that a very small children is not human. A less-than-two-year-old toddler is all desire and no restraint. If she could kill to get what she wants, she would, and with no qualms.
That's why babies come in small size. They are predators (I have three children. I can tell...)

Humanity, the ability of living with others, is something that is constructed during early life. A few miss the train, and, even if it pains me to say so, and it is against the idea of transformation of the self--something I cherish--, it is too late for buying another ticket.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Aes

If an action is performed as a service to others, especially with blatant disregard for one's own interests, then it is good.

I imagine we can all think of a certain act, carried out with a perfect disregard to the doer's own interests and on the behalf of the interests of others, that most people would consider far from good. I'm talking, in case you haven't guessed, about suicide bombing against unarmed and unwarned civilians*. While it is up to the individual to decide what they think is good, we cannot, and should not, always take on their view without our own analysis and morals.

* I'm not saying the killing of other targets is good; I simply wanted to maximise the agreement about an act that is not good. There will always be some people who, for their own good reasons, will see the killing of soldiers from "the other side" as fair game in any particular conflict.