What do you think?
Rate this book
On Evil
Evil has long fascinated psychologists, philosophers, novelists and playwrights but remains an incredibly difficult concept to talk about.
On Evil is a compelling and at times disturbing tour of the many faces of evil. What is evil, and what makes people do awful things? If we can explain evil, do we explain it away? Can we imagine the mind of a serial killer, or does such evil defy description? Does evil depend on a contrast with good, as religion tells us, or can there be evil for evil's sake?
Adam Morton argues that any account of evil must help us understand three why evil occurs; why evil often arises out of banal or everyday situations; and how we can be seen as evil. Drawing on fascinating examples as diverse as Augustine, Buffy the Vampire Slayer , psychological studies of deviant behaviour and profiles of serial killers, Adam Morton argues that evil occurs when internal, mental barriers against it simply break down. He also introduces us to some nightmare people, such as Adolf Eichmann and Hannibal Lecter, reminding us that understanding their actions as humans brings us closer to understanding evil.
Exciting and thought-provoking, On Evil is essential reading for anyone interested in a topic that attracts and repels us in equal measure.
On Evil is a compelling and at times disturbing tour of the many faces of evil. What is evil, and what makes people do awful things? If we can explain evil, do we explain it away? Can we imagine the mind of a serial killer, or does such evil defy description? Does evil depend on a contrast with good, as religion tells us, or can there be evil for evil's sake?
Adam Morton argues that any account of evil must help us understand three why evil occurs; why evil often arises out of banal or everyday situations; and how we can be seen as evil. Drawing on fascinating examples as diverse as Augustine, Buffy the Vampire Slayer , psychological studies of deviant behaviour and profiles of serial killers, Adam Morton argues that evil occurs when internal, mental barriers against it simply break down. He also introduces us to some nightmare people, such as Adolf Eichmann and Hannibal Lecter, reminding us that understanding their actions as humans brings us closer to understanding evil.
Exciting and thought-provoking, On Evil is essential reading for anyone interested in a topic that attracts and repels us in equal measure.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
168 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
6 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 9, 2023
yeah i read this for my philosophy class but i'm gonna count it though
June 21, 2017
The author gives very simple examples, but I couldn't understand what's the difference for him between wrong and evil. Hiroshima's bombings were "just" wrong. First I thought the point is in the intent, but no, asocial personalities do evil without intent to humiliate, the author says. It seems he doesn't know what putability is when talking of the serial killers. And he fantasizes a lot, it may be ok for a philosopher, but I am a psychologist.
November 6, 2017
On Evil is a very thoughtful book. I read it six years ago and was only mildly enthused about it at the time, but it stuck in my mental craw and has proven a lasting influence on how I think about human behavior and Man's dark side.
I highly recommend this book. It's small size belies the juiciness of thought contained therein.
I highly recommend this book. It's small size belies the juiciness of thought contained therein.
February 23, 2026
1. we’re in the midst of it, as always.
I preface the entire review by noting: 2005, yeesh. the post 9-11 writing REEKS. lots of dated tidbits: israel/palestine, the obsession with terrorism, the obsession with WWII……. but other than this i think its a great philosophical account of evil.
and accessible.
31. a notice to my fellow philosophers: you can be as elusive as incisive as you want, but you’re not going to change the way many people think unless you give them helpful images, simple story frames, appealing labels.
—-—
do not conflate- evil vs. wrong:
10. are they worse? its often pointless to debate which of two crimes is greater. but if they can be bought off, threatened, distracted, while i am likely to cripple anything i touch with my incompetence, then it seems intuitively my motives are less evil than theirs. but i would do more wrong.
26. case of the doctor acting to save lives //deciding on arbitrary grounds who he will save. evil, not wrong
28. the big mistake is focusing on motives rather than motivation.
in that- an incel and an abuser have the same motives. but not the same motivation.
——
the pacific and violent modes 2 parallel lines
39. at some point under provocation, a person will jump from the lower line to the upper line. someone with perfect emotional control would respond appropriately in transitioning between the pacific and violent mode and vice versa.
42. the Violence Inhibiting Mechanism (VIM) serves to suppress impulses to react violently, or think of violent options. neurodivergence and sociopathy may have different VIM characteristics.
56. the first attempt at a definition of evil: an evil act is an act whose forseeable results involve the suffering of others, and whose performance should not have been considered.
as in, evil = what we should have barriers in our mind against.
—-
the barrier theory of evil
57. a better definition: a person’s act is evil when it results from a strategy or learned procedure which allows that persons deliberations over the choice of actions not to be inhibited by barriers against considering harming or humiliating others that ought to have been in place.
this allows one act of anger not to be evil- only habits, patterns. it allows for non violent and unaware evil. it often takes the form of self deception.
——
86. terrorism is the weapon of those who have strong convictions but little power.
the dilemma is
89. commit terrorism or abandon something of deep value
——
the banality of evil (arendtsian)
94. depictions of, Nazi Germany for example, leave out the essential middle element, the Banal administrative component, of people marked by petty attention to detail, lack of imagination, and deference to authority. It would not be easy to make a moving drama with a large cost of these more ordinary characters. The most successful it was, the more disturbing it would be to viewers. not exciting-disturbing but confusing-disturbing.
——
reconciliation (not forgiveness)
to understand the other side while still being able to condemn and coexist.
The South African National Commission on the Disappeared, post apartheid, is special.
122. It combined an unusual number of features essential to real reconciliation. The central features with the following:
- The commission was not a court. Not only did it not have the power to punish, its concern was with violations of human rights in general, whether or not they were crimes or legally excusable.
- It was backed up by the power of the state. it could subpoena witnesses, and lying to it was perjury.
- It could award compensation to individuals after determining their losses. These compensations were usually small and symbolic in comparison with the losses. Money does not bring back your child. But they functioned as a gesture of apology to those who had been wronged.
- It did not require that an applicant for Amnesty express contrition or feelings of guilt, although applicants could not be proud of the actions or indifferent to the suffering of victims.
- It was concerned with all atrocities committed by all participants no matter which side.
- its primary aim was to discover the truth. The main duty of an applicant was simply to give a full and accurate account of what had happened.
130. at this point we connect with the idea of truth. The victim wants to be able to be a witness, not simply to support a prosecution, but as part of an inquiry to the true facts of the matter. Perhaps the Christian idea of final judgement is attractive impact for this reason. Eventually everyones story will be told.
——
what do i think? empathy and understanding was my 19 year old thesis. it can only get you so far, because the question remains of what to do with those who dont empathise and dont understand, and dont want to.
he assumes the motivation for evil is sociopathic (in the pathological sense) or a lack of perspective. but i would say more often than not it is selfishness.
but overall, yes. we don’t have treaty yet but it cannot hurt a society to tell the truth
I preface the entire review by noting: 2005, yeesh. the post 9-11 writing REEKS. lots of dated tidbits: israel/palestine, the obsession with terrorism, the obsession with WWII……. but other than this i think its a great philosophical account of evil.
and accessible.
31. a notice to my fellow philosophers: you can be as elusive as incisive as you want, but you’re not going to change the way many people think unless you give them helpful images, simple story frames, appealing labels.
—-—
do not conflate- evil vs. wrong:
10. are they worse? its often pointless to debate which of two crimes is greater. but if they can be bought off, threatened, distracted, while i am likely to cripple anything i touch with my incompetence, then it seems intuitively my motives are less evil than theirs. but i would do more wrong.
26. case of the doctor acting to save lives //deciding on arbitrary grounds who he will save. evil, not wrong
28. the big mistake is focusing on motives rather than motivation.
in that- an incel and an abuser have the same motives. but not the same motivation.
——
the pacific and violent modes 2 parallel lines
39. at some point under provocation, a person will jump from the lower line to the upper line. someone with perfect emotional control would respond appropriately in transitioning between the pacific and violent mode and vice versa.
42. the Violence Inhibiting Mechanism (VIM) serves to suppress impulses to react violently, or think of violent options. neurodivergence and sociopathy may have different VIM characteristics.
56. the first attempt at a definition of evil: an evil act is an act whose forseeable results involve the suffering of others, and whose performance should not have been considered.
as in, evil = what we should have barriers in our mind against.
—-
the barrier theory of evil
57. a better definition: a person’s act is evil when it results from a strategy or learned procedure which allows that persons deliberations over the choice of actions not to be inhibited by barriers against considering harming or humiliating others that ought to have been in place.
this allows one act of anger not to be evil- only habits, patterns. it allows for non violent and unaware evil. it often takes the form of self deception.
——
86. terrorism is the weapon of those who have strong convictions but little power.
the dilemma is
89. commit terrorism or abandon something of deep value
——
the banality of evil (arendtsian)
94. depictions of, Nazi Germany for example, leave out the essential middle element, the Banal administrative component, of people marked by petty attention to detail, lack of imagination, and deference to authority. It would not be easy to make a moving drama with a large cost of these more ordinary characters. The most successful it was, the more disturbing it would be to viewers. not exciting-disturbing but confusing-disturbing.
——
reconciliation (not forgiveness)
to understand the other side while still being able to condemn and coexist.
The South African National Commission on the Disappeared, post apartheid, is special.
122. It combined an unusual number of features essential to real reconciliation. The central features with the following:
- The commission was not a court. Not only did it not have the power to punish, its concern was with violations of human rights in general, whether or not they were crimes or legally excusable.
- It was backed up by the power of the state. it could subpoena witnesses, and lying to it was perjury.
- It could award compensation to individuals after determining their losses. These compensations were usually small and symbolic in comparison with the losses. Money does not bring back your child. But they functioned as a gesture of apology to those who had been wronged.
- It did not require that an applicant for Amnesty express contrition or feelings of guilt, although applicants could not be proud of the actions or indifferent to the suffering of victims.
- It was concerned with all atrocities committed by all participants no matter which side.
- its primary aim was to discover the truth. The main duty of an applicant was simply to give a full and accurate account of what had happened.
130. at this point we connect with the idea of truth. The victim wants to be able to be a witness, not simply to support a prosecution, but as part of an inquiry to the true facts of the matter. Perhaps the Christian idea of final judgement is attractive impact for this reason. Eventually everyones story will be told.
——
what do i think? empathy and understanding was my 19 year old thesis. it can only get you so far, because the question remains of what to do with those who dont empathise and dont understand, and dont want to.
he assumes the motivation for evil is sociopathic (in the pathological sense) or a lack of perspective. but i would say more often than not it is selfishness.
but overall, yes. we don’t have treaty yet but it cannot hurt a society to tell the truth
May 13, 2023
Very little value to be extracted. Half of the book is basic scenario examples with expected and uninteresting conclusions.
I'll save you the bore and sum it up:
'Sometimes people do bad things but they don't realise it was bad. Sometimes people do bad things and they justify it. Sometimes people are convinced to do bad things. Sometimes people do bad things because they don't care about other people. It's not good to hurt people so we shouldn't do it.'
I'll save you the bore and sum it up:
'Sometimes people do bad things but they don't realise it was bad. Sometimes people do bad things and they justify it. Sometimes people are convinced to do bad things. Sometimes people do bad things because they don't care about other people. It's not good to hurt people so we shouldn't do it.'
January 11, 2023
Makes you realise how difficult it is to define evil. The book would not give an ultimate meaning of evil, but gives you a time to think about it.
January 7, 2024
Read for class, it was better than I initially thought, and has some very interesting ideas.
February 12, 2012
This book was read for a course I am taking on Evil and I found the book, written by a philospher and maybe also a psychologist is mind opening and thought provoking but I feel the writer makes assumptions and uses definitions that are his own - not always agreeing with my dictionary.
This coming week we discuss the book in class and maybe my view will change - It was none the less worth the read. It was positively thought provoking.
Also maybe perspective will be better by the end of the course - this is the first book of five.
I will have a better picture on thinking to suggest it to others at the end of the course too.
This coming week we discuss the book in class and maybe my view will change - It was none the less worth the read. It was positively thought provoking.
Also maybe perspective will be better by the end of the course - this is the first book of five.
I will have a better picture on thinking to suggest it to others at the end of the course too.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews