Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Evil: A Philosophical Investigation

Rate this book
When asked to describe wartime atrocities, acts of terrorism, and serial killers, many of us reach for the word "evil." But what does it mean to say that an action or a person is evil? Some philosophers have claimed that there is no such thing as evil, and that thinking in terms of evil is simplistic and dangerous. In response to this sceptical challenge, Luke Russell shows that concept of evil has a legitimate place within contemporary secular moral thought. In this book he addresses questions concerning the nature of evil action, such as whether evil actions must be incomprehensible, whether evil actions can be banal, and whether there is a psychological hallmark that distinguishes evils from other wrongs. Russell also explores issues regarding the nature of evil persons, including whether every evil person is an evildoer, whether every evil person is irredeemable, and whether a person could be evil merely in virtue of having evil feelings. The concept of evil is extreme, and
is easily misused. Nonetheless, Russell suggests that it has an important role to play when it comes to evaluating and explaining the worst kind of wrongdoing.

248 pages, Hardcover

First published May 16, 2014

1 person is currently reading
139 people want to read

About the author

Luke Russell

8 books4 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1 (9%)
4 stars
7 (63%)
3 stars
1 (9%)
2 stars
1 (9%)
1 star
1 (9%)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Profile Image for Katharine.
747 reviews13 followers
March 1, 2015
Thoroughly researched and written, but tough for someone outside of the field of philosophy to understand.
Profile Image for Robert Guiler.
9 reviews
June 16, 2023
Russell’s approach is effective in identifying characteristics of evil actions, people, and feelings. However, despite the usefulness of his work in this respect, Russell fails to ground his value judgments throughout the work in anything other than rational arguments or common acceptance (either among folks or philosophers). He is a atheist. Unless he provided some ontological reason for excepting his value judgments, it’s hard to take seriously some major features of his definitions, namely “wrong doings” and “culpable” actions.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.