Kötülüğün Felsefesi

by Lars Fredrik Händler Svendsen, Mehmet Hocaoğlu (Translator)

Filmlerde, siyasi demeçlerde ve haber bültenlerinde “kötülük” gündelik gerçekliğimizin parçası bir sözcük haline geldi. Yalnızlık, korku, özgürlük gibi kavramların felsefi ve tarihsel izini sürdüğü önceki eserleri övgüyle karşılanan yazar Lars Svendsen, Kötülüğün Felsefesi'nde, yaşanmış gerçek cinayet ve katliamlardan filmler ve romanlara, en büyük kötülük saydığı İkinci Dünya Savaşı ve Holocaust'a değin kötülük kavramını faillerin ve mağdurların bakış açısından etraflıca inceliyor. Yazar, düşünürler ve filozoflar eşliğinde güncelliğini koruyan bir sorunun peşine düşer: “Kötülük hakkında nasıl konuşacağız?”

Kötülükten bahsederken kullandığımız kelime dağarcığını yitirdik. Bu yüzden Kötülüğün Felsefesi, bu sorunun güncelliği etrafında kötülüğe ilişkin bireysel ve toplumsal deneyimleri düşünebilmenin ufkunu yeniden belirlemeye çalışırken, kötülüğü çağdaş yaşamın olağan bir yüzü olarak; ahlaki, politik ve en çok da pratik içerikleriyle birlikte ele alıyor.

Kötülük ahlaki bir mesele olmayı sürdürüyor ve kötü eylemler söz konusu olduğunda hepimiz bunların hem suçlusu hem de kurbanıyız. “Kötü olan normal olandır.” derken normalin ne olduğunu da belirtir Svendsen: “Dünyadaki tüm kötülüğün tek açıklaması biziz; az çok terbiye almış, saygın, normal insanlar.” O halde ahlaki bir sorun uygulamaya ilişkin talebi de beraberinde getirir. “Kötülük ne meşrulaştırılmalı ne de sözde açıklamalarla savuşturulmalıdır. Yapmamız gereken kötülükle mücadele etmektir.”

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Collections

294 pages, Paperback

First published October 19, 2001

About the author

Lars Fredrik Händler Svendsen is a Norwegian author and philosopher who is professor at the University of Bergen. He has published several books translated into 24 languages. He is also engaged as project manager in the think tank Civita. In 2008 he was awarded the Meltzer Prize for outstanding research, and in 2010 he was awarded the prisoners' Testament.

Reviews

[Kamakana · Rating 5 out of 5]

310518: i do not suffer evil, i have suffered evil on a personal level, i do suffer ‘natural evil’- considering my injury as affecting my entire physical life, but not the blame of anyone: simply, something that happened. i write from the comfort of modern north american life, i write without active persecution or immediate and enforced evil, i am fortunate that most what evil people we have are not in government...

so, why do i rank this highly, when i have had limited experience, when i do not protest actively, the evils of our world? well, for me, actually this is a rare philosophy text, ‘political philosophy’, as i read much continental philosophy, mostly about philosophy rather more abstract, more contemplative than inspiring acts, but in my way try to be good rather than evil, choosing perhaps more negative refusal of evil, refusal, denial, rather positive goods of recognition, freedom, history, which can become dogmatic or culture-centric or intolerant... it is encouraging that there are some soldiers who refused to torture ‘enemy combatants’ in the ‘war on terror’ and growing awareness that torture does not work...

at the end this sums up his philosophy of philosophy evil: it is not to study what it is or from where or when it came, these are abstract questions, such studies are not relevant in practical ways, for evil is not to be studied, evil is to be fought...

[Audrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lars Svendsen has written a very readable, at times fascinating, summary of the philosophical discussions surrounding the concept of evil. Since I spent a large part of my only college philosophy class fighting to stay awake, that's no small compliment. Svendsen, strange for a philosopher, has little patience for philosophies that have no traction in the real world, and perhaps that’s why I found him so engaging.

That being said, his heart doesn’t seem to be in the first half of the book, covering theological responses to evil, as well as the category of “demonic evil” (evil done for its own sake), which he basically dismisses as irrelevant for the real world. When he comes to “instrumental evil,” “idealistic evil,” and “stupid evil,” you can feel his interest piqued, and his engagement with the material deepen. The main part of his thesis has to do with these three categories. Sadly, he has plenty of real world examples of atrocities committed, not by monsters, but he insists, by people just like him, you, and me. By seeking to understand how ordinary people could do things that they later acknowledge as evil, he reminds us that each one of us has a duty to think (for ourselves!) critically about events happening around us and to judge them before we act.

I also found Svendsen’s footnotes extremely informative and helpful. They point the way toward further reading on this subject. I'm not sure I have the patience for most of it, but I very much appreciate his trail of bread crumbs through a centuries-thick tangle of thought.

==================================

For some reason, this book has become associated in my mind with Michael Hanecke’s excellent 2009 film _The White Ribbon_. I found the movie so beautiful, and chilling, and somehow the perfect companion to this book, although I'm not sure if there is a direct one to one correlation, but more of a free association.

An interesting op-ed today re: the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State child abuse allegations examining our reactions to evil. It’s relevant to this book, and worth a read if you’re interested in how we often don’t act or react to things in the ways we would hope.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opi...

[Ermina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Izuzetno zapanjujuća analiza zla.
Dajem manju ocjenu zbog posljednjeg poglavlja studije, jer je autor ušao u pitanja politike koja se (na stranu moje nezainteresovanje za temu) udaljila od strukture čitave knjige.

[Bojan Džodan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Jedan ozbiljan filozof ne moze sebi dozvoliti da podlegne propagandi i da navede da je tuzno da na planeti postoje i dalje zajednice u kojima postoji hanibalizam i u kojima vojska jede svoje zarobljenike. U pitanju su kako Svendsen navodi jedno pleme u Africi i Srbi.

[Ivana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bilo mi je u par navrata zaista fizički loše dok sam je čitala, jer je stašno koliko ljudsko biće može da nanese zla i bola drugom ljudskom biću što iz idealističkih, što iz krajnje sadističkih razloga,a da pritom ne oseća ličnu odgovornost, jer je samo "izvršavao naređenja".
Svi genocidi, masovna ubijanja ljudi, nemaju izgovora i opravdanja za nepreuzimanje lične odgovornosti.
Autor kaže da smo svi mi i zli i dobri. Svi ljudi greše. Čista krivica i čista nedužnost jesu idealizacije izmedju kojih se svi nalazimo svi smo krivi i svi nedužni, ali u različitom stepenu. Koliko puta smo pod parolom za nečije dobro, nekome naneli štetu ili prouzrokovali bol. Zato je sposobnost kajanja po njegovom mišljenju neophodna da bi se spoznalo sopstveno zlo, kajanje je izraz moralne samospoznaje.

Ocena bi bila 3.80 da mogu da ove zvezdice krojim, al ne mogu :D

[Eugene Kernes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is This An Overview?
Most damage done through evil does not come from terrible deeds of acknowledged monsters who cannot be identified with. Most damage comes from normal and decent people. Although evil is not associated with normal routines of everyday life, people still have constant contact with evil through mass media reporting violence and other tragic situations. This is a paradoxical situation, as evil is absent and omnipresent. Absent in experience, but perceived everywhere. Evil is difficult to recognize without a centralized identity. Evil is ubiquitous, which is fostered by the inability and difficulty to discuss evil. People are a complex mixture of good and evil, and need to find ways to discuss evil to find ways to fight it.

Moral evil exists because individuals are free to make choices. To act differently in a given situation. Individuals are responsible for the choices that they make. Four types of evil are described which are demonic evil, instrumental evil, idealistic evil, and stupid evil. Demonic evil is an act of doing evil because it is evil. Instrumental evil is using acknowledged evil to accomplish another goal. Using evil means to accomplish a good outcome. Idealistic evil is when a person does evil in the belief that its good. Those who committee idealistic evil considered themselves to be the representatives of the good. Stupid evil is committed by someone who acts without consideration for whether their acts are good or evil. Stupid evil is not a reference to intelligence, but a reference to evil coming about through thoughtlessness, an absence of reflection. Stupid evil is banal, and the focus of this book.

An Introduction to Evil:
Evil has become aestheticized, as imaginary evil is seen as romantic while real evil is banal. Imaginary good is banal, while real good marvelous. The aestheticization of evil, has caused people miss the horror associated with evil. With an aesthetic understanding of evil, there is no actual victim, acts without consequence.

Although the focus of this book is the ordinary evil, could not escape the contrast with the extraordinary evil. Evil is salient in the acts committed by acknowledged monsters, whom most people cannot identify with. But that extreme evil is limited, and cannot explain the abundance of evil. Most damage done through evil comes from normal and decent people. Evil is the normal, but without the eagerness to identify it as such. Evil is usually someone else, a them.

Society has developed a gap between experiencing evil and the ability to understand it. Outside extreme cases with clear perpetrators, there is little understanding of where evil actually resides. Satan was a scapegoat of evil, but with the death of God, along with Satan, people have lost the ability to talk about evil as there is no representation of evil. Some claim to want to resurrect the dualism of evil, as the opposite of good. Others want evil renewed rather than restored.

Few deny the existence of evil, but many deny the existence of an evil person. There is a reluctance to call even the worse individuals evil. Evil lacks meaning if the worst individuals cannot be called evil. An evil person can be considered those who chose to intentionally do harm. Alternatively, evil can from acts claimed to be evil.

People want an unconditional concept of evil, but there are a lot of conditions that make life less good. There is no ultimate evil, only various evils. Good and evil are relative concepts, as they contrast each other. Evil is a characteristic of things, events, or actions. Evil is a human social construct describing actions, and refers to suffering. People therefore seek to reconcile with the existence of evil, and attempt to find meaning within evil. The author argues that evil should not be justified, nor is reconciliation with evil appropriate. Evil should be fought, not explained, nor justified. That there is no meaning in the tragedies within human history.

Choices made by an individual are more than a sum of causes, for the individuals can act freely. Free will allows for choices outside of the chain of cause and effect. Moral evil exists only because there is free will. Free will refers to the ability to act differently in a given situation. Situations in which the individual could have acted differently but did not.

As people mature, they become culturally acclimated, they become a moral being. A complex mixture of good and evil. Some have more good or evil, but each is a combination. A morally evil agent is free, without consideration of the human impact. No need for intention, for suffering can come from thoughtless action. A thoughtless person is responsible for the evil acts because the person should have thought before the act. Blame comes to those who could have acted otherwise. Those guilty of moral evil are free agents.

Evil usually refers to others, a transgression done. The incomprehensibility of evil is both seductive and repulsive. Evil becomes practical and clear if it is considered to be anything that opposes living a meaningful and worthy life. Understanding the evil done by normal people, can contribute to an understanding of humanity.

The Impact of Evil:
Harm to the victim tends to be greater than the gain to the perpetrator. The same act that has a profound negative effect on the victim, but an insignificant positive effect for the perpetrator. Conflict tends to escalate because of this gap. Even if harm to both sides is equal, each will feel to have suffered more than the actual damage done.

Those who consider themselves to be violent, think that others are violent, with situations requiring violent responses. Knowing ourselfs, does not necessarily mean we know others.

There are those who like to mistreat others, without any benefits. They enjoy it. The desire for violence is always present, but does require an excuse to utilize. An excuse to legitimate the violent action, and blame the action on the other. Victims tend to act aggressively, which contributes to a tragic outcome.

Fighting Evil:
Contemplation leads to a better life. The world is hard to change, but the individual can change themselves. Discussion with others should precede application of practical wisdom. Moral and political questions should be held in a public forum.

Citizens within democracies are meant to protest publicly when given the opportunity. Silence gives consent. Participating in defining an event’s moral status is important. Participants can increase awareness of something morally unacceptable. Evil is not something anyone should remain neutral to. Sometimes, that might require physical force to prevent.

Legitimacy of an order comes from it being followed. Refusing to follow orders, also refuses to recognize them as legitimate. Refusal is a powerful weapon.

Origins and Alternatives Understandings of Evil:
Traditions of the origin of evil claim that evil is done because of: 1) seduced by malevolent, supernatural power, 2) people are naturally predisposed to be evil, 3) environmental influence, 4) people choose evil with free will.

God’s death is a reference to how humanity has given up believing in humanities divinity. Rather than humans becoming divine with the death of God, people now have radical contingence. They are able to shape the history, without a guaranteed right direction. Without God, evil has become a human problem. Science was thought to govern progress, but that belief was lost at its own demonstrated destructive potential.

Within Marxism, God was replaced with history and humanity. It even contains a utopian concept. Ideas that suspend morality for a higher purpose, which in practice has led to many dead. Historic progress overshadowed any moral considerations for Stalin’s committees. Their moral consideration was that of historic progress. Even believers fell victim to egregious injustices.

Biology cannot define a moral concept of evil, because moral evil requires a choice. Biology defines good, that which is useful for reproduction, and evil as useless. Good and evil are not located in the genes.

Sometimes evil is contrasted to what people would do in a natural state. But a hypothetical primitive state does not explain who people are.

Demonic Evil:
Demonic evil is self-sufficient evil. The existence of evil for its own sake. Appears in more testimonies of victims than perpetrators. Victims tend to think that their perpetrator is purely sadistic, but there is no related emotional relevance for the perpetrator. Those who appear to be monsters committing evil acts, tend to be normal people without any disposition towards sadism.

There are race cases of murders that contain autotelic violence. Violence that is self-justifying and self-sufficient, which is demonic. Demonic evil is disinterested, for it has no purpose beyond itself. This is the problem with the demonic evil view, for most of the time, every desire has a component of good even if just for the agent, even though the desire itself is evil. Evil can come about in trying to attain the individual’s subjective good goals, at other people’s expense. Evil then becomes purpose driven, a variant of instrumental evil. People committing evil to attain a form of good, which is instrumental evil. Demonic evil needs to be supplemented with instrumental evil.

Instrumental Evil:
Morals laws subordinate sensual appetites to social interest. Moral laws founded upon reason. Pursuing happiness is not an immoral activity, unless it intentionally transgresses on moral laws. For Kant, the root of evil is accepting moral law, but simultaneously ignoring the precepts. Moral evil chooses to subordinate moral law to sensuous inclinations.

There are those who use evil means to obtain good outcomes. Choosing evil for another objective, for self-love. The agent knows the different between subjective and objective good and evil, but chooses subjective good.

For Kant, respect for moral law comes through its transgression. Knowing the negative effect the actions have on even one’s own thoughts, provides the reason to follow moral laws. The guilt felt for transgression leads to respect for moral law. Knowing that the individual is free comes from the transgressions as well.

Those who do not understand moral laws, cannot be held accountable to them. Kant’s instrumental evil applies only to those who knew that they were committing a wrong. Ignorance prevents people from accepting moral laws, but that can also mean that the individual is responsible for being informed of moral laws. The problem is that knowledge of the moral laws, comes about after the violation.

Instrumental evil needs to be supplemented with idealistic evil and stupid evil. For it is with idealistic evil that an agent believes they are doing good. And stupid evil is when the agent does not consider moral consequences of one’s actions.

Instrumental and idealistic evil agents both desires good. The difference is that while idealistic evil agents desire objectively good, the instrumental evil agents desire subjectively good. Instrumental evil agents, knows that evil is being done but chooses to commit the evil for a greater purpose. Idealist does not know that evil is being done.

Idealistic Evil:
Ideas about evil, have created evil. Those who attempt to overcome evil, have brought more evil into the world. Those who hate evil, do evil. When their destructiveness rebounds back on themselves, their world view is strengthened. Theories of evil simplify the complexity of reality to a single arbitrary opposition, with no alternative possible other than good or evil.

Not all evil is imaginary, but much of evil has been introduced by attacking something mistaken to be evil itself. Evil love brings into the world evil. Love of self, country, and other objects of love. Sometimes, what is perceive to be good, is actually evil.

The attacker perceived the attacker to be the actual victim, while blaming the victim as the aggressor. Rare when those who do evil, recognize their actions as evil. Evil is not part of a perpetrator’s self-image. Evil is perceived by the victim and witness. As the perpetrator judges the victim to be evil, they consider themselves to have good motives.

In the human attempt to find meaning, action is founded upon ideas. The ideas of good and evil are correlated with us and them. With evil always others, and never oneself. There is nothing inherently wrong with the dichotomy of us and them. Even arbitrary delineation are needed for identity formation. The problem is when the pair is interpreted asymmetrically, which is a basis for discrimination.

Many identities are created through imagined communities. Even though most members of different groups would not have contact with the other group members, there is still a feeling of group identity. Even an arbitrarily chosen trait is enough to create the difference between us and them. Trivial traits that lead to systematic discrimination.

It has often been sufficient to attack others when they are perceived to be evil. But, others being evil does not necessitate that attackers to be good. Both sides are possibly evil. Not every means of fighting evil is good.

Humans tend to group themselves for the advantages of cooperation, but too tightly knit groups can become problematic. Individuals tend to substitute the group’s values for their own. Surrendering individually is equivalent to surrendering the capacity of thought.

Stupid Evil:
Evil can be unmasked and prevented. Evil creates the conditions for its own destruction, or at least provokes negative emotions. There is no defense against folly, making folly a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. Folly cannot be reasoned with. Contradictions are disbelieved, or become a source for criticism or exception.

Stupidity in this book is a reference to thoughtlessness, not a lack of intelligence. Stupidity is a lack of judgment.

Terrible acts can be carried out by people without sadistic motives, but for want of resolving a practical problem. Actions that take place in a moral vacuum. Without sadism, elements that can cause people to accept evil is by presentation, distancing, separation of labor, escalation, and socialization. Realization of evil comes the questions about how someone could have been thoughtless, why evil was not resisted, or recognizing what one has become. Depersonalization can dissolve politics and morals which contributes to apathy. Apathy threatens personal responsibility and critical thought.

Radical in this book means root, as a reference to depth. People who speak in clichés, are superficial, and lack depth. Totalitarian indoctrination does not create absolute conviction, but rather destroys the ability to form convictions, to destroy the ability to think with depth. The civil servant language is a depersonalized language. A language full of clichés to prevent the individual from thinking for themselves. Prevents reflection. Thinking for oneself, becomes a form of betrayal.

Lenin and Stalin wanted to use violence against enemies of the proletariat. The regime was meant to serve the masses, but the masses were not what the regime wanted them to be. Violence was turned against the workers and peasants the regime was meant to serve. Purging those they deemed an enemy. Purges that were also ethnically and racially motivated. The opposition to be purged was ambiguous, and arbitrarily chosen. With time, more and more groups fit the regime’s qualifications. The ambiguity of the enemy, did not raise questions about the existence of an enemy. As the criteria for an enemy became less precise, and more applicable to more people, the criteria fit not only enemies but also friends and relatives. Within totalitarian society, what is good or evil is defined by state, not the individual.

People do not actually know what they will do in a situation, until the realization of the situation. People are fallible, but they can hope to do what is right, and find the strength to oppose evil.

Caveats?
The focus of the book is on evil. Specifically ordinary evil, that everyone is capable of. With the objective to fight evil, not explain it. The author also claims that there is no meaning to be found in the history of human tragedies. These claims create various contradictions. Without an attempt to explain evil, without trying to find meaning in the tragedies, there can be no reflection on what evil is and what to do about evil. The author wants reflection to prevent evil, but also undermines reflection. Reflection of evil would mean trying to understand evil to find alternative ways of being and ways to fight evil. Knowing how evil operates and why, leads to ways to fight and undermine evil. Within the book, the author does seek out examples of evil throughout history, and reflects on what was found.

What is missing from the book is a systematic explanation on what is needed to fight evil without turning into evil. To know what is evil appears to need discussion, but different groups can come up with different views about certain actions as evil or good. As the different groups can obtain different views about what is evil or good, the different groups can have a conflict and see each other as evil and themselves as good. This type of conflict has features of instrumental evil, and of idealistic evil. But within this conflict, they will be doing good, because they have reflected on what that means and chose the conflict.

A way to fight evil is by speaking up against evil. But there are social consequences of speaking up. The author does reference a case when people willingly did evil to others, without harming those who did not want to participate. But the lack of apparent consequences could only have been known after the event, for the author to obtain the statistics. The people who were committing the acts or did not want to commit the acts, would not have known the consequences in advance. Appropriate dissent is not as easy as the author tries to make dissent out to be.

The author wanted to focus on ordinary people committing evil, but the examples of transgressions are mainly large or with extreme outcomes. As anyone can commit evil, what is missing is the size of transgressions.

There are costs to reflecting about morality of actions. Ordinary people commit evil, and are meant to use those temporary acts to reconsider ways to act. Even as the acts are transient, socially acknowledging and trying to become better is

[Oakley C. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really wanted to get through this but I just had to stop after the end of part one, regardless of what points the author would be making later on.

First, do not discuss theology if you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in engaging with such material on its own level. The author takes next to no times discussing the ideas of such minds as Plato, Augustine, Aquinas and others only to triumphantly "tear apart" the paper tigers he has assembled in their stead. Theodicy is complex and has been thought about for centuries in almost every culture on the planet (not simply in the West) and perhaps (perhaps) these notions deserve a little more examination and shouldn't merely be dismissed by references to "discourse" or "ontology" without even positing one's own definition of "discourse" or "ontology."

Second, you don't get to discuss the Fall and then neglect what is perhaps the most SALIENT detail: that Eve intentionally took the fruit and that Adam intentionally ate of it. Svendsen simply ignores this immensely important element in the Genesis narrative and goes onto dismiss (what he calls the) "free will argument" as being contradictory. This is especially infuriating because I have read numerous works of theodicy (the very best being David Bently Hart's The Doors of The Sea) and all of those volumes take atheistic concerns seriously. What Svendensen did would be akin to lobbing off two arms of Lucretius' famous quadrilemma about God's existence. And of course, Svedensen is ever faithful to that particular theory!

Three, Svendsen says that no suffering can be redemptive or in anyway positive and claims that "as a rule suffering is purely destructive. Intense pain doesn't often make a person stronger..." While he is careful enough to deploy the modifier "often" it seems like a typical, post-enlightenment and Western attitude (almost always pontificated by folks who have historically experienced the least suffering of all) to claim that suffering is always zero-sum for the sufferer. Perhaps my next comment will be considered too "anecdotal" but I've encountered numerous people, who lived in places and circumstances (and lost so, so much) that I imagine were a lot worse than anything I or the author have experienced who feel that through suffering alone they were able to be more than they were.

Four, the entire first portion seems to only utilize fiction for positive evidence. The overly-cited (to the point of cliche) examples of Ivan's "suffering child" and Camus'"suffering child" (the latter being present in his novel The Plague) is not so much enlightening as grating. I have yet to read an argument against theodicy that doesn't use these two texts. The actual philosophy, on the other hand, is always evidence to be argued against!

Five, this is another pernicious example of "easy to read philosophy" which substitutes "clarity" for vigorous analysis or even a worthwhile hermeneutics. Sure, plenty of terms and texts are referenced but nothing is really wrestled with. For instance, on the page I stopped reading Svendsen shares a poetic observation from Martin Amis about pain having its own language and then immediately contradicts this by saying "pain destroys language." Not only that but, once again, what sort of (to use his own term) "discourse" is Svendsen performing? What sort of framework is he working within? He will make a Nietzschean-like maxim as above yet I cannot tell if this means he is more interested in viewing evil as a "discourse" or a socially constructed reality or an ontological brute fact of existence. He is simply making a nice statement and then backs it up with (once again) a hypothetical about a suffering child and then a novel excerpt about a suffering child. Perhaps him not defining a philosophical port of entry right off the bat would be forgivable if Svendsen was offering a survey on the problem of evil or even a theory. But instead Svendsen's work is a lazy polemic which digs into the arguments he most agrees with (e.g., Camus and Dostoevsky) while tossing around those which he is already against. Polemics deserve better than this!

Part of me still wants to peek a little further into the work but I feel what Svendsen is doing is perfectly clear and perfeclty boring-he wants to write about a truly mysterious and important facet of human life but assumes that his audience is (like himself) already "demystified" of faith. It's an annoying trend but one I imagine shall be with us now for quite a while. C’est la vie.

[Matt Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is far and away one of the best books I’ve ever read on the subject of evil -- real evil. And by “real evil” I mean, simply, evil as I’ve experienced it out in the real world. The book is well reasoned, impassioned, and refreshingly free from hysterical descriptions of what Mr. Svendsen calls “demonic evil”; i.e., evil performed for evil’s sake. Simply put, “demonic evil” doesn’t exist. But real evil -- instrumental evil, idealistic evil, and what Arendt called “stupid” or “banal” evil -- really exists.

Clearly.

Evil exists in the world because humans are free agents. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, “the line dividing good and evil doesn’t run through different groups -- nations, classes, or political parties -- but “right through every human heart.” Yours. Mine.

"And who can kill a piece of his heart?"

Mr. Svendsen, quoting Stuart Hampshire, writes, “‘there is nothing mysterious or ‘subjective’ or culture-bound in the great evils of human experience, re-affirmed in every age and in every written history and in every tragedy and fiction: murder and destruction of life, imprisonment, enslavement, starvation, poverty, physical pain and torture, homelessness, friendlessness.’ We don’t need a theory to tell us that those evils are evil -- and every theory that concludes that these evils are not in fact evil will be wrong. As I’ve said time and again, such evils must be fought. This is the basic presupposition behind every known moral stance, and ought to be one for all political stances as well. Though different concepts of the good can lead to different priorities in the struggle against evil, all people agree on one thing: these evils, and others like them, must be opposed. What matters now is finally doing it.”

Go and do.

[William Schram · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is evil? It appears omnipresent in our society, but we don't attribute it to an external force. Genocide, torture, murder, rape, and other horrors come to mind when we speak of evil, but where does it come from?

Philosopher Lars Svendsen explores the problem of evil in our modern times. Svendsen doesn't want to understand evil. He seeks a way to combat it. To that end, Svendsen examines theodicy and anthropology.

Theodicy is an attempt to resolve the problem of evil in light of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity. It fails on several levels, but that's beside the point.

Anthropology is the study of human culture. It goes through the psychology of evil and covers the Milgram experiment and other similar cases.

The book is fascinating. Svendsen is thorough in his treatment. There are obvious references he makes; the Holocaust is one, and the 1915 Armenian Genocide is another. Due to the book's publication date, he discusses the September 11th attacks.

I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.

[Betül · Rating 5 out of 5]

okuma süremin uzunluğundan utanıyor olsam da okuması gerçekten zor/beyin gerektirici bir kitap olduğundan ve okulumun açılmasıyla çakıştığından böyle olduğunu söyleyebilirim. ayrıca okuduğum ve bitirdiğim ilk felsefi kitap olmasından dolayı benim için çok özel bir yeri var, lars svendsen'e teşekkür ederim çünkü bu kadar güzel yazmamış olsaydı bunu asla başaramazdım. okurken, beyin kıvrımlarımın yoga yaparken esneyen bir kadın gibi açıldığını hissettim ki bunu tavsiye ederim, HARİKA BİR HİS!!

dipnot: bu kitaba defalarca başlayıp yarıda bıraktım, bu kadar çok vazgeçtiğim bir esere geri dönmemi sadece böyle ilgi çekici ve güzel yazılmış bir tanesi sağlayabilirdi.

[Hossein · Rating 4 out of 5]

فلسفهٔ شر؟ نمی‌دانم. اما «نگاهی فلسفی و روانشناختی به تاریخ شر»، چرا؛ خود خودش.
کتابی بسیار مفید، آموزنده و خوش‌خوان است و به قدری خوب نوشته شده که بدون داشتن پیش زمینه هم می‌توان مباحث را درک کرد. به نظرم هر انسانی باید این دست کتاب‌ها را بخواند، یا لااقل هر انسانی که همیشه نگران است قربانی شر بشود. بعد خواندن آدم تازه می‌فهمد قربانیان شر و عاملان شر چه‌قدر هر دو انسان هستند؛ و هر انسانی، تاکید می‌کنم هر انسانی، می‌تواند در هر یک از این دو جایگاه قرار بگیرد. چاره چیست؟ تفکر؟ بله تفکر؛ تفکر و عمل فعال راهکارهای نویسنده هستند.

[Thea Bakkensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Det er en god bog som kommer omkring mange måder at se ondskaben på, den er grundig skrevet og en tilpas længde, der er brugt et sprog som er nemt at forstå på samme tid med at han får sat flere filosofiske tanker i gang.

Der er dog en lille ting som irriterer mig og det er at jeg synes at hans måde at tænke på- i hvert fald hvordan jeg opfatter det gennem hans skrivning er at han tænker meget at hans egne ideer er rigtige som så mange andre filosoffer gør. Det ender dog med at han et par gange i bogen modsiger sig selv, blandt andet ved hans beskrivelse af Kants filosofi.

[Safak · Rating 5 out of 5]

En onemli soru, “ Kotuluk nedir?” degil, “ Neden kotuluk yapariz?”dir. Daha da onemlisi, siklikla kotuluk yapariz,bunun kotuluk oldugunun gayet farkinda olarak, cunku oznel bir iyiyi gerceklestirmeye calisiriz. O halde cozum nedir? Alexander Soljenitsin’in ifade ettigi gibi, “ iyi ve kotuyu ayiran cizgi, farkli gruplarin - uluslarin,siniflarin, veya siyasal partilerin - arasindan gecmedigi, fakat “ her insanin tam kalbinden gectigi “ seklindeki tespitini asla unutmamaliyiz...

[Banu Akgün · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gördüğümüz, duyduğumuz ya da deneyimlediğimiz her kötülükte kendimize sorduğumuz o soruya cevap arayan bir kitap : “ Neden insanlar kötülük yapar? “
Bu soruya verilecek her bir cevabı sohbet niteliğinde tartışmış yazar. Çok keyif alarak okudum. Felsefik düşünce ve tartışmadan hoşlanıyorsanız kesinlikle tavsiye ederim!

[Furkan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitabın ismi her ne kadar Kötülüğün Felsefesi de olsa kitapta kötülüğün felsefi ve teolojik açıdan incelenmesi antropolojik olarak incelenmesinden daha az yer tutmuş. Fakat bu kitabı daha değersiz bir hale mi getirmiş, kesinlikle hayır. Teodise ile ilgili kitapta farklı bir şey yok fakat antropolojik kısmı ve bu kısımdaki örnekler okunmaya değer.

[Simin · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب فلسفه شر بیشتر مرور کوتاهی روی دیدگاه‌های مختلف درباره‌ی شره. نه خیلی عمیق می‌شه، نه خیلی سطحی، یه جور متن میانه که می‌تونه برای شروع آشنایی با موضوع بد نباشه. توقع کارجدی ازش نباید داشت، ولی برای کسی که می‌خواد یه تصویر کلی بگیره، خوبه.

[Kruno Stjepanović · Rating 4 out of 5]

Odlično. Topla preporuka, pogotovo onima s afinitetom za filozofsku argumentaciju.

[Sebastian Sanchez · Rating 5 out of 5]

MARAVILLOSO

[Ozan]

Müthiş....

[Ashkan Darouni · Rating 4 out of 5]

هرکسی عادت‌های بسیاری دارد که از آنها ناآگاه است؛ خیلی ساده چون ناخودآگاهند. در عوض، این عادت‌ها برای چیزهایی که فرد از آنها آگاهی دارد نوعی 《پس‌زمینه》 می‌سازند؛ پس‌زمینه‌هایی که تعیین می‌کنند در فلان شرایط، معمولا باید انتظار چه چیزی را بکشیم. از این لحاظ، می‌شود گفت عادت‌ها امکان‌هایی را برای تشخیص دادن امور ایجاد می‌کنند اما در عین حال ظرفیت فهم را هم‌ محدود می‌سازند، چراکه ما را وامی‌دارند تا خیلی از پدیده‌ها را بی‌ربط بینگاریم. پس عادت به نوعی نابینایی منجر می‌شود.

[Ursa · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author sheds some light on the definition of evil and comes up with suggestions on how to deal with it. According to Svedsen, humanity is the root of evil. Every of us is both good and evil. Though the portion of good and evil are varied for different individuals. Only when we come to accept that we're all capable of committing evil acts, that evil is not an external theology, do we stand a chance against it.

Truly, I found his theories fascinating and thought-provoking. I won't pretend that I can comprehend everything he says or cites. But for the most part, his explanation is logical and easy to follow. I was engrossed in the subject in no time. Moreover, Svendsen provides a lot of interesting sociological materials as well as staggering facts and figures about genocides and war crimes that we shouldn't dismiss. The book arrives at the conclusion that evil exists within us. However, the point of the book is not to make us feel disgusted or afraid of ourselves, but rather to address evil as a concrete and practical problem in daily life so that we can see it for what it is and learn to fight it. To quote from the book, justice is a duty, not a given.

[Ivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first time I read a book similar theme and I must admit that Svendsen thrilled me. Although the book deals with the philosophical/moral/religious complicated subject, evil, it's very interesting and simply written. The book has great answers on questions: Why people do evil act? From where evil comes and are we all evil? Whether, under certain circumstances, we can do things that SS officers were doing? Particular emphasis is placed on religions which are trying to defend the almighty God coming to the realization that evil is relatively "good" or transformed into something good, but in the divine perspective.
Svendsen excellent answers on question: Where is a division between good and bad? What types of violence exists, and why we do it? How do we empathize? When it's justified to start a war?
As a basis for all the questions he uses unfortunate events of: Holocaust, Vietnam, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

In the last section he states 11/09/2001, to confirm his thesis in the book.

"The line that separates good from evil goes traversing through every human heart."

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very accessible read. Svendsen treats the subject action, side stepping arguments of evil as ontological conditions. He does an interesting job of juxtaposing choice/free will against both theological and scientific explanations of evil. Worth reading!

[Jacob Wren]

I think it's so strange how, in the opening chapter, he contradicts religious arguments by saying they're not rational. Why on earth should we expect religious arguments to be rational.

[Sveučilišna Knjižnica Rijeka]

Zlo - Filozofsko gledište

[Outmind · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5/5

Draws on some interesting points and provides a multi faceted portrayal of the problem of evil. I just wish that a bit more emphasis was put on the concept of evil from ignorance.

[Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

worth reading.