Evil: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #712

by Luke Russell

Very Short Introductions: Brilliant, Sharp, Inspiring

We regularly encounter appalling wrongdoing, with the media offering a depressing parade of violent assault, rape, and murder. Yet sometimes even the cynical and world-weary amongst us are taken aback. Sometimes we confront a crime so terrible, so horrendous, so deeply wrong, that we reach for the word 'evil'. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were not merely wrong, but evil. A serial killer who tortures his victims is not merely a bad person. He is evil. And as the Holocaust showed us, we must remain
vigilant against the threat of evil. But what exactly is evil? If we use the word 'evil', are we buying into a naive Manichean worldview, in which two cosmic forces of good and evil are pitted against one another? Are we guilty of demonizing our enemies? How does 'evil' go beyond what is merely bad
or wrong?

This Very Short Introduction explores the answers that philosophers have offered to these questions. Luke Russell discusses why some philosophers think that evil is a myth or a fantasy, while others think that evil is real, and is a concept which plays an important role in contemporary secular morality. Along the way he asks whether evil is always horrific and incomprehensible, or if it can be banal. Considering if there is a special psychological hallmark that sets the evildoers apart
from the rest of us, Russell also engages with ongoing discussions over psychopathy and empathy, analysing the psychology behind evildoing.

ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

128 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 29, 2022

Reviews

[David A Townsend · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mostly linguistic gymnastics that fall flat on the mat, highlighting the banality of philosophy 101. I am not sure if there are more syllogisms or strawmen.

[Maura · Rating 4 out of 5]

More philosophical than I was expecting but overall intriguing and thorough. The last chapter, “Are you evil? Is anyone evil?” was the best, but it was made so interesting through the understanding the earlier chapters provide.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENG
A summary could be made as follows: as with any book, while looking through one lens, I also view and perhaps interpret other things objectively through another lens.

What was observed here? It shows that evil varies depending on its context, and that wrongdoings should not be confused with evil. When evil does not cause horrific physical harm on an individual level, it ceases to be evil and is viewed through the lens of societal and population rationality, at which point the terminology can be clearly defined. The term is accurate when it refers to individual and societal, horrific and physically harmful situations (we can also consider serious psychological harm as mental harm). It is clear that whether evil is caused by environmental or mental influence, it cannot be reversed or reformed in any way, and will be repeated.

Here, the question of whether actions that protect personal spaces and publics, and which do not involve or have the intention of causing harm, are more about wrongdoings than evil, can be interpreted and revised as follows: (While obsessive and harmful ideologies confirm the clarity of evil, the absence of personal space defense in relation to obsessive ideologies)

TR

Şu tür bir özet yapılabilir, her kitapta olduğu gibi verilen bir gözlükle bakarken başka bir gözlüğümle de başka şeyleri tarafsız görüyor belki yorumluyorum.

Ne görüldü burda dersek ,kötülüğün durduğu yere göre değişkenlik gösterdiği durumlarının bulunması ve yanlışların kötülük ile karıştırılmaması durumu, kötülüğün bireysel bazda dehşet verici ve fiziksel bir zarar vermediği durumda kötülük olma halinden çıkıp toplumsal ve populasyon rasyoneliğiyle bakılması ve kelime terminolojisine o zaman karar verilebilir netliği.
Bireysel ve toplumsal, dehşet verici ve fiziksel zarar( ciddi bir psikolojik zararı da zihinsel yani fiziksel sayabiliriz) durumunda kelime ifadesinin doğru olacağı. Kötülüğün ister çevre etkisiyle ister zihinsel etkiyle yapıldığı durumlarda hiç bir şekilde geri döndürelemeyeceği ve ıslah edilemeyeceği durumu ve tekrar edileceğinin netliği.

Burda ek olarak kişel alanların ve halkaların korunması durumunda ve yine zarar verme niyeti taşımadığı ve vermediği durumların kötülük olmaktan çok yanlış durumlar mı sorusu,( yanlış ideolojilerin saplantı halinde ve zarar verir durumda olması kötülük durumunun netliğinin onaylanmasını gösterirken, saplantılı ideolojilerin kişisel alan savunmasına girmemesi) şeklinde yorumlanabilir ve revize edilelebilinir.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Evil. Explained by somebody who gets paid for filling up forms. And who will also get a good pension for serving the system. Maybe there is a conflict of interests in this fallacious essay.

[Taylor Swift Scholar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was like an undergraduate seminar where the instructor writes “Evil” on the board and then you spend an hour trying to define it. I don’t think it changed my perspective on anything but I didn’t dislike it and I’ll be looking into some of the further reading.

[Paul Kerr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Super introductory course in the philosophical arguments around the nature of evil - with definitional analyses and clear insight into what it means to be evil.

[Wesley R · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read. A lot of semantic questions and deep-dives which generally do interest me so I was pretty engaged. Overall, my biggest takeaway from reading this is that some words we use so flippantly may not be as easily understood as we think. I also thought the last chapter raised a few challenging questions, which I appreciate.

Reading some of the reviews on here, I am slightly concerned that the author may not be the best guy or best writer. Honestly, though, as a person who is interested in philosophy and sociology but hasn’t read a lot of texts on it, this book offered exactly what the title said it would: a very brief introduction into the philosophical definition and repercussions of evil.

[erkamdiyorum · Rating 3 out of 5]

---3/5---

iletişim yayınlarından çıkan, kılavuz serisi'nin 5. kitabı.

giriş seviyesinde, kötülüğün tanımının yapıldığı ve çeşitlerinden bahsedildiği bir eser. günlük hayatta yaptığımız birçok şeyin aslında kötülük olabileceğini de bu sayede yazar bize göstermiş oluyor ama katılmadığım yerleri bir hayli fazla.

[Catherine Chang · Rating 3 out of 5]

If we agree that some evil persons can’t be reformed, isn’t that the same as we agree that they are born evil?

[Roo O'brien · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but I can’t help feeling it’s all semantics. In Spanish evil and wrongdoing are both ‘mal’ and so this entire idea that there is something special about ‘evil’ would not really work.

[Safa Furkan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bu konuda daha önce okuma yapmış insanlar için çok basit kaçıyor.

[Yavuz Temel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unnecessarily long. The author repeats the same ideas over and over. So except few paragraphs ı couldnt learn anything new.

[Kristina Holm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting topic but a bit long winded

[Yasemin Ugur · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Saf kötülük neden vardır?” Sorusuna felsefi açıdan farklı tanımlamalar getiren kitap! Bence tüm tanımlar doğru çünkü kötülük gerçekten var; ve bu gerçeklik ne mutlu ki ahlaki duygulara sahip bilge ve iyi insanların varlığına dayanıyor.
.
“Can yakmaktan haz almak ve pişmanlık duymamak.”