Haywood 1

Contemporary Evil William Lloyd Garrison once asked, Are right and wrong convertible terms, dependent upon popular opinion? (quotegarden.com). As Garrison implies, right and wrong can be ambiguous terms, it is sometimes hard to tell what is right and what is wrong. Although it can be a vague idiom, generally most people can determine when something is evil. Is evil simply a general, intangible concept that all humans posses giving them an idea of their personal morals and a sense of right and wrong, or is it simply a word man has used to distance ourselves from inhumane behavior? Many researchers are focused on what drives people to commit deviant actions. Through modern research it is possible to gain insight into the psyche of those who act on depraved impulses. The most evident examples of evil are portrayed through a spectrum of immoral actions and values that go against societal standards. Can evil simply be described as the opposite of good? The concept of evil seems to be used an indistinct and over generalized term for wicked behavior. Scientists have been conducting experiments trying to explain why certain individuals choose to partake in this wicked behavior while others do not. Researcher Joshua Greene and his colleagues at Harvard University study the moral judgment and decision-making aspects of the brain through various behavioral experiments and other scientific tests. They seek a better understanding of how the cognitive processes involved with reasoning and self-control combine with our automatic processes or initial gut reactions in order to shape a persons moral judgment (Greene 1). They study brain patterns of a subject while he or she is read a situation and must choose an emotional response. For example in one particular case, the machine proposes a hypothetical situation in which the subject walks by a woman who is covered in blood and needs to be taken to the hospital immediately. It states that the subject initially wants to help the woman, but is hesitant

Haywood 2

because they are wearing an expensive designer suit; the subject is then asked if it is morally right or wrong to leave the woman there. In this specific case the subject responds that it is not morally right to leave the woman there, which is the most common answer among test subjects. Greene discusses that the machine can see the areas of the brain associated with social cognition when the subjects natural emotional response to the proposition arises, telling them which decision is the morally right one. Greenes teams brain imaging offers great insight as to what parts of the brain are activated in different decision making situations. In addition to the designer suit setting, in another study the researchers ask the subject to make a paradoxical decision - if it is right to take a life in order to save many. Not merely any life must be taken but in this particular instance it is the subjects child who is at stake; researchers ask the subject if it would be appropriate to smother their own child in order to save themselves and many others. The two situations both pose a difficult moral decision on the subjects, but the latter inquires if the subject would make a huge personal sacrifice for the greater good of many. The results show that when subjects agree to hypothetically kill their child, the logical cognitive aspect of their brain overrides the initial reaction of an evil decision and focuses on reason. The decision is difficult for most people and directly questions a persons ethics, but would agreeing to kill the child make a person evil? This complex moral decision can not be an example of evil, because a logical assessment is made before one makes the conclusion that ultimately the greater good of many is first priority. This study poses a question: if those who commit immoral actions have a sense of right and wrong and merely choose to disregard it, or is it possible for those to simply be born evil? One person who believes all people encompass the potential to do evil deeds is psychologist and professor at Stanford University Philip Zimbardo. He describes evil as the act

Haywood 3

of destruction of power, and discusses how, given the right circumstances, it is possible for anyone to become evil. Zimbardo is notorious for conducting the Stanford prison study exploring the psychology of prison life. The study took 24 average college students and randomly assigned them to be prisoners or guards in a fake prison created in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University (Wikipedia.org). With its original intent to be a two week study, the research ended after only 6 days due to the psychological trauma inflicted upon the participants. Initially seeking to observe the situational impact of forces on human behavior, the experiment soon turned into a self reflection for Zimbardo, who noticed while going over tapes that his body language suggested a powerful authority figure to the guards. The study was especially insightful as to the guards nature and to how quickly they began to gain pleasure in abusing the prisoners. The students began to become consumed by their roles, the guards sadistic abuse began to take on a sexual facet, and the prisoners became passive and depressed. The guards began using increasingly violent tactics in order to discipline the prisoners and thoroughly enforce their authority. By the end of the experiment, there was no amalgamation between either the guards or the prisoners; when one inmate was sent to solitary confinement the others regarded him as a bad prisoner and troublemaker. Each student had become completely devoted to their roles in the experiment. Results of the study imply that it was collective identity, or the individuals sense of belonging to the group, that inspired the students to commit acts of brutality. Zimbardo believes that ordinary people are capable of both infinite cruelty and the potential to do good deeds, depending on the situation they are placed in. Zimbardos groundbreaking exploration of human nature was both a major scientific insight for modern

Haywood 4

psychology and also a disturbing look at human potential to change behavior based on a particular circumstance. The archetypal battle between good and evil is constantly portrayed throughout religion. Regarding religion, the problem of evil has been philosophically debated and ethically examined for centuries. Some philosophers claim that the possibility of an omniscient being and the existence of evil simultaneously cohabiting together are completely unfeasible. Other arguments suggest that true free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil. In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil implores the explanation of evil if an omnipotent deity exits. In this argument, there is a logical and an evidential problem of evil. The logical problem of evil states that if there is a higher power, the possibility of evil would not exist; therefore there cannot be a higher power. The proposition relies on the suggestion that if an all-good, omniscient deity did exist it would not permit evil. Many people debate this belief, and this is the basis for the belief of theodicy. Theodicy, typically synonymous with theism, is primarily concerned with providing possible answers to some questions regarding this debated topic. Believers of theodicy seek to justify the simultaneous existence of God and evil (Wikipedia.org). Conversely, some philosophies explore the importance of free will as the driving force behind all motivation. In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes: My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? ... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed

Haywood 5

toofor the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Although it does not explain how an ethical standard can define the existence of God, his idea explores the necessity for an original idea of right in order to conceive an idea of wrong. Without the initial concept of justice, there would be no injustice. Therefore, there must be evil in the world in order to develop a sense of good. Despite the two being complete opposites; they must both exist in the world in order to counteract each other. In ethics, there are four subsectors of morality that aim to answer questions regarding good and evil. First, moral absolutism regards that all actions are either completely right or wrong, despite the motivating behavior. This implies that all immoral behavior is evil, even if its intentions are good. The second subsector is moral nihilism, which is the view that no act is moral or immoral. Moral nihilism views morality as a complex man-made idea; therefore good and evil exists solely from human creation. Moral relativism contains different positions that focus on how moral judgment differs across cultures. What is considered wrong to one culture may not be the same in another. Finally moral universalism, as its name states, proposes the idea of a basic moral code existing across all cultures, or a universal morality. Moral universalism states that moral actions are tied to the act itself and disregards its cultural contexts (Stanford.edu). Based on its fundamentals, moral relativism seems to be the most logical ethical stance. Its three positions contain rational viewpoints pertaining to societys viewpoints of morality. Descriptive moral relativism points out the vast ethical disagreements across different societies, describing the way morals are, not suggesting the way they should be. It states that there will be

Haywood 6

constant elementary disagreements between cultures despite knowledge of the same facts and possible repercussions of certain immoral actions. Secondly, normative relativism suggests how people ought to behave towards those they disagree with. It proposes that it is necessary to both tolerate and also not interfere with those performing actions one does not approve of. Thirdly, meta-ethical relativism holds the position that moral justification is only relative to the groups culture. It states that one moral judgment may be true to one society, but not towards another. This seems to be the most reasonable position on morals, due to its universal relevance. Evil can have a variety of meanings, and morality is a widely debated issue. Because of free will and logical thinking, humans possess the ability to make intelligent decisions. Although people contain the ability to make virtuous choices, both human nature and physical circumstances can drive a person to commit immoral actions. Ultimately, right and wrong are manmade concepts, and it is up to the individual to determine what behavior is evil. As Steven Weinberg brashly yet accurately stated, Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion (Weinberg 1).