The
nature of evil will be addressed from a perspective consistent with
with panentheism
(see Definitions). Panentheism is a philosophy that was first
articulated in 1828 by the German philosopher Karl Krause. More
recently, this position has been reflected in the works of writers
such as Franklin Merrell Wolff, Lynne McTaggart, Amit Goswami,
Robert Lanza, and Menas Kafatos. The central feature of these views
is the primacy
of consciousness. Consciousness
is construed as a unified field of consciousness, the primal quantum
field or as an indivisible whole in which we and the universe are
entangled (hereafter simply the Field). Some might equate this Field
with God or Source Consciousness. Everything material is a
manifestation of the Field, which creates an apparent dualism between
matter and spirit or consciousness. Life plays an important role in
this apparent dualism, which depends on subject /object relationships
that require a perceiving organism.
The
question naturally arises as to why the material universe and
subject/object relations exist. One perspective is that they exist
to provide the Field with an experiential context. Creation of an
experiential context suggests that the Field is engaged in
self-development. The material universe then is an artifact of
Consciousness that has rendered a portion of itself ignorant of the
rest so that dualistic representations of itself can interact. One
might think of the material universe as a canvas created by an artist
for the development of his or her creative talents. In short, the
dynamic interactions that we think of as life are permutations of
subject/object relations grounded in the Field. Ultimately speaking,
subject and object are ONE, and the material universe is an illusion.
Human
beings represent an important component of the material world simply
because their capabilities greatly expand the range of experience
possible. The key psychological component governing most
subject/object interactions involving human beings is ego. Ego is the
identity cloaking that portion of the Field manifest in human form.
The development of ego draws a veil between self and the Field,
thereby creating the dualistic illusion of me and not me. Everything
animate and non-animate beyond one's self-awareness is not me.
Good
and evil, therefore, represent a dualistic pair of categories that
can be applied to intentional actions by ego in the material world.
This dichotomy is, like all dichotomies, ultimately an illusion,
because the Field is beyond dichotomies. It is a spiritual
singularity or indivisible whole. However, it is a very "real"
dichotomy for individuals lacking direct experience of the Field and
therefore awareness of the illusion. If the Field created the
material universe in order to impose a counterpoint to itself for the
purpose of gaining experience, then the "struggle" between
good and evil would appear to be an important and necessary dimension
of experience.
In
other terms, good and evil can be thought of as the difference
between enlightened actions and actions grounded in ignorance. When
construed this way, actions grounded in ignorance blind one to one's
true nature, that is, as an aspect of the Field or God. Thus, evil
arises out of spiritual ignorance that leads one to invest one's
sense of being in ego. Life then consists of each individual's
struggle to overcome ignorance and thereby achieve enlightenment.
This dichotomy between enlightenment and ignorance might be thought
of as a bipolar construct, where one end is anchored by selflessness
(loving/kindness) and the other end is anchored by selfishness
(egotism). The further one's identity falls toward the selfishness or
egotism end of the scale, the greater one's ignorance and the
potential for evil actions.
An
interviewer at the Nuremberg trials for Nazi war criminals was asked
if he had learned anything from his interviews. He replied that what
he had learned was that evil was the total absence of empathy.
Empathy can be construed as the ability to expand one's sense of "me"
to include others. Carried to its logical conclusion, this inclusive
expansion submerges ego and becomes selflessness, which is the
antithesis of "me" or ego. True selflessness requires the
evolution of consciousness which requires the expansion of empathy
that leads to a life grounded in compassion and love.
Evil
then in this scheme of reasoning arises from attempts to gratify ego
desires. Desire is what one wants as distinct from what one needs.
One needs shelter but wants a penthouse apartment on Affluence
Avenue. Desires are rooted in status seeking, righteousness,
jealousy, lust, pride, power, honor, envy, fame and fortune, along
with many other similar obstacles to the expansion of empathy,
spiritual development and enlightenment. When objects are perceived
by ego as merely means to satisfy desire, they have no inherent value
independent of one's use of them. People, animals, plants, and physical
elements are all treated as objects for satisfying one's desires. The
desires of ego are an expression of ignorance and the source of evil
in the world. Satan, in Christian theology, might be thought of as
the personification of ego desire. Thus, to be consumed by the fires
of ego desire is, metaphorically speaking, to be in Hell.
Equating
self with ego is the initial step leading to treating others as
objects. Think of this initial step as ego becoming an image manager.
We are almost all image managers to some degree. The greater the
degree to which we engage in image management, the greater the extent
of our self-absorption. An image manager desires ego to be viewed by
others in a particular persona. Sometimes one has an intentionally
constructed public persona and a private persona that differ from one
another. Both will involve some degree of deception. A public persona
deceives others while the private persona deceives self.
Self-deception perpetuates ignorance, which can only be avoided by
not equating self with ego.
The
ego, as image manager, makes choices that are believed to maintain or
enhance ego's self-image or self-conception. A self-image can embody
a positive or negative persona depending upon the purposes that it
serves. Ego affects choices about things that include but aren't
limited to one's personal narrative, physical appearance,
possessions, public behavior, employment, or social and intimate
relationships. Image management is about "ME" (ego). I'm an
important person, I have authority, I'm no good, I'm a victim, I'm
beautiful, I'm handsome, I'm entitled, I'm helpless, I'm popular or
even I'm spiritual, among many others. Once one has a "ME"
narrative, then that narrative begins to control much of what one
does. Ego becomes fully self-absorbed, and to be self-absorbed implies
that one has a selfish identity. A selfish identity means one acts
from ignorance, which makes one highly susceptibility to engaging in
what might be perceived as evil.
Evil
is not dependent upon any particular act but rather on the intent of
the actor. To do harm to another individual unintentionally is not
evil. The same harm resulting from an intentional act committed in
the service of ego desire is evil. Graduations of evil or ignorant
actions depend upon the degree of damage to “objects” that result
from the satisfaction of the ego's desires. The nature of the harm,
whether physical, psychological, social or economic, is less
important than the degree of damage knowingly caused. Evil of
whatever degree is subject to escalation through the power of an
egoist to impose his or her desire broadly. Given someone with power
willing to cause damage in the service of ego desire, and the evil
will be multiplied. Acts affecting groups of people are greater evils
than comparable solitary acts, simply due to the multiplicative effect
of power in the service of ego desire. Another consideration is
complicity in evil through support for or ignoring the action of
others, the outcomes of which serve one's own ego desires. Bystanders
are not necessarily innocent but may be passive partners in evil
actions and thereby bear part of the burden of such evil. A final
consideration are acts that take on the appearance of being motivated
by good intentions. Surely, there are selfless acts motivated by good
intentions. However, the criterion for evil offered herein pertains
to acts motivated by ego desire. A benefit that accrues as a result
of actions motivated by ego does not justify the actions or
neutralize the evil. The point is simply that there is, in some manner
of speaking, a continuum of sorts along which one might arrange acts
of evil with varying degrees of precision. While all actions in the
service of ego desire are, by definition, evil, there are lesser and
greater evils among them.
A
question can also be raised about evil and the satisfaction of needs.
This poses a fundamental question about natural rights. When a
mountain lion kills a deer for food, we would not describe this
action as evil. It is the natural right of the lion to acquire
sustenance from its environment. In the case of human beings, it
might also be argued that they have a natural right to meet their
life-sustaining needs. One could argue that a human animal has the
same natural rights as a lion, and taking its sustenance by force is
no more evil than the taking by the lion. Evil would be avoided,
however, only by using no more force than is necessary, taking only
the minimum that is needed or a fair apportionment, whichever is less,
and engaging in no retribution. Even so, an enlightened individual
would recognize that the situation is simply one "act" in
an evolving human drama intended to provide opportunities to overcome
ignorance. Thus, such an enlightened individual might refuse to
participate in the drama and accept starvation. By doing so, the
enlightened individual maintains detachment from the drama of the
material world while serving as an example to others and possibly
contributing to their spiritual advancement.
Finally,
there is the general question of how should one respond to evil
action? This will depend upon the development of one's sense of
selflessness. Someone operating from the selfish side of the identity
scale will respond in-kind and strike back in anger with a desire for
revenge and thereby perpetuating ignorance. This is the morality of
retribution. If a direct response isn't possible or avoided out of
fear, the object of the evil action may at least harbor ill will
(hatred) toward the perpetrator, which will also serve to perpetuate
ignorance. In the case of a response to an unprovoked action engaged
in for defensive reasons, even if the defensive actions are in-kind,
they are not evil. A purely reflexive defensive action may be
grounded in ignorance but it isn't an intentional attempt to satisfy
ego desire. Ignorant because the defender has not learned the
negative moral implications of emotionally motivated in-kind,
counter-aggression. This is, of course, the way the majority of human
beings can be expected to act, which often leads to an escalating
cycle of response and counter-response. Ignorance follows the path of
least resistance, and ignorance is the soil in which evil takes root.
A
person operating from the middle of the scale will probably engage in
defensive counter-aggression but without emotional content. In other
words, an emotionally detached response is more likely to be a
constrained response. Someone operating from the selflessness side of
the identity scale will recognize the evil nature of the "attack"
and the need for a measured response. Such an individual will engage
in counter-aggression as a last resort and will then only do so with
emotional detachment. This is not unlike the concept of
warrior-priests, embodied in the Chinese Shaolin tradition, who according to legend used moral authority, paradoxical responses, persuasion and
acceptance when the object of evil action. Direct action was only
taken to protect life. These priests were alleged to have the skills
necessary to respond in a graduated manner that never employed more
counterforce than was necessary. This graduated and minimal defense
was made possible by complete emotional detachment and thereby
without investment of ego. Such an individual would have a well
developed understanding of the nature of evil and how to make a
humane response to it. Finally, a fully selfless and enlightened
person who is the object of evil action might embrace and absorb the
action to the point of physical annihilation, knowing that the action
cannot do any real injury and recognizing that such a response to
evil may serve as an instructional demonstration.
In
conclusion, an undeveloped or under-developed sense of empathy is
clearly an obstacle to spiritual growth. Thus, being ruled by ego
desire and thereby satisfying one's wants through treating everything
that is "not me" as an object with no purpose but to serve
one's desires blocks the path to spiritual development. To open the
path to spiritual development requires a freely made choice to let go
of attachments to wants and expand one's sense of empathy through
identification and perspective-taking until ignorance and selfishness
are crowded out by love and compassion. When the spiritual path is
freely embraced one has taken one giant step in the evolution of
consciousness, selflessness and enlightenment.