Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Evil (disambiguation) and Good and evil.

One of the five paintings of Extermination of Evil portrays Sendan Kendatsuba, one of the eight
guardians of Buddhist law, banishing evil.

Evil, in a general context, is taken as the absence or complete opposite of that which is ascribed
as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality.[1] In certain religious contexts,
evil has been described as a supernatural force.[1] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of
its root motives and causes.[2] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil
involveunbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.[3]
In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as
thedualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be
defeated.[4] In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part
of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving nyat meaning
emptiness in the sense of recognition of good and evil being two opposing principles but not a
reality, emptying the duality of them, and achieving a oneness.[4]
The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute, relative, or illusory leads to questions
about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral
absolutism,amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism.
While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency, the forms of evil addressed in
this article presume an evildoer or doers.
Contents
[hide]

1 Etymology

2 Chinese moral philosophy

3 Western philosophy
o

3.1 Spinoza

3.2 Nietzsche

4 Psychology
o

4.1 Carl Jung

4.2 Philip Zimbardo

5 Religion
o

5.1 Bah' Faith

5.2 Buddhism

5.3 Hinduism

5.4 Sikhism

5.5 Islam

5.6 Judaism

5.7 Christianity

5.8 Zoroastrianism

6 Philosophical questions
o

6.1 Universality

6.2 Usefulness as a term

6.3 Necessary evil

7 See also

8 References

9 External links

Etymology[edit]
The modern English word evil (Old English yfel) and its cognates such as
the German bel and Dutch euvel are widely considered to come from a ProtoGermanic reconstructed form of *ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from
the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later
Germanic forms includeMiddle English evel, ifel, ufel, Old Frisian evel (adjective and noun), Old
Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils.
The root meaning of the word is of obscure origin though shown[5] to be akin to
modern German Das bel (although evil is normally translated as Das Bse) with the basic idea
oftransgressing.[6]

Chinese moral philosophy[edit]

Main: Confucian Ethics, Confucianism and Taoist Ethics
As with Buddhism below, in Confucianism or Taoism, there is no direct analogue to the
way good and evil are opposed although reference to demonic influence is common
inChinese folk religion. Confucianism's primary concern is with correct social relationships
and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man. Thus evil would correspond to
wrong behavior. Still less does it map into Taoism, in spite of the centrality of dualism in that
system, but the opposite of the cardinal virtues of Taoism, compassion, moderation, and
humility can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it. [7][8]

Western philosophy[edit]
Spinoza[edit]
Benedict de Spinoza states
1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.
2. By evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from
possessing anything that is good.[9]
Spinoza assumes a quasi-mathematical style and states these further propositions which he
purports to prove or demonstrate from the above definitions in part IV of his Ethics :[9]

Proposition 8 "Knowledge of good or evil is nothing but affect of joy or sorrow in so far
as we are conscious of it."

Proposition 30 "Nothing can be evil through that which it possesses in common with our
nature, but in so far as a thing is evil to us it is contrary to us."

Proposition 64 "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge."

Corollary "Hence it follows that if the human mind had none but adequate ideas, it
would form no notion of evil."

Proposition 65 "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we
shall follow the greater good, and of two evils, follow the less."

Proposition 68 "If men were born free, they would form no conception of good and evil
so long as they were free."

Nietzsche[edit]
Friedrich Nietzsche, in a rejection of the Judeo-Christian morality, addresses this in two
works Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals where he essentially says
that the natural functional non-good has been socially transformed into the religious concept
of evil by the slave mentality of the weak and oppressed masses who resent their masters
(the strong).

Psychology[edit]
Carl Jung[edit]

Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the dark side of the
Devil. People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project
their shadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing
his own shadow.[10]

Philip Zimbardo[edit]
In 2007, Philip Zimbardo suggested that people may act in evil ways as a result of
a collective identity. This hypothesis, based on his previous experience from the Stanford
prison experiment, was published in the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good
People Turn Evil.[11]

Religion[edit]
Main article: Problem of evil

Bah' Faith[edit]
The Bah' Faith asserts that evil is non-existent and that it is a concept for the lacking of
good, just as cold is the state of no heat, darkness is the state of no light, forgetfulness the
lacking of memory, ignorance the lacking of knowledge. All of these are states of lacking and
have no real existence.[12]
Thus, evil does not exist, and is relative to man. `Abdu'l-Bah, son of the founder of the
religion, in Some Answered Questions states:
"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mindthat is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous.
Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man;
a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their
poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves." [12]
Thus, evil is more of an intellectual concept than a true reality. Since God is good, and upon
creating creation he confirmed it by saying it is Good (Genesis 1:31) evil cannot have a true
reality.[12]

Buddhism[edit]

Extermination of Evil, The God of Heavenly Punishment, from the Chinese tradition of yin and
yang. Late Heian period (12th Century Japan)

Main: Buddhist Ethics

The primal duality in Buddhism is between suffering and enlightenment, so the good vs.
evil splitting has no direct analogue in it. One may infer however from the general

teachings of the Buddha that the catalogued causes of suffering are what correspond in
this belief system to evil.[13][14]
Practically this can refer to 1) the three selfish emotionsdesire, hate and delusion; and
2) to their expression in physical and verbal actions. See ten unvirtuous actions in
Buddhism. Specifically, evil means whatever harms or obstructs the causes for
happiness in this life, a better rebirth, liberation from samsara, and the true and
complete enlightenment of a buddha (samyaksambodhi).
"What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil:
envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And
what is the root of evil? Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil." Gautama
Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.

Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism the concept of Dharma or righteousness clearly divides the world into good
and evil, and clearly explains that wars have to be waged sometimes to establish and
protect Dharma, this war is called Dharmayuddha. This division of good and evil is of
major importance in both the Hindu epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata. However, the
main emphasis in Hinduism is on bad action, rather than bad people. The Hindu holy
text, theBhagavad Gita, speaks of the balance of good and evil. When this balance goes
off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance.

Sikhism[edit]
In adherence to the core principle of spiritual evolution, the Sikh idea of evil changes
depending on one's position on the path to liberation. At the beginning stages of spiritual
growth, good and evil may seem neatly separated. However, once one's spirit evolves to
the point where it sees most clearly, the idea of evil vanishes and the truth is revealed.
In his writings Guru Arjan explains that, because God is the source of all things, what we
believe to be evil must too come from God. And because God is ultimately a source of
absolute good, nothing truly evil can originate from God.[15]
Nevertheless, Sikhism, like many other religions, does incorporate a list of "vices" from
which suffering, corruption, and abject negativity arise. These are known as the Five
Thieves, called such due to their propensity to cloud the mind and lead one astray from
the prosecution of righteous action.[16] These are:[17]

Moh, or Attachment

Lobh, or Greed

Karodh, or Wrath

Kaam, or Lust

Ahankar, or Egotism

One who gives in to the temptations of the Five Thieves is known as "Manmukh", or
someone who lives selfishly and without virtue. Inversely, the "Gurmukh, who thrive in
their reverence toward divine knowledge, rise above vice via the practice of the high
virtues of Sikhism. These are:[18]

Sewa, or selfless service to others.

Nam Simran, or meditation upon the divine name.

Islam[edit]
There is no concept of absolute evil in Islam, as a fundamental universal principle that is
independent from and equal with good in a dualistic sense. Within Islam, it is considered
essential to believe that all comes from Allah, whether it is perceived as good or bad by
individuals; and things that are perceived as evil or bad are either natural events
(natural disasters or illnesses) or caused by humanity's free will to disobey Allah's
orders. See however Iblis.
According to the Ahmadiyya understanding of Islam, evil does not have a positive
existence in itself and is merely the lack of good, just as darkness is the result of lack of
light.[19]

Judaism[edit]
See also: Satan in Judaism
In Judaism, evil is not real, it is per se not part of God's creation, but comes into
existence through man's bad actions. Human beings are responsible for their choices.
However Jews and non-Jews have the free will to choose good (life in olam haba) or
bad (death in heaven). (Deuteronomy 28:20) Judaism stresses obedience to God's 613
commandments of the Written Torah (see also Tanakh) and the collective body of
Jewish religious laws expounded in the Oral Torah and Shulchan Aruch (see
also Mishnah and the Talmud). In Judaism, there is no prejudice in one's becoming
good or evil at time of birth, since full responsibility comes with Bar and Bat Mitzvah,
when Jewish boys become 13, and girls become 12 years old.
Judaism does not personify evil in Satan; merely "Satan" is the title of an angel who
serves as an "accuser" at the heavenly court, who tests us ("hinderer", "tempter"). The
Jewish view of angels is that they can not act on their own, but are totally under control
of God himself. Therefore, an angel with the title Satan can not work against God.

Christianity[edit]
See also: Devil in Christianity
Evil according to a Christian worldview is any action, thought or attitude that is contrary
to the character or will of God. This is shown through the law given in both the Old and
New Testament. There is no moral action given in the Bible that is contrary to God's
character or God's will. Therefore, evil in a Christian world view is contrasted by and in
conflict with God's character or God's will. This evil shows itself through deviation from
the character or will of God.

The Devil, in opposition to the will of God, represents evil and tempts Christ, the personification of
the character and will of God. Ary Scheffer, 1854.

Christian theology draws its concept of evil from the Greek Old and New Testaments.
The Christian Bible exercises the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in
the Western world.[20] In the Old Testament, evil is understood to be an opposition to
God as well as something unsuitable or inferior such as the leader of the Fallen
Angels Satan [21] In the New Testament the Greek word ponerosis used to indicate
unsuitability, while kakos is used to refer to opposition to God in the human realm.
[22]
Officially, the Catholic Church extracts its understanding of evil from its canonical
antiquity and the Dominican theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who in Summa
Theologicadefines evil as the absence or privation of good. [23] FrenchAmerican theologian Henri Blocher describes evil, when viewed as a theological
concept, as an "unjustifiable reality. In common parlance, evil is 'something' that occurs
in experience that ought not to be."[24]
In Mormonism, mortal life is viewed as a test of faith, where one's choices are central to
the Plan of Salvation. See Agency (LDS Church). Evil is that which keeps one from
discovering the nature of God. It is believed that one must choose not to be evil to return
to God.
Christian Science believes that evil arises from a misunderstanding of the goodness of
nature, which is understood as being inherently perfect if viewed from the correct
(spiritual) perspective. Misunderstanding God's reality leads to incorrect choices, which
are termed evil. This has led to the rejection of any separate power being the source of
evil, or of God as being the source of evil; instead, the appearance of evil is the result of
a mistaken concept of good. Christian Scientists argue that even the most evil person
does not pursue evil for its own sake, but from the mistaken viewpoint that he or she will
achieve some kind of good thereby.

Zoroastrianism[edit]
In the originally Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, the world is a battle ground between
the god Ahura Mazda (also called Ormazd) and the malignant spirit Angra Mainyu (also
called Ahriman). The final resolution of the struggle between good and evil was

supposed to occur on a day of Judgement, in which all beings that have lived will be led
across a bridge of fire, and those who are evil will be cast down forever. In afghan
belief, angels and saints are beings sent to help us achieve the path towards goodness.

Philosophical questions[edit]
Universality[edit]

Adolf Hitler is sometimes used as a modern definition of evil.[25] Hitler's policies and orders
resulted in the deaths of about 50 million people.[26]

A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or

whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. C. S. Lewis, in The
Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered
evil, such as rape and murder. However the numerous instances in which rape or
murder is morally affected by social context call this into question. Up until the mid-19th
century, the United States along with many other countries practiced forms
of slavery. As is often the case, those transgressing moral boundaries stood to profit
from that exercise. Arguably, slavery has always been the same and objectively evil, but
men with a motivation to transgress will justify that action.
The Nazis, during World War II, considered genocide to be acceptable,[27] as did
the Hutu Interahamwe in the Rwandan genocide.[28][29]One might point out, though, that
the actual perpetrators of those atrocities probably avoided calling their actions
genocide, since the objective meaning of any act accurately described by that word is to
wrongfully kill a selected group of people, which is an action that at least their victims
will understand to be evil. Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly
related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu
Interhamwe accepted (and considered it moral) to commit genocide, the belief in
genocide as fundamentally or universally evil holds that those who instigated this
genocide are actually evil.[improper synthesis?] Other universalists might argue that although the
commission of an evil act is always evil, those who perpetrate may not be wholly evil or
wholly good entities. To say that someone who has stolen a candy bar, for instance,
becomes wholly evil is a rather untenable position. However, universalists might also
argue that a person can choose a decidedly evil or a decidedly good life career, and
genocidal dictatorship plainly falls on the side of the former.
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:

Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by
a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.

Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral
ingredient in nature.

Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local
culture, custom, or prejudice.

Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist

sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only
flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by
examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans.

Plato wrote that there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways
to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of
other beings capable of suffering.[30]

Usefulness as a term[edit]
One school of thought that holds that no person is evil, and that only acts may be
properly considered evil. Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg claims that the
root of violence is the very concept of evil or badness. When we label someone as bad
or evil, Rosenberg claims, it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain. It also makes it
easy for us to turn off our feelings towards the person we are harming. He cites the use
of language in Nazi Germany as being a key to how the German people were able to do
things to other human beings that they normally would not do. He links the concept of
evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment punitive
justice punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong.[citation needed]He contrasts this
approach with what he found in cultures[which?] where the idea of evil was non-existent. In
such cultures[citation needed] when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out
of harmony with themselves and their community, are seen as sick or ill and measures
are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and
others.
Psychologist Albert Ellis agrees, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive
Behavioral Therapy, or REBT. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm
someone, is almost always related to variations of implicit or explicit philosophical
beliefs about other human beings. He further claims that without holding variants of
those covert or overt belief and assumptions, the tendency to resort to violence in most
cases is less likely.
American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck on the other hand, describes evil as militant
ignorance.[31] The original Judeo-Christian concept of sin is as a process that leads one
to miss the mark and not achieve perfection. Peck argues that while most people are
conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse
this consciousness. Peck describes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness which
results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children or
other people in relatively powerless positions). Peck considers those he calls evil to be
attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and
views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident
in sociopaths.
According to Peck, an evil person:[31][32]

Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a selfimage of perfection

Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception

Psychologically projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific
targets, scapegoating those targets while treating everyone else normally ("their
insensitivity toward him was selective") [33]

Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as
much as the deception of others

Abuses political or emotional power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by
overt or covert coercion") [34]

Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so

Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil people are defined not so much by the
magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)

Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim

Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

He also considers certain institutions may be evil, as his discussion of the My Lai
Massacre and its attempted coverup illustrate. By this definition, acts
of criminal and state terrorism would also be considered evil.

Necessary evil[edit]
Martin Luther argued that there are cases where a little evil is a positive good. He wrote,
"Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse
yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt for the Devil, so
as not to give him the chance to make one scrupulous over mere nothings... ." [35]
According to certain[which?] schools of political philosophy, leaders should be indifferent to
good or evil, taking actions based only upon practicality; this approach to politics was
put forth by Niccol Machiavelli, a 16th-century Florentine writer who advised politicians
"...it is far safer to be feared than loved."[36]
The international relations theories of realism and neorealism, sometimes
called realpolitik advise politicians to explicitly ban absolute moral and ethical
considerations from international politics, and to focus on self-interest, political survival,
and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view
as explicitly amoral and dangerous. Political realists usually justify their perspectives by
laying claim to a higher moral duty specific to political leaders, under which the greatest
evil is seen to be the failure of the state to protect itself and its citizens. Machiavelli
wrote: "...there will be traits considered good that, if followed, will lead to ruin, while
other traits, considered vices which if practiced achieve security and well being for the
Prince."[36]
Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, was a materialist and claimed that evil is
actually good. He was responding to the common practice of describing sexuality or

disbelief as evil, and his claim was that when the word evil is used to describe the
natural pleasures and instincts of men and women, or the skepticism of an inquiring
mind, the things called evil are really good.[37]

See also[edit]
Philosophy portal
Ethics portal

Antagonist

Natural evil

Archenemy

Moral evil

Akrasia

Ponerology

Banality of evil

Psychopathy

Beyond Good and Evil

Satan

Devil

Sin

Evil empire

Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Graded absolutism

Theodicy

Morality

Theodicy and the Bible

Value theory

Villain

Ethics

References[edit]
Notes
1.

^ Jump up to:a b "Evil". Oxford University Press. 2012.

2.

Jump up^ Ervin Staub. Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. New
York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, Pp. 32.

3.

Jump up^ Caitlin Matthews, John Matthews. Walkers Between the Worlds: The
Western Mysteries from Shaman to Magus. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co, Jan 14, 2004.
P. 173.

4.

^ Jump up to:a b Paul O. Ingram, Frederick John Streng. Buddhist-Christian Dialogue:

Mutual Renewal and Transformation. University of Hawaii Press, 1986. P. 148-149.

5.

Jump up^ See 'Evil' entry in OED

6.

Jump up^ Harper, Douglas (2001). "Etymology for evil".

7.

Jump up^ Good and Evil in Chinese Philosophy C.W. Chan

8.

Jump up^ History of Chinese Philosophy Feng Youlan, Volume II The Period of
Classical Learning (from the Second Century B.C. to the Twentieth Century A.D). Trans.
Derk Bodde. Ch. XIV Liu Chiu-Yuan, Wang Shou-jen, and Ming Idealism. part 6
6 Origin of Evil. Uses strikingly similar language to that in the etymology section of this
article, in the context of Chinese Idealism.

9.

^ Jump up to:a b Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics, Part IV Of Human Bondage or of the

Strength of the Affects Definitions translated by W. H. White, Revised by A. H. Stirling,
Great Books vol 31, Encyclopdia Britannica 1952 p. 424

10. Jump up^ Stephen Palmquist, Dreams of Wholeness: A course of introductory lectures
on religion, psychology and personal growth (Hong Kong: Philopsychy Press,
1997/2008), see especially Chapter XI.
11. Jump up^ Book website
12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Coll., 'Abdu'l-Bah.; Barney, transl. from the Persian by Laura Clifford
(1982). Some answered questions (Repr. ed.). Wilmette, Ill.: Bah' Publ. Trust. ISBN 087743-162-0.
13. Jump up^ Philosophy of Religion Charles Taliaferro, Paul J. Griffiths, eds. Ch.
35, Buddhism and Evil Martin Southwold p 424
14. 'Jump up to:^ Lay Outreach and the Meaning of 'Evil Person Taitetsu Unno
15. Jump up^ Singh, Gopal (1967). Sri guru-granth sahib [english version]. New York:
Taplinger Publishing Co.
16. Jump up^ Singh, Charan. "Ethics and Business: Evidence from Sikh Religion". Social
Science Research Network. Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
17. Jump up^ Sandhu, Jaswinder (February 2004). "The Sikh Model of the Person,
Suffering, and Healing: Implications for Counselors". International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling 26 (1): 3346.
18. Jump up^ Singh, Arjan (January 2000). "The universal ideal of sikhism". Global
Dialogue 2 (1).
19. Jump up^ Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth (PDF). p. 193. Retrieved June
25, 2014.
20. Jump up^ David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: a Process Theodicy (Westminster,
1976/2004), 31.
21. Jump up^ Hans Schwarz, Evil: A Historical and Theological Perspective (Lima, Ohio:
Academic Renewal Press, 2001): 4243.
22. Jump up^ Schwarz, Evil, 75.

23. Jump up^ Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, translated by the Fathers of the
English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947) Volume 3, q. 72, a. 1,
p. 902.
24. Jump up^ Henri Blocher, Evil and the Cross (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994):
10.
25. Jump up^ Sanburn, Josh (February 4, 2011). "Top 25 Political Icons - Adolf
Hitler". Time. Retrieved August 27, 2011.
26. Jump up^ Del Testa, David W; Lemoine, Florence; Strickland, John
(2003). Government Leaders, Military Rulers, and Political Activists. Greenwood
Publishing Group. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-57356-153-2.
27. Jump up^ Gaymon Bennett, Ted Peters, Martinez J. Hewlett, Robert John Russell
(2008). The evolution of evil. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. p.318. ISBN 3-525-56979-3
28. Jump up^ Gourevitch, Philip (1999). We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be
Killed With our Families. Picador. ISBN 0-312-24335-9.
29. Jump up^ "Frontline: the triumph of evil.
url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/".
30. Jump up^ Cherniss, Harold (1954). The Sources of Evil According to Plato. American
Philosophical Society. pp. 2330. ISBN 9004052356. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
31. ^ Jump up to:a b Peck, M. Scott. (1983;1988). People of the Lie: The hope for healing
human evil. Century Hutchinson.
32. Jump up^ Peck, M. Scott. (1978;1992), The Road Less Travelled. Arrow.
33. Jump up^ Peck, 1983/1988,p105
34. Jump up^ Peck,1978/1992,p298
35. Jump up^ Martin Luther, Werke, XX, p58
36. ^ Jump up to:a b Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Dante University of America Press,
2003, ISBN 0-937832-38-3 ISBN 978-0-937832-38-7
37. Jump up^ Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible, Avon, 1969, ISBN 0-380-01539-0

Further reading

Baumeister, Roy F. (1999) Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. New York: A.
W. H. Freeman / Owl Book

Bennett, Gaymon, Hewlett, Martinez J, Peters, Ted, Russell, Robert

John (2008). The Evolution of Evil. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 9783-525-56979-5

Katz, Fred Emil (1993) Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil, [SUNY Press], ISBN
0-7914-1442-6;

Katz, Fred Emil (2004) Confronting Evil, [SUNY Press], ISBN 0-7914-6030-4.

Neiman, Susan. Evil in Modern Thought - An Alternative History of

Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Oppenheimer, Paul (1996). Evil and the Demonic: A New Theory of Monstrous
Behavior. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-6193-3.

Shermer, M. (2004). The Science of Good & Evil. New York: Time Books. ISBN 08050-7520-8

Steven Mintz, John Stauffer, ed. (2007). The Problem of Evil: Slavery, Freedom,
and the Ambiguities of American Reform. University of Massachusetts
Press. ISBN 978-1-55849-570-8.

Stapley, A. B. & Elder Delbert L., Using Our Free Agency. Ensign May 1975: 21

Stark, Ryan. Rhetoric, Science, and Magic in Seventeenth-Century

England. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), 11545.

Vetlesen, Arne Johan (2005) Evil and Human Agency - Understanding Collective
Evildoing New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85694-2

Wilson, William McF., and Julian N. Hartt. Farrer's Theodicy. In David Hein and
Edward Hugh Henderson (eds), Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology
of Austin Farrer. New York and London: T & T Clark / Continuum, 2004. ISBN 0567-02510-1