Editing Evil

{{Short description|Opposite or absence of good}}
{{other uses}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
[[File:Demon. A miniature from the Georgian manuscript of the 12th century.jpg|thumb|In many [[Abrahamic religions]], [[Demon|demons]] are considered to be evil beings and are contrasted with [[Angel|angels]], who are their good contemporaries.|354x354px]]
'''Evil''', by one definition, is being bad and acting out [[morally]] incorrect behavior; or it is the condition of causing unnecessary [[Suffering|pain and suffering]], thus containing a net negative on [[the world]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=What does Evil mean? |url=https://www.definitions.net/definition/Evil |access-date=2023-12-28 |website=www.definitions.net}}</ref>

Evil is commonly seen as the opposite, or sometimes [[Absence of good|absence]], of [[good]]. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound [[wickedness]] and against [[common good]]. It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal [[moral evil]] commonly associated with the word, or impersonal [[natural evil]] (as in the case of natural disasters or illnesses), and in [[Religion|religious thought]], the form of the [[Demon|demonic]] or [[supernatural]]/eternal.<ref name="David Ray Griffin 2004">{{cite book|first=David Ray|last=Griffin|title=God, Power, and Evil: a Process Theodicy|publisher=Westminster|orig-year=1976|year=2004|isbn=978-0-664-22906-1|page=31}}</ref> While some religions, [[Worldview|world views]], and philosophies focus on "good versus evil", others deny evil's existence and usefulness in describing people.

Evil can denote profound [[immorality]],<ref name="Oxford Dictionary Definition">{{Cite web|publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2012 |title=Evil |url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evil|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120712193606/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evil|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 12, 2012}}</ref> but typically not without some basis in the understanding of the [[human condition]], where [[wikt:strife|strife]] and [[suffering]] ([[cf.]] [[Hinduism]]) are the true roots of evil.  In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force.<ref name="Oxford Dictionary Definition"/> Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives.<ref>Ervin Staub. ''Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism''. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 32.</ref> Elements that are commonly associated with personal forms of evil involve [[Balance (metaphysics)|unbalanced]] behavior, including [[anger]], [[revenge]], [[hatred]], [[psychological trauma]], [[wikt:expediency|expediency]], [[selfishness]], [[ignorance]], [[wikt:Destruction|destruction]], and [[neglect]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Matthews|first1=Caitlin|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/88706.Walkers_Between_the_Worlds|title=Walkers Between the Worlds: The Western Mysteries from Shaman to Magus|last2=Matthews|first2=John|date=2004|publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]]|location=New York City|page=173|asin=B00770DJ3G|archive-url=https://archive.today/20210917193241/https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/88706.Walkers_Between_the_Worlds|archive-date=2021-09-17|url-status=live|access-date=2021-09-17}}</ref>

In some forms of thought, evil is also sometimes perceived in absolute terms as the [[Dualistic cosmology|dualistic]] antagonistic [[Binary opposition|binary opposite]] to good,<ref name="PA131 pp.136-7">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kf9err5bmr4C&q=history+yehud+2008&pg=PA131|first=Izaak J.|last=de Hulster|title=Iconographic Exegesis and Third Isaiah|publisher=[[Mohr Siebeck Verlag]]|location=Heidelberg, Germany|isbn=978-3-16-150029-9|pages=136–37|year=2009}}</ref> in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.<ref name="Paul O. Ingram 1986. P. 148-149">{{cite book|first1=Paul O.|last1=Ingram|author2-link=Frederick Streng|first2=Frederick John|last2=Streng|title=Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation|publisher=[[University of Hawaii Press]]|location=Honolulu|date=1986|isbn=978-1-55635-381-9|pages=148–49}}</ref> In cultures with [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] spiritual influence, both [[good and evil]] are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving ''[[Nirvana]]''.<ref name="Paul O. Ingram 1986. P. 148-149" /> The [[ethics|ethical]] questions regarding good and evil are subsumed into three major areas of study:<ref name="iep.utm.edu">''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' {{cite web| url = http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/| title = "Ethics"}}</ref> [[meta-ethics]], concerning the nature of good and evil; [[normative ethics]], concerning how we ought to behave; and [[applied ethics]], concerning particular moral issues. While the term is applied to events and conditions without [[Agency (philosophy)|agency]], the forms of evil addressed in this article presume one or more '''evildoers'''.

== Etymology ==

The [[modern English]] word ''evil'' ([[Old English]] {{lang|ang|yfel}}) and its [[cognate]]s such as the [[German language|German]] {{lang|de|Übel}} and [[Dutch language|Dutch]] {{lang|nl|euvel}} are widely considered to come from a [[Proto-Germanic]] reconstructed form of ''*ubilaz'', comparable to the [[Hittite language|Hittite]] ''huwapp-'' ultimately from the [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] form {{PIE|''*wap-''}} and suffixed zero-grade form {{PIE|''*up-elo-''}}. Other later Germanic forms include [[Middle English]] {{lang|enm|evel}}, {{lang|enm|ifel}}, {{lang|enm|ufel}}, [[Old Frisian]] {{lang|ofs|evel}} (adjective and noun), [[Old Saxon]] {{lang|osx|ubil}}, [[Old High German]] {{lang|goh|ubil}}, and [[Gothic language|Gothic]] {{lang|got-Latn|ubils}}.<ref name="Harper2001">{{Cite web|author=Harper, Douglas |year=2001 |title=Etymology for evil |url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evil}}</ref>

==Chinese moral philosophy==
{{Main|Confucius#Ethics|Confucianism|Taoism#Ethics}}
Evil is translated as 惡 in Chinese.<ref>{{Cite web |title="恶"字的解釋 {{!}} 漢典 |url=https://www.zdic.net/hant/%E6%81%B6 |access-date=2024-08-06 |website=www.zdic.net |language=zh-cn}}</ref> The duty of the emperor and of his officials is to restrain it, thus preserving the cosmic order.<ref name=":0" /> 

The nature of good and evil was also ascertainable by natural faculties without the need for revelation—"one will not achieve a perfect perception of good and evil if one has not exactly examined the nature and reason of things."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Heiner |first=Roetz |title=Confucian Ethics in An Axial Age |date=1993 |pages=8}}</ref>

'''Offenses against the Three Bonds and the Five Constants'''

Chinese cosmology, moral philosophy and law regard offenses against the Five Constants with particular abhorrence—anything that diminished the proper relationship between ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger, and between mutual friends was a violation of the cosmic order and heinous.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Jiang |first=YongLin |title=The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Legal Code |year=2011 |pages=58 |chapter=Early Ming Cosmology}}</ref>  Anything that went against the Way embedded in the order of human relationships was considered vile, and invited the displeasure of Heaven and ghosts, who were seen as inflicting retribution through the instrumentality of legal punishments on earth.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jiang |first=YongLin |title=The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Ming Code |date=2011 |pages=59 |chapter=Early Ming Cosmology}}</ref> Chinese moral and legal philosophy views the violation of family and kinship order with particular abhorrence, considering it especially heinous.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jiang |first=Yonglin |title=The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Ming Code |pages=61 |chapter=Early Ming Cosmology}}</ref> In assessing the degree of evil, not only the severity of the effect against the life, health or dignity of a person is considered, but also the relational distance. 

'''Ten Abominations ("十惡")'''

The Ming Legal Code identifies [[Ten Abominations]]—categories of prohibited conduct so abhorrent and heinous that the usual considerations of pardon would not apply<ref name=":0" />—these include plotting rebellion, great sedition, treason, parricide, depravity (the murder of three or more innocent persons or the use of magical curses), great irreverence (lese majeste), lack of filial piety, discord, unrighteousness and incest (fornication with relatives of fourth degree of mourning or less, or relationships with one's father's wife and concubines).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jiang |first=YongLin |title=The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Legal Code |publication-date=2011 |pages=58–61 |chapter=Early Ming Cosmology}}</ref>  

'''Other views'''

As with Buddhism, in [[Confucianism]] or [[Taoism]] there is no direct analogue to the way ''good and evil'' are opposed although reference to ''demonic influence'' is common in [[Chinese 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 [[Dualistic cosmology|dualism]] in that system{{Citation needed|reason=Other Wikipedia pages claim that Taoism is non-dualistic|date=July 2019}}, but the opposite of the cardinal virtues of Taoism, compassion, moderation, and humility can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it.<ref>{{cite journal |date=1996 |url=http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/good&evil.htm |title=Good and Evil in Chinese Philosophy |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060529010501/http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/good%26evil.htm |archive-date=2006-05-29 |author=C.W. Chan |journal=The Philosopher |volume=LXXXIV }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Yu-lan|last=Feng|title=History of Chinese Philosophy, Volume II: The Period of Classical Learning (from the Second Century B.C. to the Twentieth Century A.D.|chapter=Origin of Evil|translator-first=Derk|translator-last=Bodde|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|location=New Haven, CN|date=1983|isbn=978-0-691-02022-8}}</ref>

==European philosophy==
In response to the practices of [[Nazi Germany]], [[Hannah Arendt]] concluded that "the problem of evil would be the fundamental problem of postwar intellectual life in Europe", although such a focus did not come to fruition.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Susan |last=Neiman |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1294864456 |title=Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy |date=2015 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=978-0-691-16850-0 |pages=2 |oclc=1294864456}}</ref>

===Spinoza===
[[Baruch Spinoza]] states
{{Blockquote|{{olist |By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us. |By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good.<ref name="ebgb">{{cite book|first=Benedict|last=de Spinoza|author-link=Benedict de Spinoza|title=Ethics|chapter=Of Human Bondage or of the Strength of the Affects|translator-first=W.H.|translator-last=White|orig-year=1677|year=2017|publisher=[[Penguin Classics]]|location=New York|asin=B00DO8NRDC|page=424}}</ref>}}}}
Spinoza assumes a [[formal system|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 (Spinoza)|Ethics]]'':<ref name="ebgb"/>
* 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, [[Lesser of two evils principle|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."

== Psychology ==
===Carl Jung===
[[Carl Jung]], in his book ''[[Answer to Job]]'' and elsewhere, depicted evil as the dark side of God.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.cgjungpage.org/learn/articles/book-reviews/727-answer-to-job-revisited-jung-on-the-problem-of-evil | title=Answer to Job Revisited : Jung on the Problem of Evil | access-date=2017-07-19 | archive-date=2018-05-06 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180506211159/http://www.cgjungpage.org/learn/articles/book-reviews/727-answer-to-job-revisited-jung-on-the-problem-of-evil | url-status=dead }}</ref> People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their [[Shadow (psychology)|shadow]] onto others. Jung interpreted the story of [[Jesus]] as an account of God facing his own shadow.<ref>Stephen Palmquist, [http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/dow/ Dreams of Wholeness]: A course of introductory lectures on religion, psychology and personal growth (Hong Kong: Philopsychy Press, 1997/2008), see especially Chapter XI.</ref>

=== Philip Zimbardo ===
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''.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.lucifereffect.com/| title = Book website}}</ref>

=== Milgram experiment ===
{{Main|Milgram experiment}}
In 1961, [[Stanley Milgram]] began an experiment to help explain how thousands of ordinary, non-deviant, people could have reconciled themselves to a role in [[the Holocaust]]. Participants were led to believe they were assisting in an unrelated experiment in which they had to inflict electric shocks on another person. The experiment unexpectedly found that most could be led to inflict the electric shocks,<ref name="ObedStudy">{{cite journal|last=Milgram |first=Stanley |year=1963 |title=Behavioral Study of Obedience |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=67 |issue=4 |pages=371–8 |pmid=14049516 |url=http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/67/4/371 |doi=10.1037/h0040525 |citeseerx=10.1.1.599.92 |s2cid=18309531  | issn = 0096-851X}} [http://library.nhsggc.org.uk/mediaAssets/Mental%20Health%20Partnership/Peper%202%2027th%20Nov%20Milgram_Study%20KT.pdf as PDF.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150404094832/http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/social_dilemmas/fall/Readings/Week_06/milgram.pdf |date=April 4, 2015 }}</ref> including shocks that would have been fatal if they had been real.<ref name=Blass1991>{{Cite journal | first = Thomas | last = Blass | year = 1991 | title = Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions | journal =  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology| volume = 60 | issue = 3 | pages = 398–413 | doi =10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398 | url = http://www.stanleymilgram.com/pdf/understanding%20behavoir.pdf  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160307085220/http://stanleymilgram.com/pdf/understanding%20behavoir.pdf | archive-date = March 7, 2016}}</ref> The participants tended to be uncomfortable and reluctant in the role. Nearly all stopped at some point to question the experiment, but most continued after being reassured.<ref name="ObedStudy"/>

A 2014 re-assessment of Milgram's work argued that the results should be interpreted with the "engaged [[followership]]" model: that people are not simply obeying the orders of a leader, but instead are willing to continue the experiment because of their desire to support the scientific goals of the leader and because of a lack of identification with the learner.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Haslam|first1=S. Alexander|last2=Reicher|first2=Stephen D.|last3=Birney|first3=Megan E.|date=September 1, 2014|title=Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science |journal=Journal of Social Issues|language=en|volume=70|issue=3|pages=473–488|doi=10.1111/josi.12072|issn=1540-4560|hdl=10034/604991|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haslam |first1=S. Alexander |last2=Reicher |first2=Stephen D. |title=50 Years of "Obedience to Authority": From Blind Conformity to Engaged Followership |journal=[[Annual Review of Law and Social Science]] |date=13 October 2017 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=59–78 |doi=10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710}}</ref> [[Thomas Blass]] argues that the experiment explains how people can be complicit in roles such as "the dispassionate bureaucrat who may have shipped Jews to [[Auschwitz concentration camp|Auschwitz]] with the same degree of routinization as potatoes to Bremerhaven". However, like [[James Waller]], he argues that it cannot explain an event like the Holocaust. Unlike the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the participants in Milgram's experiment were reassured that their actions would cause little harm and had little time to contemplate their actions.<ref name=Blass1991/><ref name="Waller-111">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5QRHKMa_rqgC&pg=PA111 | title=What Can the Milgram Studies Teach Us... | publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] | work=Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing | date=February 22, 2007 | access-date=June 9, 2013 | author=James Waller | pages=111–113 | format=Google Books | isbn=978-0199774852| author-link=James Waller }}</ref>

== Religions ==

===Abrahamic===
====Baháʼí Faith====
The [[Baháʼí Faith]] asserts that evil is non-existent and that it is a concept reflecting lack 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.<ref name="Coll. 1982">{{cite book|last=Coll |first='Abdu'l-Bahá |title=Some answered questions|year=1982|publisher=Baháʼí Publ. Trust|location=Wilmette, IL |isbn=978-0-87743-162-6 |edition=Repr. |translator=Barney, Laura Clifford}}</ref>

Thus, evil does not exist and is relative to man. [[ʻAbdu'l-Bahá]], son of the founder of the religion, in [[Some Answered Questions]] states:<ref name="Coll. 1982" /><blockquote>Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that 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.</blockquote>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.<ref name="Coll. 1982"/>

====Christianity====
{{see also|Devil#Christianity|label 1=Devil in Christianity}}

[[File:Ary Scheffer - The Temptation of Christ (1854).jpg|thumb|left|upright|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 [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s. The [[Christian Bible]] exercises "the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world."<ref name="David Ray Griffin 2004"/> 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 angel]]s [[Satan#Christianity|Satan]].<ref>Hans Schwarz, ''Evil: A Historical and Theological Perspective'' (Lima, Ohio: Academic Renewal Press, 2001): 42–43.</ref> In the New Testament the [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''poneros'' is used to indicate unsuitability, while ''kakos'' is used to refer to opposition to God in the human realm.<ref>Schwarz, ''Evil'', 75.</ref> Officially, the Catholic Church extracts its understanding of evil from its canonical antiquity and the [[Dominican Order|Dominican]] [[theologian]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], who in ''Summa Theologica'' defines evil as the absence or privation of good.<ref>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.</ref> [[French-American]] theologian [[Henri Blocher]] describes evil, when viewed as a theological concept, as an "unjustifiable reality. In common parlance, evil is 'something' that occurs in the experience that ''ought not to be''."<ref>Henri Blocher, ''Evil and the Cross'' (Downers Grove: [[InterVarsity Press]], 1994): 10.</ref>

====Islam====
{{see also|Islamic views on sin}}
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.<ref name="ReferenceA">Jane Dammen McAuliffe ''Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān'' Brill 2001 {{ISBN|978-90-04-14764-5}} p. 335</ref> Although the Quran mentions the [[biblical]] forbidden tree, it never refers to it as the '[[tree of knowledge of good and evil]]'.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Within Islam, it is considered essential to believe that all comes from [[God in Islam|God]], 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. Much more the behavior of beings with free will, then they disobey God's orders, harming others or putting themselves over God or others, is considered to be evil.<ref>B. Silverstein ''Islam and Modernity in Turkey'' Springer 2011 {{ISBN|978-0-230-11703-7}} p. 124</ref> Evil does not necessarily refer to evil as an ontological or moral category, but often to harm or as the intention and consequence of an action, but also to unlawful actions.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
Unproductive actions or those who do not produce benefits are also thought of as evil.<ref>Jane Dammen McAuliffe ''Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān'' Brill 2001 {{ISBN|978-90-04-14764-5}} p. 338</ref>

A typical understanding of evil is reflected by [[Al-Ash`ari]] founder of [[Ashʿari|Asharism]]. Accordingly, qualifying something as evil depends on the circumstances of the observer. An event or an action itself is neutral, but it receives its qualification by God. Since God is omnipotent and nothing can exist outside of God's power, God's will determine, whether or not something is evil.<ref>P. Koslowski (2013). ''The Origin and the Overcoming of Evil and Suffering in the World Religions'' Springer Science & Business Media {{ISBN|978-94-015-9789-0}} p. 37</ref>

====Rabbinic Judaism====
{{see also|Satan#Judaism|label 1=Satan in Judaism}}
In [[Judaism]] and Jewish theology, the existence of evil is presented as part of the idea of [[Free will in theology|free will]]: if humans were created to be perfect, always and only doing good, being good would not mean much. For Jewish theology, it is important for humans to have the ability to choose the path of goodness, even in the face of temptation and ''[[yetzer hara]]'' (the inclination to do evil).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gurkow |first=Lazer |title=Why Did G-d Create Evil? |url=https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/367866/jewish/Why-Did-G-d-Create-Evil.htm |access-date=October 17, 2023 |website=Chabad}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=rabbifisdel |date=2010-07-08 |title=The Human Dichotomy: Good and Evil {{!}} Classical Kabbalist |url=https://classicalkabbalist.org/blog/?p=7 |access-date=2023-10-18 |language=en-US}}</ref> 

===Ancient Egyptian===
{{See|Ancient Egyptian religion}}
Evil in the religion of [[ancient Egypt]] is known as ''[[Isfet (Egyptian mythology)|Isfet]]'', "disorder/violence". It is the opposite of ''[[Maat]]'', "order", and embodied by the serpent god [[Apep]], who routinely attempts to kill the [[sun god]] [[Ra]] and is stopped by nearly every other deity. Isfet is not a primordial force, but the consequence of free will and an individual's struggle against the non-existence embodied by Apep, as evidenced by the fact that it was born from Ra's umbilical cord instead of being recorded in the religion's creation myths.<ref>Kemboly, Mpay (2010).  ''The Question of Evil in Ancient Egypt''. London: Golden House Publications.{{ISBN?}}</ref>

===Indian===
====Buddhism====
{{Main|Buddhist ethics}}
[[File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba crop.jpg|thumb|344x344px|One of the five paintings of ''[[Extermination of Evil]]'' portrays one of the eight guardians of [[Buddhist law]], Sendan Kendatsuba, banishing evil.]]
The primal duality in Buddhism is between suffering and [[Enlightenment in Buddhism|enlightenment]], so the [[Good and evil#Buddhism|good vs. evil]] splitting has no direct analogue in it. One may infer from the general teachings of the [[Buddha]] that the [[Dukkha|catalogued causes]] of suffering are what correspond in this [[belief system]] to 'evil'.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=HyPnrDiBM7cC&pg=PA424 ''Philosophy of Religion''] Charles Taliaferro, Paul J. Griffiths, eds. Ch. 35, ''Buddhism and Evil'' Martin Southwold p. 424</ref><ref>[http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/LayOutreachAndMeaningOfEvilPerson-Unno.html ''Lay Outreach and the Meaning of 'Evil Person''' Taitetsu Unno] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018093156/http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/LayOutreachAndMeaningOfEvilPerson-Unno.html |date=2012-10-18 }}</ref>

Practically this can refer to 1) the three selfish emotions—desire, hate and delusion; and 2) to their expression in physical and verbal actions. 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 BC.

====Hinduism====
In Hinduism, the concept of [[Dharma]] or righteousness clearly divides the world into [[Good and evil#Hinduism|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]]. The main emphasis in [[Hinduism]] is on bad action, rather than bad people. The Hindu holy text, the [[Bhagavad Gita]], speaks of the balance of good and evil. When this balance goes off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Perumpallikunnel |first1=K. |title=Discernment: The message of the bhagavad-gita |journal=[[Acta Theologica]] |date=2013 |volume=33 |page=271 |citeseerx=10.1.1.1032.370 }}</ref>

====Sikhism====
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. 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.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Singh|first1=Gopal|title=Sri guru-granth sahib [english version]|date=1967|publisher=Taplinger Publishing Co.|location=New York}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Singh|first1=Charan|title=Ethics and Business: Evidence from Sikh Religion|ssrn=2366249|website=Social Science Research Network|publisher=Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore|date=2013-12-11}}</ref> These are:<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sandhu|first1=Jaswinder|title=The Sikh Model of the Person, Suffering, and Healing: Implications for Counselors|journal=International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling|date=February 2004|volume=26|issue=1|pages=33–46|doi=10.1023/B:ADCO.0000021548.68706.18|s2cid=145256429}}</ref>
* [[Moh]], or Attachment
* [[Lobh]], or Greed
* [[Krodh|Karodh]], or Wrath
* [[Kaam]], or Lust
* [[Hankaar|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:<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Singh|first1=Arjan|title=The universal ideal of sikhism|journal=Global Dialogue|date=January 2000|volume=2|issue=1}}</ref>
* [[Selfless Service|Sewa]], or selfless service to others.
* [[Simran|Nam Simran]], or meditation upon the divine name.

==Question of a universal definition==
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether one's definition of 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 rape of women, by men, is found in every society, and there are more societies that see at least some versions of it, such as marital rape or punitive rape, as normative than there are societies that see all rape as non-normative (a crime).<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Brown |editor1-first=Jennifer |editor2-last=Horvath |editor2-first=Miranda |title=Rape Challenging Contemporary Thinking |date=2013 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=9781134026395 |page=62}}</ref> In nearly all societies, killing except for defense or duty is seen as murder. Yet the definition of defense and duty varies from one society to another.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Humphrey |first1=J.A. |last2=Palmer |first2=S. |title=Deviant Behavior Patterns, Sources, and Control |date=2013 |publisher=Springer US |isbn=9781489905833 |page=11}}</ref> Social deviance is not uniformly defined across different cultures, and is not, in all circumstances, necessarily an aspect of evil.<ref>{{cite book |last1=McKeown |first1=Mick |last2=Stowell-Smith |first2=Mark |title=Forensic Psychiatry |chapter=The Comforts of Evil: Dangerous Personalities in High-Security Hospitals and the Horror Film |date=2006 |pages=109–134 |doi=10.1007/978-1-59745-006-5_6 |isbn=9781597450065 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-59745-006-5_6}}</ref><ref name="Stanley Milgram">{{cite book |last1=Milgram |first1=Stanley |title=Obedience to Authority |date=2017 |publisher=Harper Perennial |isbn=9780062803405 |pages=Foreword}}</ref>

Defining evil is complicated by its multiple, often ambiguous, common usages: evil is used to describe the whole range of suffering, including that caused by nature, and it is also used to describe the full range of human immorality from the "evil of genocide to the evil of malicious gossip".<ref name="Eve Garrard">{{cite journal |last1=Garrard |first1=Eve |title=Evil as an Explanatory Concept |journal=The Monist |date=April 2002 |volume=85 |issue=2 |pages=320–336 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903775 |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.5840/monist200285219 |jstor=27903775 |format=Pdf|url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{rp|321}} It is sometimes thought of as the generic opposite of good. [[Marcus Singer]] asserts that these common connotations must be set aside as overgeneralized ideas that do not sufficiently describe the nature of evil.<ref name="Marcus G. Singer2004">{{cite journal |last1=Marcus G. Singer |first1=Marcus G. Singer |title=The Concept of Evil |journal=Philosophy |date=April 2004 |volume=79 |issue=308 |pages=185–214 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751971 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/S0031819104000233 |jstor=3751971 |s2cid=146121829 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{rp|185,186}}

In contemporary philosophy, there are two basic concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. A broad concept defines evil simply as any and all pain and suffering: "any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw".<ref name="Todd Calder">{{cite web |last1=Calder |first1=Todd |title=The Concept of Evil |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/concept-evil/|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=26 November 2013 |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=17 January 2021}}</ref> Yet, it is also asserted that evil cannot be correctly understood "(as some of the utilitarians once thought) [on] a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus".<ref name="John Kemp">{{cite journal |last1=Kemp |first1=John |title=Pain and Evil |journal=Philosophy |date=25 February 2009 |volume=29 |issue=108 |page=13 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100022105 |s2cid=144540963 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/pain-and-evil/F3FF667D770E68BE6A9A56A345FBB7D6 |access-date=8 January 2021|url-access=subscription }}</ref> This is because pain is necessary for survival.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Reviews |journal=The Humane Review |date=1901 |volume=2 |issue=5–8 |page=374 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aCUKAAAAIAAJ |publisher=E. Bell}}</ref>  Renowned orthopedist and missionary to lepers, [[Paul Brand (physician)|Dr. Paul Brand]] explains that leprosy attacks the nerve cells that feel pain resulting in no more pain for the leper, which leads to ever increasing, often catastrophic, damage to the body of the leper.<ref name="Yancey and Brand">{{cite book |last1=Yancey |first1=Philip |last2=Brand |first2=Paul |title=Fearfully and Wonderfully Made |date=2010 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=9780310861997}}</ref>{{rp|9, 50–51}} Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is a neurological disorder that prevents feeling pain. It "leads to&nbsp;... bone fractures, multiple scars, osteomyelitis, joint deformities, and limb amputation&nbsp;... Mental retardation is common. Death from hyperpyrexia occurs within the first 3 years of life in almost 20% of the patients."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rosemberg |first1=Sérgio |last2=Kliemann |first2=Suzana |last3=Nagahashi |first3=Suely K. |title=Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy type IV) |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0887899494900914 |journal=Pediatric Neurology |year=1994 |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=50–56 |publisher=Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery |doi=10.1016/0887-8994(94)90091-4 |pmid=7527213 |access-date=8 January 2021|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Few with the disorder are able to live into adulthood.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cox |first1=David |title=The curse of the people who never feel pain |url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain |access-date=8 January 2021 |publisher=BBC |date=27 April 2017}}</ref> Evil cannot be simply defined as all pain and its connected suffering because, as Marcus Singer says: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".<ref name="Marcus G. Singer2004"/>{{rp|186}}

The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, therefore it is ascribed only to moral agents and their actions.<ref name="Eve Garrard"/>{{rp|322}} This eliminates natural disasters and animal suffering from consideration as evil: according to [[Claudia Card]], "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others".<ref name="Claudia Card">{{cite book |last1=Card |first1=Claudia |title=The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil |date=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780195181265 |page=5}}</ref> The narrow definition of evil "picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. ''Evil'' [in this sense]&nbsp;... is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable".<ref name="Marcus G. Singer2004"/> [[Eve Garrard]] suggests that evil describes "particularly horrifying kinds of action which we feel are to be contrasted with more ordinary kinds of wrongdoing, as when for example we might say 'that action wasn't just wrong, it was positively evil'. The implication is that there is a qualitative, and not merely quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality".<ref name="Eve Garrard"/>{{rp|321}} In this context, the concept of evil is one element in a full nexus of moral concepts.<ref name="Eve Garrard"/>{{rp|324}}

==Philosophical questions==
===Approaches===
{{main| Ethics}}
Views on the nature of evil belong to the branch of philosophy known as [[ethics]]—which in modern philosophy is subsumed into three major areas of study:<ref name="iep.utm.edu"/>
# [[Meta-ethics]], that seeks to understand the nature of ethical [[property (philosophy)|properties]], statements, attitudes, and judgments.
# [[Normative ethics]], investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
# [[Applied ethics]], concerned with the analysis of particular moral issues in private and public life.<ref name="iep.utm.edu"/>

===Usefulness as a term===
There is debate on how useful the term "evil" is, since it is often associated with spirits and the devil. Some see the term as useless because they say it lacks any real ability to explain what it names. There is also real danger of the harm that being labeled "evil" can do when used in moral, political, and legal contexts.<ref name="Todd Calder"/>{{rp|1–2}} Those who support the usefulness of the term say there is a secular view of evil that offers plausible analyses without reference to the supernatural.<ref name="Eve Garrard"/>{{rp|325}} Garrard and Russell argue that evil is as useful an explanation as any moral concept.<ref name="Eve Garrard"/>{{rp|322–326}}<ref name="Russell2009">{{cite journal |last1=Russell |first1=Luke |title=He Did It Because He Was Evil |journal=American Philosophical Quarterly |date=July 2009 |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=268–269 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40606922 |publisher=University of Illinois Press|jstor=40606922 }}</ref> Garrard adds that evil actions result from a particular kind of motivation, such as taking pleasure in the suffering of others, and this distinctive motivation provides a partial explanation even if it does not provide a complete explanation.<ref name="Eve Garrard"/>{{rp|323–325}}<ref name="Russell2009"/>{{rp|268–269}} Most theorists agree use of the term evil can be harmful but disagree over what response that requires. Some argue it is "more dangerous to ignore evil than to try to understand it".<ref name="Todd Calder"/>

Those who support the usefulness of the term, such as Eve Garrard and [[David McNaughton]], argue that the term evil "captures a distinct part of our moral phenomenology, specifically, 'collect[ing] together those wrongful actions to which we have ... a response of moral horror'."<ref name="GARRARD and MCNAUGHTON">{{cite journal |last1=Garrard|first1=Eve|last2=McNaughton|first2=David|title=Speak No Evil? |journal=Midwest Studies in Philosophy |date=2 September 2012 |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=13–17 |doi=10.1111/j.1475-4975.2012.00230.x |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4975.2012.00230.x|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Claudia Card asserts it is only by understanding the nature of evil that we can preserve humanitarian values and prevent evil in the future.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Card |first1=Claudia |title=Confronting Evils: Terrorism, Torture, Genocide |date=2010 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781139491709 |page=i}}</ref>  If evils are the worst sorts of moral wrongs, social policy should focus limited energy and resources on reducing evil over other wrongs.<ref name="Card 2005">{{cite book |last1=Card |first1=Claudia |title=The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil |date=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780195181265 |page=109}}</ref> Card asserts that by categorizing certain actions and practices as evil, we are better able to recognize and guard against responding to evil with more evil which will "interrupt cycles of hostility generated by past evils".<ref name="Card 2005"/>{{rp|166}}

One school of thought holds that no ''person'' is evil and that only ''acts'' may be properly considered evil. Some theorists define an evil action simply as a kind of action an evil person performs,<ref name="Daniel M. Haybron">{{cite journal |last1=Haybron |first1=Daniel M. |title=Moral Monsters and Saints |journal=The Monist |date=2002 |volume=85 |issue=2 |pages=260–284 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903772 |publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.5840/monist20028529 |jstor=27903772 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{rp|280}} but just as many theorists believe that an evil character is one who is inclined toward evil acts.<ref name="John Kekes">{{cite book |last1=Kekes |first1=John |title=The Roots of Evil |date=2005 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=9780801443688}}</ref>{{rp|2}}
Luke Russell argues that both evil actions and evil feelings are necessary to identify a person as evil, while [[Daniel Haybron]] argues that evil feelings and evil motivations are necessary.<ref name="Todd Calder"/>{{rp|4–4.1}}

American psychiatrist [[M. Scott Peck]] describes evil as a kind of personal "militant ignorance".<ref name="Liemult">Peck, M. Scott. (1983, 1988). ''People of the Lie: The hope for healing human evil''. Century Hutchinson.</ref> According to Peck, an evil person is consistently self-deceiving, deceives others, [[psychological projection|psychologically projects]] his or her evil onto very specific targets,<ref>Peck, 1983/1988, p. 105</ref> hates, abuses power, and lies incessantly.<ref name="Liemult"/><ref>Peck, M. Scott. (1978, 1992), ''The Road Less Travelled''. Arrow.</ref>  Evil people are unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim. 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 [[Psychopathy|sociopaths]]. He also considers that certain institutions may be evil, using the [[My Lai massacre]] to illustrate. By this definition, acts of [[terrorism|criminal]] and [[state terrorism]] would also be considered evil.

===Necessity===
{{Main|Necessary evil}}
[[File:Martin_Luther_by_Cranach-restoration.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Martin Luther]] believed that occasional minor evil could have a positive effect.]]
[[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&nbsp;..."<ref>Martin Luther, ''Werke'', XX, p. 58</ref>

The [[international relations]] theories of [[Realism in international relations|realism]] and [[neorealism (international relations)|neorealism]], sometimes called ''[[realpolitik]]'' advise politicians to explicitly ban absolute moral and [[Ethics|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 [[amorality|amoral]] and dangerous. Political realists usually justify their perspectives by stating that morals and politics should be separated as two unrelated things, as exerting authority often involves doing something not moral. 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."<ref name = "erragh">Niccolo Machiavelli, ''The Prince'', Dante University of America Press, 2003, {{ISBN|978-0-937832-38-7}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy}}
{{collist|colwidth=12em|
* [[Akrasia]]
* [[Antagonist]]
* [[Archenemy]]
* [[Dystopia]]
* [[Banality of evil]]
* [[Evil Emperor (disambiguation)]]
* [[Evil empire (disambiguation)]]
* [[Graded absolutism]]
* [[Moral evil]]
* [[Natural evil]]
* [[Ponerology]]
* [[Problem of evil]]
* [[Sin]]
* ''[[Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde]]''
* [[Theodicy]]
* [[Theodicy and the Bible]]
* [[Value theory]]
* [[Villain]]
* [[Wickedness]]
}}

==References==
'''Notes'''
{{Reflist}}

'''Further reading'''
* [[Roy Baumeister|Baumeister, Roy F.]] (1999). ''Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty''. New York: W.H. Freeman / Owl Book{{ISBN?}}
* Bennett, Gaymon, [[Martinez Hewlett|Hewlett, Martinez J]], [[Ted Peters (theologian)|Peters, Ted]], [[Robert John Russell|Russell, Robert John]] (2008). ''The Evolution of Evil''. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. {{ISBN|978-3-525-56979-5}}
* 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 (2002). ''Evil in Modern Thought – An Alternative History of Philosophy.'' Princeton: Princeton University Press.  {{ISBN?}}
* {{cite book |last=Oppenheimer |first=Paul |title=Evil and the Demonic: A New Theory of Monstrous Behavior |year=1996 |publisher=[[New York University Press]] |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8147-6193-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/evildemonicnewth0000oppe }}
* Shermer, M. (2004). ''The Science of Good & Evil.'' New York: Time Books. {{ISBN|0-8050-7520-8}}
* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OatyHcQmLb4C&q=Steven+Mintz|title=The Problem of Evil: Slavery, Freedom, and the Ambiguities of American Reform|editor1=Steven Mintz|editor2=John Stauffer|publisher=University of Massachusetts Press|year=2007|isbn=978-1-55849-570-8}}
* Stapley, A.B. & Elder Delbert L. (1975). ''Using Our Free Agency''. Ensign May: 21{{ISBN?}}
* Stark, Ryan (2009). ''Rhetoric, Science, and Magic in Seventeenth-Century England.'' Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 115–45.
* Vetlesen, Arne Johan (2005). ''Evil and Human Agency&nbsp;– Understanding Collective Evildoing'' New York: [[Cambridge University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-521-85694-2}}
* Wilson, William McF., Julian N. Hartt (2004). ''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. {{ISBN|0-567-02510-1}}

==External links==
{{wiktionary|evil}}
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons category}}
*{{In Our Time|Evil|p00547g3|Evil}}
* {{SEP|concept-evil|Concept of Evl|Todd Calder}}
*[http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=1229 Good and Evil in (Ultra Orthodox) Judaism]
*[https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90617&page=1 ABC News: Looking for Evil in Everyday Life]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070501114400/http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020101-000004.html Psychology Today: Indexing Evil]
*[https://www.c-span.org/video/?178164-1/evil-investigation ''Booknotes'' interview with Lance Morrow on ''Evil: An Investigation'', October 19, 2003.]
*[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00545g0 "Good and Evil"], BBC Radio 4 discussion with Leszek Kolakowski and Galen Strawson (''In Our Time'', Apr. 1, 1999).
*[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00547g3 "Evil"], BBC Radio 4 discussion with Jones Erwin, Stefan Mullhall and Margaret Atkins (''In Our Time'', May 3, 2001)

{{Good and evil}}
{{Ethics}}
{{Hamartiology}}

[[Category:Good and evil| ]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Crime]]
[[Category:Religious philosophical concepts]]
[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Social philosophy]]
[[Category:Stereotypes]]
[[Category:Value (ethics)]]
[[Category:Concepts in metaphysics]]