Evil Isn't Real--Sorry, Not Sorry

In my previous post, I stated that the goodness of a thing is dictated by a thing’s flourishing and well-being, and a thing’s flourishing and well-being is dependent on its substantial form. For example, an oak tree engages in behaviors that either promote its flourishing (such as taking in sunlight, digging its roots deep into the ground, etc.) or hinder its flourishing (not being able to perform these behaviors because of another tree blocking it or choking it from the ground). Behaviors that promote its flourishing and well-being are deemed as ‘good’ because it allows the oak tree to perfect its form, i.e., being a good example of an oak tree. Any behaviors that hinder it detract its ability to perfect its form and thus it becomes a bad instance of its kind.

To be sure, the fact that it is an oak tree at all, it has at least some degree of goodness. All things behave as to preserve their own existence—existence is a good thing. Hence, all things that exist are to some degree good. Even a sloppily drawn triangle is to some extent a good triangle even though it is not as good as it could be. So, if everything that exists is at its most fundamental level good, where does evil come in? 

Evil, in itself, does not exist. At least, not in the same sense we say that other things exist. A tree exists, puppies exist, cups exist, but there is nothing you can pick up, hold, and say “Here is evil!”. This, at first glance, appears counter-intuitive. There are diseases, viruses, murderers, thieves, cancers, etc. We know evil exists, at least in some respect, so exactly how evil exists needs to be looked at further. Evil is a privation. It is a lack of something that it ought to have. For example, blindness is an evil because it is the lack of a power that is natural to a human being—the power of sight. For a dog to only have three legs is an evil because it lacks a leg it ought to have according to its nature. Dogs, in their natural healthy state, have four legs.

To be sure, to lack something in general is not an evil. I lack the ability to jump up and fly away, but this isn’t an evil because humans aren’t naturally capable of flying. Evil is the privation of a due good. It is a lack of something that is owed to you according to your nature. As such, evil only exists as a privation or defect in some already existing thing. To use the triangle again, to the extent the triangle’s angles do not add up to 180 degrees, it is a defective, albeit good, triangle. It lacks straight lines it ought to have. Evil, at its most fundamental level, is a privation.

But what about things that do appear to be evil but do exist, like cancer and so forth? Here it is important to distinguish between evil in itself and evil for something else. Evil in itself is a privation. However, there can be two things that are good absolutely speaking but evil in relation to each other. Fire, since it exists, is good. A house made of straw, since it exists, is good. But fire is an evil for a house made of straw. The two are good absolutely speaking, but the behaviors of one (in trying to flourish itself) might impede on the flourishing of the other. Thus, cancer engages in behaviors that try to allow it to flourish, but it does it at the expense of the human. It is evil for the human but not evil in itself.

As such, a thing’s substantial form dictates what it is and also how it ought to be. To be lacking something it ought to have is an evil for it, but to the extent it exists at all it is still good in some respect. Hence, when we use words like ‘ought’ or ‘should’, we are describing the way something should be according to its nature. A squirrel ought or should gather nuts for the winter and have four legs because that’s just what healthy squirrels do. If we say that it is an evil for a squirrel to be missing a leg (say due to some animal attack) we are saying there is a way the squirrel should be, and the way it should be is dependent on what it is in its healthiest, most natural state. Any defect from this state is an evil.

This, of course, applies to human beings as well. Blindness (as mentioned previously) is an evil because healthy human beings have eyes that are capable of sight. A limp in the leg is an evil because healthy human beings have legs that should be capable of getting them from A to B. The more we study the behaviors of things the more we discover what constitutes its flourishing and well-being, and thus the more we discover its substantial form. We can therefore state what is evil for it when we have at least some grasp of its substantial form.