The Fallacy of the Concept of Evil: Or Why Hitler Didn't Kick His Dogs

Centuries of lingual and rational shortfalls have resulted in the concept of evil as a concrete, externalized force. Evil has become a token of a dichotomy described only in black and white tones. However, it is a false dichotomy predicated on the idea that human beings are either good or bad.

Reality dictates that good and evil are poor descriptors of people and their behaviour. Just two shades of the morality scale are hardly enough to describe the complex blend of values found in human psychology. Yet we cling to the simple notion that evil is an outside, absolute, all-consuming entity beyond our own determination.

Heinous deeds do not require the presence of a mythical totem. The truth is, good and evil actions result from the choices we make every day and every hour.

Hitler committed some of the most despicable acts on record. Yet it is recorded that he was kind to his dogs. This means that there still remained within him some small scrap of humanity. The icon of ‘evil’ displayed kindness and affection towards his pets while trying his utmost to exterminate the Jewish race.

This doesn’t mean Hitler was by any means a good man, but it shows good or bad deeds stem from the decisions we make day after day. And that just because an individual may choose to commit a litany of barbarous deeds does not show him incapable of mercy, tenderness or love.

The responsibility for our deeds falls squarely upon us. On us–not a shadowy myth, not a winged do-gooder and not any externalized force or supernatural being. This can offer us misery and it can offer us hope. But it also tells us the choice–in the end–is ours. On our choices shall history judge us. For they are ours alone.

~e