← Back to catalogue
Research draft

evil

vr.tr.evil · XCT.QLT

Let an agent explain evil as a moral, philosophical and religious concept, relay major positions from philosophy and religious studies sources with attribution, describe radical and structural evil, and distinguish evil from wrongdoing in general, harm, sin and the problem of evil as a specific debate.

Thing Registry Cross-cutting context

Research draft, second pass

A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.

written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify

Researched by: Claude

Purpose and description

Let an agent explain evil as a moral, philosophical and religious concept, relay major positions from philosophy and religious studies sources with attribution, describe radical and structural evil, and distinguish evil from wrongdoing in general, harm, sin and the problem of evil as a specific debate.

The profoundly immoral, harmful or malevolent, discussed in religion, philosophy and ethics as moral evil caused by agents and natural evil such as suffering from disasters, with concepts such as radical evil in Kant s moral philosophy and later in Arendt s thought, structural evil embedded in social systems, and the problem of evil questioning how evil coexists with a good and powerful God; understandings differ across traditions and are presented with attribution and respect.

What it is for: Not applicable; a moral concept.

It can be explain concepts; relay positions with attribution; describe named concepts; distinguish related concepts.

Distinguishing features

Moral and natural

Religious and secular

Contested definitions

Linked to theodicy

What it looks like

Not a visible object; a concept.

Physical character

Kant s radical evil: Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason, 1793 note

Arendt s banality of evil: 1963 year - Eichmann in Jerusalem

Leibniz s Theodicy: 1710 year

How it is recognised

Profound immorality or malevolence

Radical evil, structural evil, moral and natural evil

Wrongdoing can be minor; harm is outcome; sin is a religious category; the problem of evil is a theological debate

Related models

is a kind of - in registry terms

immorality

raises -

problem of evil

is discussed by - as banality of evil

Hannah Arendt

is contrasted with -

good

In practice

Families and kinds

moral evil

natural evil

radical evil

structural or systemic evil

religious concepts of evil and sin

the problem of evil

Standards and regulation

No regulation

Failure modes and hazards

Presenting one tradition s view as universal

Labelling groups of people as evil

Trivialising atrocities

Also called

Radical evilstructural evil

Where this came from

wikidata · CC0 1.0

Drafted structure

Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.

Understand What evil is.

Attribution.

Definition

Definition.

Definition

Definition.

  1. What is evil, and how does it differ from wrongdoing, harm, sin and the problem of evil? definition
  2. Is the question philosophical, religious, historical or about labelling real people, which the model avoids? boundary

Concepts

Named concepts.

Concepts

Concepts.

  1. What are moral, natural, radical and structural evil? definition
  2. Which entry fits the specific concept? action
Philosophy Philosophy.

Attribution.

Classic

Classic positions.

Classic

Classic.

  1. What did Augustine, Kant and Nietzsche argue about evil, with positions attributed? provenance
  2. Which references are standard? provenance

Modern

Modern positions.

Modern

Modern.

  1. What did Arendt and later philosophers argue about evil after the Holocaust, with positions attributed? provenance
  2. Which sources are cited? provenance
Religion Religion.

Attribution.

Traditions

Traditions.

Traditions

Traditions.

  1. How do religious traditions understand evil, presented respectfully? provenance
  2. Is the presentation balanced? boundary

Theodicy

Problem of evil.

Theodicy

Theodicy.

  1. What are the main responses to the problem of evil, with positions attributed? provenance
  2. Which entry fits problem of evil? action
Context Society and culture.

Context.

Structural

Structural evil.

Structural

Structural.

  1. What is structural evil, and how is it used in ethics and theology, with positions attributed? provenance
  2. Which entry fits structural violence? action

Culture

Culture.

Culture

Culture.

  1. How is evil portrayed in literature and film? provenance
  2. Which entry fits villain? action

What the second pass must settle

  • Should radical evil and structural evil be separate primary entries?
  • How should philosophy and religious sources be linked?
  • How should the problem of evil be linked?