I have conversations with my friends and family about moral evil, and evil people, with regular frequency. We disagree on almost every level, with most of them concluding that I am far too lenient with people, or perhaps too optimistic about human nature. This seems very strange to me as, all in all, I’m not overly fond of people, and see my ideas as a realistic assessment of human ethics. I’ll let you decide for yourself.

I will begin by dismissing all forms of moral objectivity. The notion that an action is right or wrong at all times, despite the circumstances that surround it, seems ludicrous to me. Obviously a lot can be said about the various forms of moral objectivity but, because this is a blog and not a thesis, I will show why they don’t make sense as quickly as possible:

If God is the origin of morality – perhaps the most well known argument for moral objectivity – then there is the Euthyphro dilemma. Is it the case that God loves good things, or is it the case that things are good because God loves them? The former option means that ‘good’ does not originate with, nor rely upon, God, whilst the latter would allow for murder, rape or child abuse to be genuinely good, as long as God said so. It’s also important to note that God has no reason not to say such actions are good: We may refer to the actions hurting people, but none of our own notions on what makes an action bad or evil are truly relevant if good and bad is determined, exclusively, by God. This, then, is unacceptable.

The second theory on moral objectivity that I’ll refer to is that created by Kant; his Categorical Imperative. His notion that we should only act in such a manner that we could wish everyone act in the same manner fails completely. If I genuinely see nothing wrong with killing those weaker than myself, then why should I not wish that everyone act in the same manner, particularly if I am an especially strong person? If I would happily put the elderly and infirm out to pasture because I believe it will strengthen the human race then surely I’d be all for everyone else doing the same. Being able to wish your maxim universalised is no guarantee, whatsoever, of morality.

Right and wrong (if they are accepted as real) must, therefore, be dictated to some degree by situation. My theory, which I feel also takes into account factors such a mental health and diminished responsibility is as follows:

I believe that an action is only evil if that action seriously violates the moral code of the person who commits it. Take murder for example, if a person truly feels that it is morally acceptable to kill a person (without a reason such as self-defence), and not just that they can get away with it without punishment, then when they murder someone it is not evil. I would argue, rather, that the person in question feels murder is acceptable because they have been brainwashed, poorly educated (at least in certain areas), or are mentally ill.

In contrast, if I was to murder someone whilst feeling that it is completely morally unacceptable to take the life of another person, then murdering that person is evil.

This theory allows for differences, whether slight or great, in individuals’ moral codes whilst meaning that an action may be evil in one situation and not in another. Its weakness, according to my friends and family, is that it lets people off too easy, as if it is too convenient for people to be mentally ill when they do something that most people would deem as evil. Though I don’t agree that it lets people off with anything, I understand that this theory makes it difficult to determine whether someone has acted in an evil manner – how do I know the person in question didn’t think it was evil to kill someone? It’s important to note, however, that defining what an evil action is and determining when an evil action has been performed are very different things.