Most contemporary theorists reject Kant's view that the worstform of evil involves prioritizing self-interest over the moral law(See, e.g., Card 2010, 37 and 2002; Garrard 2002; Kekes 2005). Whether,and to what extent, a person, or her will, is evil seems to depend ondetails about her motives and the harms she brings about and not juston whether she prioritizes self-interest over the moral law. Forinstance, it seems far worse to torture someone for sadistic pleasurethan to tell the truth to gain a good reputation. In fact, it seemsreasonable to suppose that the first act (sadistic torture) indicatesan evil will while the second act (telling the truth for self-interest)indicates a will that is merely lacking in moral goodness. But forKant, both acts indicate wills that are equally evil.
He has forfeited himself as a reliable hero when all he cares about is taking petty revenge against Young-seok, who publicly accused him of a misdemeanor, while literally treating the victims of the serial killer like used soda cans strewn on the sidewalk.
Evil in the broad sense, which includes all natural and moral evils,tends to be the sort of evil referenced in theological contexts, suchas in discussions of the problem of evil. The problem of evil is theproblem of accounting for evil in a world created by an all-powerful,all-knowing, all-good God. It seems that if the creator has theseattributes, there would be no evil in the world. But there is evil inthe world. Thus, there is reason to believe that an all-powerful,all-knowing, all-good creator does not exist.
In Act I, two different revenge plots by these two men are revealed, and while Fortinbras is very open and bold about killing Claudius, Hamlet is sly and quiet about his plan.
"That's the best revenge of all: happiness. Nothing drives people crazier than seeing someone have a good fucking life." ~ , author of Fight Club and several other novels.
Another reason that ascriptions of evil can be particularly harmfulor dangerous is that it isn't always clear what people mean whenthey use the term ‘evil.’ As Eve Garrard puts it “thegeneral obscurity surrounding the term makes some thinkers veryreluctant to appeal to the idea of evil”(Garrard 2002, 322). Forinstance, some people believe that to say that someone performed anevil action implies that that person acted out of malice (see e.g.,Kekes 2005), while others believe that evildoing can result from manydifferent sorts of motives, even good motives (see e.g., Card 2002).Given this ambiguity, it might be unclear whether an attribution ofevil attributes despicable psychological attributes to an evildoer, andthis ambiguity might result in an overly harsh judgment.
The most celebrated evil-skeptic, nineteenth century Germanphilosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, also argues that the concept of evilshould be abandoned because it is dangerous. But his reasons forthinking that the concept of evil is dangerous are different fromthose discussed above. Nietzsche believes that the concept of evil isdangerous because it has a negative effect on human potential andvitality by promoting the weak in spirit and suppressing thestrong. In On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic, Nietzscheargues that the concept of evil arose from the negative emotions ofenvy, hatred, and resentment (he uses the French termressentiment to capture an attitude that combines theseelements). He contends that the powerless and weak created the conceptof evil to take revenge against their oppressors. Nietzsche believesthat the concepts of good and evil contribute to an unhealthy view oflife which judges relief from suffering as more valuable than creativeself-expression and accomplishment. For this reason Nietzsche believesthat we should seek to move beyond judgements of good and evil(Nietzsche 1886 and 1887).
A second argument in favour of the concept of evil is that it isonly by facing evil, i.e., by becoming clear about its nature andorigins, that we can hope to prevent future evils from occurring andlive good lives (Kekes 1990, Card 2010).
A third reason to revive the concept of evil is that categorizingactions and practices as evil helps to focus our limited energy andresources. If evils are the worst sorts of moral wrongs, we shouldprioritize the reduction of evil over the reduction of other wrongssuch as unjust inequalities. For instance, Card believes that it ismore important to prevent the evils of domestic violence than it is toensure that women and men are paid equal wages for equal work (Card2002, 96–117).
The ghost urges Hamlet not to act against his mother in any way, telling him to “Leave her to heaven, And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge, To prick and sting her.” Hamlet delayed in seeking revenge for his father because he...
One problem with the privation theory's solution to theproblem of evil is that it provides only a partial solution to theproblem of evil since even if God creates no evil we must still explainwhy God allows privation evils to exist (See Calder 2007a; Kane 1980).An even more significant problem is that the privation theory seems tofail as a theory of evil since it doesn't seem to be able toaccount for certain paradigmatic evils. For instance, it seems that wecannot equate the evil of pain with the privation of pleasure or someother feeling. Pain is a distinct phenomenological experience which ispositively bad and not merely not good. Similarly, a sadistic tortureris not just not as good as she could be. She is not simply lacking inkindness or compassion. She desires her victims' suffering forpleasure. These are qualities she has, not qualities she lacks, andthey are positively bad and not merely lacking in goodness (Calder2007a; Kane 1980. See Anglin and Goetz 1982 for a reply to theseobjections).
His mindset is set deep and far away from the physical world that both helps him and hinders him in his plight for revenge against his uncle, Claudius, and his mother.