I typically think of the word "evil" as simply meaning "something that ought not be" or in yet other synonymous words as meaning, "something that should not have happened".
Imagine one person says, "The hurricane that happened yesterday is evil". And a second person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday should not have happened." And a third person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday ought not have happened." And a forth person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday was morally wrong."
I would interpret all four people in the above situation as all saying the exact same thing, just with different words.
Likewise, I would interpret it as all four people either (1) saying something exists that I do not believe exists and/or (2) saying something that doesn't even make sense.
What is that singular thing (or pseudo-thing) to which each of those four people would be all referring? It is the pseudo-idea that unchangeable reality 'should' be different than it unchangeably is, or even could be. Perhaps the clearest label for what they are all describing is to call it 'should-not-ness'. By that definition, something is "evil" if it happened but 'should' not have happened or if it 'should' be different than it unchangeably is.
To me, to think that unchangeable reality 'ought' to be different doesn't make sense and is inconsistent with unconditionally accepting that which one cannot control and cannot change. For both those reasons, I do not believe it exists. In other words, since I unconditionally accept what I cannot change, I do not believe there can be anything that 'should' be different than it unchangeably is (i.e. anything "evil" as I use the term).
As I use the terms, I think logically one can not both (1) believe "evil" exists and (2) accept what they do not control (i.e. what they cannot change). That's because to say unchangeable reality 'should' or 'ought' to be different is to not fully and totally accept it. To think the proverbial cards you are dealt 'should' be different (i.e. to think the proverbial cards you are dealt are "evil") is to not fully and totally accept them.
So when I say that I don't believe "evil" exists, I am simply saying that I don't think unchangeable reality 'should' be different than it unchangeably is. In other words, when I say I don't believe "evil" exists, I am simply saying that I don't believe anything that I can neither control nor change is unacceptable.
I believe in unconditional love for everyone and everything, which to me is inconsistent with believing "evil" exists, as I use the term.
I believe in letting go of any and all resentment (i.e. unforgiveness or hate) of any kind for anything, which to me is inconsistent with believing "evil" exists.
For example, I believe even a rabid dog deserves unconditional love, forgiveness, and sympathy. As I use the terms, for one to say a rabid dog is "evil" is to say the opposite; It is to say one doesn't love the dog, or doesn't forgive the dog, or that one hates the dog or resents the dog, or that one otherwise doesn't accept that it is the way it is, any of which is inconsistent with my philosophy and beliefs. I don't think anything real is worth resenting or hating. I believe in unconditional love and forgiveness; I believe in unconditionally accepting what one cannot change (i.e. what one cannot control); And as I use the terms that means one must not believe in "evil".
Fully and unconditionally accepting that which we cannot control doesn't mean we don't do anything with what we can control. Quite the opposite: It means you would make your choices regarding what do you control in a loving way. You don't need to think the hurricane is evil to open an umbrella. Likewise, for example, when I say that I believe even a rabid dog deserves unconditional love, forgiveness, and sympathy, it doesn't mean I wouldn't--with loving sympathy in my heart--euthanize the poor dog, if it was the only the way to protect an innocent child from being bitten by dog and/or if I felt it was in the dog's own best interest to end its suffering earlier than later in that way. But I wouldn't do it with hate or resentment for the dog or with some sadistic glee that an "evil" dog is getting what it deserves. I'd accept that the dog having rabies and the other details of the situation were the unchangeable hand we were all dealt and that sadly putting the sick dog down was the most kind loving way for me to play that hand. I wouldn't hate the dog or the cards, or think either was evil, I'd just play the cards the best I could.
No matter where a finger may point, the finger will be pointing to something I believe is love-worthy and deserving of unconditional forgiveness, never something that is resentment-worthy (i.e. "evil").
If you use the word "evil" to refer to something else than I've described above, then indeed whatever you call "evil" might be something that I do believe exists. If you use the word "evil" differently than I do, then all bets are off. For example, you could have a dog named Evil, and then I would of course believe your dog Evil exists. I'd probably give Evil a little pet.
What do you think? Do you agree that what I call "evil" (i.e. 'should-not-ness') does not actually exist? Does the way you use and define the word "evil" match the way I've defined it and what I've written above? If not, how do you define the word 'evil'?
---
The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.
View on Barnes and Noble | View on Amazon | View on Books-A-Million | View on Bookshelves
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
View Bookshelves page for In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All