I have spent much time exploring the concept of evil. Is it a real thing? What are its roots? How does it arise? The only reason I have done this is not because I believe in its existence as a force, but because so many of you do and considering how our inner reality shapes our perspectives on the shared reality we perceive with our physical senses, such a belief in evil is a dangerous thing.
In nature there is no evil. The Catholic Church taught the European for a millennia that nature is and of itself an evil thing that must be destroyed or at least controlled. They also taught that money could buy you forgiveness for your sins. Take a look at the world today and you have to wonder if there isn't a connection with this erroneous teaching and the destruction we have caused as an animal on this planet and our attachment to money.
Nature is not evil. There is life and there is death and the two are dependent on the other for all life lives off of death. Even herbivores live off the product of death for all soil was once part of a living thing thing now decomposed providing sustenance to the plants which provide sustenance to other life such as herbivores that provide sustenance to carnivores and in the end it all goes back to ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
So, if there is no evil in nature, does that automatically mean that there is no evil? Lack of evidence of a thing is not proof that a thing does not exist. Evil is a human concept that probably arose in the unknowing mind to explain the bad things that happened, such as death and disease. It then evolved into being a scapegoat for those unwilling to take responsibility for their own choices and a great tool to pull out when you wanted to divide people. For those people over there with their strange customs and ways are not like us good people. They are evil and must be killed.
It seems to me that there are two causes for all evil in the world. The first is disease. A psychopath is not evil, their mind is diseased, the same is true of a drug addict. These are not healthy people and being so their ability to reason and make choices is deterred by the disease, of which some is curable and some not so as of yet.
The second cause for evil and it is by and large the worst culprit is that of belief. Not the belief that leads one to form a hypothesis and explore the cause and effect of a thing. But the belief of an ideology to the point of self-identifying with that ideology. When one does this, they abdicate their sovereign self for an idea which then forms a box by which their perceptions of others and the world is then defined.
What is an ideology? Ideology originally meant the science of ideas, but as it is with words the definition has evolved. Google speaks of political ideology which while political beliefs are an ideology, it can be said that any self identification that divides you from humanity is an ideological belief. In fact if you can call yourself "something-ist", you may have ideological thinking, but it is not confined to the suffix "ist" and not all "ists" are ideologically rooted. Being a scientist is not an ideology, per se, but scientists can be prone to ideological thinking when it comes to science.
The two worse ideolizations (not a misspelling) throughout history have been religion and culture(nationalism), which by and large are tightly interwoven and those within the grips of these ideologies will defend it with tooth and nail. Next in line comes politics, economics, which are as well interwoven. Even philosophy itself can become an ideology. But the lines of division are drawn between us and them.
There are always exceptions to the rule. Not everyone who self-identifies as an ideology totally abdicates their ability for reason and empathy, but in the realm of mob rule, such ideological belief can compel the reasonable individual to do unreasonable acts. Peer pressure within an ideology is a powerful tool.
Terence McKenna once said. "culture is your enemy". And while I do not disagree with him, I would argue ideolization(self-identifying with an ideology) is far more encompassing than his original statement.
So, again I ask you; how do you define yourself?