You can’t really take human intent out of the issue (evil) and maintain the perception of any practical application.
If something occurs naturally and has benefit, although it may only be realized at some point after an event or by those unaffected by the event, we are referring to a separate phenomenon. There is no limit to things that cause discomfort, require a struggle, or that are simply exasperating, which are not necessarily attributable to the will of an evil entity. Struggling, suffering, and dieing are all natural and essentially tied to the human condition. Whether it is a thorn from your rose bush or a pandemic plague, there is no evil without an element of willfulness.
The intent to cause harm, while the harmful agent expects to benefit only in some ignoble fashion, is essential for a definition of evil to be tied to will. Intention is elemental, since actions by innocents such as young children, accidents, or naturally occurring phenomenon are not done with such an expectation of benefit. Good and evil are generally seen as the extreme ends of the same continuum, giving intentional actions a moral relevance. Intention involves choice, which ties this topic into the subject of free-will.
If we consider evil to be the contradiction or opposition to goodness then we can define both evil and goodness in context of one another. If the well being of all creatures is good then a beneficent being who is able to assure the well being of all creatures would be a good being and those who intend to deny the well being of one or another, or all could be considered the opposer of that good intention. |
