2

In various discussions touching upon topics between geopolitics, ethics, and general philosophy, I have seen the term used, in phrases such as 'please do not believe that members of [faction that both interlocutors agree is engaging in an evil activity] are an ontological evil'. What does the term mean?

vicky_molokh
  • 171
  • 6
  • 1
    Offhand, I assume it means something like "evil by nature," or "expressive of an evil nature," or whatever along that line. See Kinds and Origins of Evil in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for relevant discussions, esp. §7 (but not necessarily also the section on so-called natural evil, which is subtly different from the preceding referents). – Kristian Berry Oct 17 '23 at 20:23
  • In the context you give it mostly looks like the use of unnecessarily complicated words in an attempt to appear more academic and credible than one actually is. – armand Oct 18 '23 at 00:15
  • wouldn't it be an evil that threatens (our) existence or sense of it? –  Oct 20 '23 at 05:21
  • I made a list of discussions with sime different pictures of what evil is: 'Does philosophy have a dark side?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/89227/30474 Ontological evil is not compatible with an all-good all-powerful god so theological work has been done in monotheism to undergo theodicies, which address the Problem of Evil. An ontological evil would be like Sauron, or Morgoth, or Ungoliant, beings with no redeeming features except to contrast with heroes & goodness - which is to say, it belongs in story books. – CriglCragl Oct 20 '23 at 07:37
  • Or Hitler? Any redeeming features? A dozen others just in the 20th century, millions I might not know of? – Scott Rowe Oct 28 '23 at 22:28

3 Answers3

4

An ontological evil is an agent that is inherently (by its very nature) evil, as opposed to an agent that commits an act or acts that are contextually considered to be evil. The is related to the fundamental attribution error, a bias in which the actions of (distant or disliked) others are assumed to be matters of disposition, while one's own behavior (or the behavior of close and liked others) is assumed to be situational or contextual.

For instance, if we consider the recent attack by Hamas on Israeli citizens, we can attribute it to either:

  1. an innate corruption or dysfunction of the members of Hamas (ontological evil), or…
  2. some situational factor that caused the members of Hamas to act out in this way, even though it's not a set of actions they would normally take (contextual evil).

Morally speaking, it's better to avoid assertions of ontological evil, because ontological evil can only be resolved by the utter destruction of the evil agent, while contextual evil offers other solutions. Ascription of ontological evil can only lead to acts that are themselves objectively evil.

Ted Wrigley
  • 19,410
  • 2
  • 22
  • 55
  • If I may quibble briefly (apologies in advance!), in fantasy stories with very vivid ontological evils, they do often have the solution be imprisonment/binding or transformation-of-natures, betimes. One might interpret universal-salvation versions of religions in such terms, perhaps, whereby even fundamental ontological evils are inevitably transmuted somehow, by God's all-encompassing will and grace. I admit these metaphors are not often applied when real people are declared "ontologically evil," however (except for in countries with life imprisonment instead of capital punishment, say). – Kristian Berry Oct 17 '23 at 23:23
  • 2
    @KristianBerry: Yeah, that's true. But I'd counter by suggesting that fantasy stories (like religious parables) are often pedagogical: attempts to teach the reader a different perspective. The reader can identify with the transformation of the villain, and thus learn that what seems to be ontological evil might not be. The trope of the tragic villain is oddly appealing… – Ted Wrigley Oct 18 '23 at 04:14
  • Reminded of WW2 for the 3rd time today. Any thoughts? – Scott Rowe Oct 28 '23 at 22:32
  • @ScottRowe: You mean whether the Nazis were ontologically evil? Speaking personally, I don't generally use the term 'evil'; the things most people call 'evil' I see as varying degrees of ignorance. I have no doubts that most Nazis saw themselves as the heroes of their story. What they couldn't see was how flawed and depraved that story was. But that's not unique to Nazis, and we can find plenty of that kind of ignorance here in the good ol' US of A. – Ted Wrigley Oct 28 '23 at 23:17
  • The Buddha did say that because ignorance is at the root of all our troubles, so explaining and spreading the truth is above all charities. Sometimes I feel less magnanimous than that. Responsibility has to start with someone. – Scott Rowe Oct 29 '23 at 00:45
  • 1
    @ScottRowe: Well, it seems to me that whenever people say that responsibility has to start somewhere, what they really mean is that responsibility has to end somewhere. Responsibility must be affixed to some person or group, so that other actors can feel both righteous and blameless in their acts, no matter what those acts might be. It's how the anti-moral principle of "might makes right" plays out in the information era. But maybe I'm just jaded… – Ted Wrigley Oct 29 '23 at 04:15
  • For me, the un-jaded way to look at is: regardless of any righteousness or morality, I want people to stop harming others, and really, the results of their actions are on them. If a tree fell and killed them, I would be just as relieved as if they were sent to prison for life. I don't care if they didn't. – Scott Rowe Oct 29 '23 at 12:42
1

Existential evil seems to refer to evil that threatens our - especially the species - existence. I would suppose that "ontological evil" refers to the ground of existential evil, be those evil acts, persons, or epochs, the things we question when we might lose our very existence.

0

Ontological Evil (may) refer(s) to evil that exists ... as opposed to evil that's unreal. I read/heard the words "that's not really an ice cream" and it seems ad rem.

Agent Smith
  • 3,642
  • 9
  • 30