It is difficult to define “wickedness” without a sound definition for “evil”, and without a standard of value, “evil” becomes a relatively meaningless term. The problem is further complicated when individuals attempt to describe nature as having inherent evils- nature sans man.
For example, is a flood evil? Why? Does it choose to be evil, or is it simply a consequence of naturally occurring events? Is it- instead- the result of that flood (destroyed property, death, etc) that brings about fear? A flood which does no damage is not considered evil; it’s simply a flood- and doesn’t deserve our attention.
Evil is an emotional term which can be used to arouse feelings in an attempt to circumvent the process of reasoning. Evil is a term which is largely understood to be in the category of “bad things”- and invoking its name should therefore associate any concepts attached to it as “bad things” as well. Indicating that a person is “evil” or that an event was “evil” ends the discussion in most cases since most individuals will feel there’s no reason to define the term or its application.
However, we do a great disservice to any meaningful discussion when we attribute something as being “evil” when it has no choice or option. There simply is no other reason to define evil existing in nature sans man, but to avoid a clear and objective definition of it. The only reason to avoid a clear and objective definition is to embrace subjectivity and fluid definitions. If one appeals to the audiences emotions in using ambiguous terms, one will find more supporters- at the expense of a meaningful discussion.
Even the appearance of defining terms can often be just as deceitful. For example, how would you define- or more accurately, describe the concept of- evil? That which is bad? Well, what is bad- and how do you know? The concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, evil and virtuous belong to the branch of philosophy known as ethics. Though a majority of the population simply rolls their eyes at a discussion of philosophy- it is inescapable: you cannot live without concepts, without thinking- and without the concept of right and wrong, one could not function. Whether you choose to examine them or discuss them is certainly a choice- but to live without thinking simply is not an option. To cease to think would not only be a thought and a choice, but it would result in death.
Without spending too much time on it- the only rational standard of value would be one’s life. To put anything above one’s life would mean death or suicide and one who is dead cannot think or talk about philosophy or roll their eyes at a discussion of it. Life as the standard of value means that anything which furthers life would be good and anything which hinders or prevents it would be bad. There, we’re done with good and bad, let’s move on to evil and then wickedness.
Although there are many definitions of the word evil- only one can possibly apply to a philosophical discussion as a concept. Discussing evil without discussing the effect on humanity is quite a boring discussion, so let’s concede that evil is a choice- and this is important for two reasons: 1) if it’s not a choice then there’s no purpose to it, it’s unavoidable and nothing can be gained from a discussion of it, and 2) describing something as evil which has no effect on humanity is to abandon the concept from the beginning and also has no meaningful discussion possible.
When we understand that evil is a concept that applies specifically to choice- we can now see that we are talking about when people make choices which may affect themselves or other people. Since the standard of value previously established is man’s life qua man, evil then becomes any choice which hinders or seeks to end that value. A tornado- although destructive to, and perhaps even a threat to man’s life- has no cognitive abilities and cannot act on principles of ethics. It does not apply to the concept of evil. A mugger, on the other hand, has made a conscious choice to do harm in both the life and property of another human being and is irrefutably regarded as evil. However, those who still choose to claim that man’s life is not the standard of value will claim that a mugger who redistributes the ill-gotten wealth of his crime is not immoral at all, but is a “Robin Hood” figure who acts with great virtue. The contradiction here is quite clear: these individuals believe that any act which results in the satisfaction of someone else’s values is the good- regardless of what those values are- and with complete disregard of any standard of value. This system of altruism bypasses ethics altogether and states without any authority that the standard of value is irrelevant, but it’s the receiver of value (anyone but oneself) which is what makes the act virtuous. The entire system is self-defeating since it demands that each person act towards their own destruction. Altruism, quite clearly, is evil.
Wickedness carries a connotation of an individual who acts with a consistent goal of evil- an individual with clear intent or malice. The term is an extension of evil, specifically applying to a mindset of unbroken evil actions or thoughts. A person acting on wickedness is an individual without concern or thought of the proper course- in complete defiance of doing what is right. As previously stated, right is that which furthers life- therefore, any individual who consistently acts in a manner which destroys or hinders the life of other individuals is wicked.
The distinction between evil and wickedness is rather moot, except when it is pointed out that wickedness is usually a word used in a highly emotional argument. That is not to say that the concept of wickedness cannot be explored without emotions, but when conclusions are suggested about what must be done in regards to wickedness, one should pause for concern and consider that the terms are unambiguous and not simply floating abstractions.
