What is evil?

[Bowie20049]

Ethics class got me thinking what is evil exactly? So many things can be interpreted/misinterpreted as evil, but is it really?

Some people say natural disasters are evil in that they impede on the survival of human beings. Others say that evil has to be a conscious choice, but some people inflict pain on others without even thinking about it or intending it.

Again, ethics class.

[Syn]

I believe that it pretty much depends on the perspective, as most stuff can be seen as both good and evil if one really wants to perceive them that way.

[Faust]

I believe that it pretty much depends on the perspective, as most stuff can be seen as both good and evil if one really wants to perceive them that way.

So do I, also you can't really pinpoint something as purely evil since it would, in some perspective, have a good point.

[Bowie20049]

So do I, also you can't really pinpoint something as purely evil since it would, in some perspective, have a good point.

So the massacre of the educated in Stalin-ruled Russia has a good point?

[Carraka]

Is there a distinction between something that is evil and something that is immoral?
Is there a distinction between an immoral act that is done for the pure joy of that act versus an immoral act that is done for some other reason?

If, in order for someone to be evil, s/he has to make a conscious decision to do something immoral, but knows (or should know) that that act is evil, does this mean that someone who willingly and knowingly violates the moral compass is worse than someone who doesn't knowingly violate the moral compass? I think I may need to be specific. Say, someone murders other people for fun, but doesn't understand that murder is bad. Is s/he worse than someone who murders other people, knowing that murder is bad, and even feels a little guilty over it?

Does punishment/justice have anything to do with whether we consider some act to be bad versus worse?

Also, some boy in my dorm hallway just hid behind a corner and then jumped around the corner making a scary noise. And some other girl, after a considerable scream, cried, "evil!" Is such an act evil? It was probably malicious, but don't we tend to think of evil as something on a larger scale of impact?

And, so it's not all me asking questions: I tend to believe that if evil exists, then it must be conscious, but evil is nearly non-existent and morality is relative, and I don't know what I'm doing in the debate room because I don't like debating and I don't know how to justify this position aside from just stepping off the position altogether.

Moral relativity:

So the massacre of the educated in Stalin-ruled Russia has a good point? From one perspective, yes. From your perspective and my perspective, no. Aaand now I might have contradicted myself.

[Bowie20049]

If, in order for someone to be evil, s/he has to make a conscious decision to do something immoral, but knows (or should know) that that act is evil, does this mean that someone who willingly and knowingly violates the moral compass is worse than someone who doesn't knowingly violate the moral compass? I think I may need to be specific. Say, someone murders other people for fun, but doesn't understand that murder is bad. Is s/he worse than someone who murders other people, knowing that murder is bad, and even feels a little guilty over it?



Aren't they both the same since they knowingly killed someone and even intended to do it? The aftermath doesn't matter because they're both "evil" actions.

[lalodragon]

Pretty much any act (or thought, or anything), even if we think it's evil, can be seen as good (not evil) by one person. Maybe only one person, maybe more. I suppose it could be the other way too: every act could be seen as evil by one person.
I don't think of natural disasters as evil because nature's not aware. But even so, if you believed in an evil god, you could attribute them to it.

[Bowie20049]

Pretty much any act (or thought, or anything), even if we think it's evil, can be seen as good (not evil) by one person. Maybe only one person, maybe more. I suppose it could be the other way too: every act could be seen as evil by one person.
I don't think of natural disasters as evil because nature's not aware. But even so, if you believed in an evil god, you could attribute them to it.

But some people believe that anything that impedes on a human being's right to survive as evil whether or not it was intended. Wouldn't a natural disaster be exactly that?

[Carraka]

Aren't they both the same since they knowingly killed someone and even intended to do it? The aftermath doesn't matter because they're both "evil" actions.

The difference is that one of them knew that it was an evil action and felt guilty and the other one lacked the capacity to know it was an evil action. I added the part in italics because the second person basically can plead on grounds of insanity, and since most people agree that people considered insane do not have to be held accountable for their actions to the same extent, then there really would be no problem. Maybe there is no problem anyway. But I'm not asking about accountability, but rather whether one act is worse than the other.

[lalodragon]

But some people believe that anything that impedes on a human being's right to survive as evil whether or not it was intended. Wouldn't a natural disaster be exactly that?

Sure, if that's what you believe evil is. It's all perspective.

[Bowie20049]

The difference is that one of them knew that it was an evil action and felt guilty and the other one lacked the capacity to know it was an evil action. I added the part in italics because the second person basically can plead on grounds of insanity, and since most people agree that people considered insane do not have to be held accountable for their actions to the same extent, then there really would be no problem. Maybe there is no problem anyway. But I'm not asking about accountability, but rather whether one act is worse than the other.

But they're both the same act of killing someone intentionally. The only other factor you can count is how they thought about their actions afterward, but that isn't part of the action which had already taken place :P

And do you really need to be evil to do evil deeds? Is evil really all in intent or is it in action? Would thinking about doing evil, but not having the balls to do it make you evil since you didn't do anything?

Sure, if that's what you believe evil is. It's all perspective.

Just being Devil's advocate.

Arguing that it's all perspective is so strange though. Evil seems to be so consistent with most cultures.

[Peppermental]

Morality, good, evil, bad, good, etc. all exist relative to a scale. Not an objective scale, a scale which is unique to the individual unless it is a scale assumed by the greater group of people (society) but as it something which is being assumed it can just as easily be unassumed and therefore i can say anything is evil and be completely correct. The maintaining of a standard moral viewpoint requires the greater party of viewers to have a force to enforce it (police) so that moral deviants cannot damage the system.

Why does every debate on this website come to this same point?

[Bowie20049]

Morality, good, evil, bad, good, etc. all exist relative to a scale. Not an objective scale, a scale which is unique to the individual unless it is a scale assumed by the greater group of people (society) but as it something which is being assumed it can just as easily be unassumed and therefore i can say anything is evil and be completely correct. The maintaining of a standard moral viewpoint requires the greater party of viewers to have a force to enforce it (police) so that moral deviants cannot damage the system.

Why does every debate on this website come to this same point?

Mostly because I wanted to ask you people on your definition and then play devil's advocate to further explore them.

But if everything is that simple, then there'd be no point in ethical studies of evil and morality.

[Nevermore]

Personally? I believe evil isn't something that can be defined in terms of intent; the field of human motivations is far too complex for such a classification. Rather, I'd say that 'evil' is more something based on action. Just as it is a 'good' deed to help someone in need, an action such as rape or murder could thus be classified as evil. While the motivations behind such an act may not be inherently good or evil to the person acting, the action itself can generally be classified as something 'good' or 'bad' (or evil, if you prefer). Where do you think phrases like 'necessary evil' and 'for the greater good' come from? They come from people who commit acts that perhaps even they consider evil in order to further their own perceived 'higher' cause. Likewise, a person may offer valuable counsel and aid to someone in an attempt to manipulate them, with intentions that could hardly be considered moral.

Its generally difficult to classify a person in terms of good or evil. But when a person commits a copious amount of 'evil' acts...

Tell me, wouldn't most of you consider Adolf Hitler a monster, regardless of his own intentions regarding his mass genocide?

A person like that most certainly has to have their own powerful 'greater good' behind it, if only too keep themselves from going insane. I don't believe human beings are innately 'evil' creatures...We have too many instincts towards friendliness and positive growth for that. But we ARE however capable of delusion on a rather grand scale. Even to the point where we are able to convince ourselves that the murder of millions is indeed for our own 'greater good'.

So my argument in a nutshell; evil is classified more by action than by intent. Although not set in stone, people are judged predominantly as 'good' or 'evil' based on their actions and how they affect others, rather than the intents that are all but invisible to the waking world. Perhaps their intents are pure, but their actions are what brand them evil.



In regards to the subjectivity of human experience, its a rather fascinating field to explore. It shows just how diverse we are as human beings. Why ruin the fun by stating the obvious? Rather, acknowledge the shifting sands we tread through, and move brazenly forward.

There are treasures hidden under every dune. Do try not to get burned though, if you can. These sort of discussions can get rather...heated, if we don't take the time every once in a while to cool off :D

[Bowie20049]

I just got back from another Ethics lesson. Now, this has caused me to confirm my own beliefs of evil and now wickedness. In my opinion: Evil is anything that impedes on someone's survival whether it was intended or not and usually, if done by another human, would have done it to forward his goal of survival. That's where relativity comes in.

Now, Wickedness is an action done to intentionally harm another not to forward their survival. Here's where the sadists and the mentally ill people reside.

I had always thought that evil actions were not seen as evil by the guy doing the action, but ever since the Jaycee DuGard case, I questioned those beliefs and wondered Why? Now, I'm introduced to wickedness.

[Peppermental]

Impeding assumes inherent direction, if the ultimate goal is survival above all else then euthanasia suicide smoking eating unhealthy foods etc are all inherently evil. The study of what evil is to different cultures and more importantly why it is defined by that is fascinating, but the search for an inherent moral that transcends the boundaries of human subjectivity is silly. If such a thing existed, everything would be so much less fascinating anyway.

[Bowie20049]

Some people can argue that euthanasia, suicide, smoking and eating unhealthy foods are evil. :P

[Peppermental]

but all of that assumes that survival is a goal inherent to humans, where as someone who chooses suicide or euthanasia clearly proves that this value system isn't inherent.

[Dabs]

Evil's not real. :P There are only conflicting interests.

[Bowie20049]

Evil's not real. :P There are only conflicting interests.

Nietzsche says something similar. He believes that good and evil were constructs developed by the "priestly caste" in order to keep the "herd" under control.

But I personally think that evil does exist. Sure there are conflicting interests between people; that's nature in competitiveness, but there are truly wicked people like Hitler and Stalin and among other things.

[Peppermental]

Netzsche's Geneaology of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil aren't too bad, as Nietzsche goes. God that has to be the most hipster sounding sentence of my life. The understanding people miss is that they assume something that is subjective is invalid because it isn't strictly standard and all that, but when dealing with psychology, and morality is a product of the psyche, everything is subjective. Subjective things are valid, for the individual. Its the way the world works, groups of people believe things to be good or bad, and they act on it. Hitler killed millions and millions of people, and people who opposed his moral views ultimately defeated him. In that subjective morality, one which I share (in the Hitler being evil aspect), he was in fact evil, and if you percieve reality then you perceive morality and Hitler is evil.

[Dabs]

Nietzsche says something similar. He believes that good and evil were constructs developed by the "priestly caste" in order to keep the "herd" under control.

But I personally think that evil does exist. Sure there are conflicting interests between people; that's nature in competitiveness, but there are truly wicked people like Hitler and Stalin and among other things.

My philosophy is partially influenced by Nietzsche. :P

Netzsche's Geneaology of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil aren't too bad, as Nietzsche goes. God that has to be the most hipster sounding sentence of my life. The understanding people miss is that they assume something that is subjective is invalid because it isn't strictly standard and all that, but when dealing with psychology, and morality is a product of the psyche, everything is subjective. Subjective things are valid, for the individual. Its the way the world works, groups of people believe things to be good or bad, and they act on it. Hitler killed millions and millions of people, and people who opposed his moral views ultimately defeated him. In that subjective morality, one which I share (in the Hitler being evil aspect), he was in fact evil, and if you percieve reality then you perceive morality and Hitler is evil.

I agree with what most of what you're saying, but, regarding your last thought, from "and if you perceive" to "Hitler is evil", I don't really understand what you mean. Perception of reality=perception of morality, but I still don't see how that makes Hitler evil in an objective sense.

[Peppermental]

Objectivally in relation to you. As in, reality is a perception of the I, which is an objective point of consciousness (I think therefore I am). This means every moment is an objective dollhouse which is constantly being demolished and rebuilt. Realtiy only exists if you exist, so reality is you, is I seeing you seeing it etc. It is objective, universally because it's your universe. That might kind of make sense...

[Clawfire]

I don't think of natural disasters as evil because nature's not aware.

I don't really agree with you when you say natural disasters aren't evil because nature's not aware. In my opinion, nature is the most aware being there has ever been, as all it does is sits and observes. Natural disasters, in my opinion, are just reminding people that nothing, not even an atomic bomb, is more powerful than mother nature.
As for answering the question, no act is 'pure evil', as 'pure evil' has many different aspects, of which most acts do not consist of half. 'Evil', in my opinion, is not an identifiable or truthful title, because one day this person does 'evil' and the other is the 'star', and the next day they've swapped roles. 'Evil' is everchanging, and, in my opinion, does not exist in any form.

[Bowie20049]

I don't really agree with you when you say natural disasters aren't evil because nature's not aware. In my opinion, nature is the most aware being there has ever been, as all it does is sits and observes. Natural disasters, in my opinion, are just reminding people that nothing, not even an atomic bomb, is more powerful than mother nature.
As for answering the question, no act is 'pure evil', as 'pure evil' has many different aspects, of which most acts do not consist of half. 'Evil', in my opinion, is not an identifiable or truthful title, because one day this person does 'evil' and the other is the 'star', and the next day they've swapped roles. 'Evil' is everchanging, and, in my opinion, does not exist in any form.

I can again bring up Hitler and Stalin. Will their current roles as evil ever swap? Will we one day think of them as heroes rather than evil?

[Iridescence]

I don't know much about the nitty-gritty of philosophy, objectivity, subjectivity, all that jazz, and I don't know if any of this has been said before, but whatevs.

I don't really agree with you when you say natural disasters aren't evil because nature's not aware. In my opinion, nature is the most aware being there has ever been, as all it does is sits and observes. Natural disasters, in my opinion, are just reminding people that nothing, not even an atomic bomb, is more powerful than mother nature.

How is nature "aware"? Natural disasters aren't evil; they're uncontrollable events that happen just because conditions aligned in such a way that they happened, and unfortunately us living creatures suffer the brunt of it. If nature (or, more probably, the universe) were aware, I figure it'd be more impartial than anything, since nature can be just as beneficial as it is destructive.

I can again bring up Hitler and Stalin. Will their current roles as evil ever swap? Will we one day think of them as heroes rather than evil?

I certainly hope not. I think we're moving toward an age where morality is becoming more and more prominent in how we discuss major issues, and the preservation of life (which Stalin and Hitler certainly didn't advocate) is becoming more of a universal goal or concern. Then again, I could just be thinking this because I'm taking an ethics/theory of knowledge class and I have to think about this stuff all the time. :P Either way, I'd personally define "evil" as a person or intention rather than an event, because evil events don't happen by themselves. Someone who consciously and willfully does something that harms another living being physically, emotionally, and/or mentally to achieve a terrible, unjust cause that's the result of greed/prejudice/guilt etc (such as "cleansing" the earth of other races, trying to achieve some political gain, or a woman who murders a baby out of fear/guilt etc) would be evil to me.

[Bowie20049]

I certainly hope not. I think we're moving toward an age where morality is becoming more and more prominent in how we discuss major issues, and the preservation of life (which Stalin and Hitler certainly didn't advocate) is becoming more of a universal goal or concern. Then again, I could just be thinking this because I'm taking an ethics/theory of knowledge class and I have to think about this stuff all the time. :P Either way, I'd personally define "evil" as a person or intention rather than an event, because evil events don't happen by themselves. Someone who consciously and willfully does something that harms another living being physically, emotionally, and/or mentally to achieve a terrible, unjust cause that's the result of greed/prejudice/guilt etc (such as "cleansing" the earth of other races, trying to achieve some political gain, or a woman who murders a baby out of fear/guilt etc) would be evil to me.

There are some "evil events" that happen out of the person's control. Let's bring up Billy Budd. He was falsely accused of starting a mutiny on the ship by a guy that doesn't like him. In anger, Billy accidentally kills him when he only meant to harm the guy physically. Killing is universally viewed as evil, but he didn't intend it. This killing is an "evil event", but was Billy evil for killing?

Then we can bring up Sophie's Choice. In Nazi Germany, Sophie was brought to Auschwitz with her two children. She was told she could keep one of her children and send the other away or they both die. In the end, she gave up her daughter for her son. This would also be considered an "evil event" because she abandoned one of her children when maybe a third option was somewhere hidden.

:devil:'s Advocate.

[Clawfire]

I can again bring up Hitler and Stalin. Will their current roles as evil ever swap? Will we one day think of them as heroes rather than evil?

My meaning is not that their roles will swap, but even Hitler, and trust me, I was affected heaps by him, being Jewish, showed the world something important: That wars are a destructive force in which no one revels.
If Hitler had not started WWII,then wars much worse than the current ones would start. If not for the knowledge that ultimate power is harmful to both sides, there would probably be millions dead because of war. Israel would have been either sunk or run by Iraq (No offence intended) if not for fear of another world war.

[Bowie20049]

My meaning is not that their roles will swap, but even Hitler, and trust me, I was affected heaps by him, being Jewish, showed the world something important: That wars are a destructive force in which no one revels.
If Hitler had not started WWII,then wars much worse than the current ones would start. If not for the knowledge that ultimate power is harmful to both sides, there would probably be millions dead because of war. Israel would have been either sunk or run by Iraq (No offence intended) if not for fear of another world war.

I can somewhat agree with your view, but it's unfortunately off topic :P

[ErinParker]

Anything that is done with the ultimate goal of destruction and bad outcome only can be labeled as evil.
Natural disasters are not evil- hence the natural element in it. Natures purpose is not to destroy but to evolve.

[Bowie20049]

Anything that is done with the ultimate goal of destruction and bad outcome only can be labeled as evil.
Natural disasters are not evil- hence the natural element in it. Natures purpose is not to destroy but to evolve.

So the Black Plague was a good thing. Evil in this world is simply a fact. It exists, but if it didn't exist, then people would live better.

What you're talking about is a term called wickedness. Wickedness is an evil in human beings that causes them to do evil things with an evil intent. It's a sub-genre of evil so-to-speak.

[Dabs]

So the Black Plague was a good thing. Evil in this world is simply a fact. It exists, but if it didn't exist, then people would live better.

What you're talking about is a term called wickedness. Wickedness is an evil in human beings that causes them to do evil things with an evil intent. It's a sub-genre of evil so-to-speak.

No one said that the black plague was a good thing.

I also don't really understand what you're saying with the whole wickedness versus evil thing. I know you weren't directing this at me, but I'd like to answer:

I don't believe evil is a fact. I contest that evil does not exist. You need to prove that evil is a fact before you can call it that. I can say "evil does not exist" because I believe that evil is based on human perception; it's a conflict of interests. Evil is an idea. It has no physical presence in the world. We like to call things evil because we need justification for our own behavior and we need an opposite to act against. If we can't define evil then we can't be good, because then nothing defines good.

Also, wickedness is actually defined as: "evil: morally objectionable behavior." So you can't differentiate wickedness from evil. They're synonymous.


I think the problem with many arguments here is that we're assuming that nature has a conscious. It doesn't. The planet is not alive. Storms are not alive. Evil exists only through willful actions. Nature doesn't have a conscious, so it can't have a will, so it can't be evil. Any time you hear someone refer to nature as being alive, they're personifying it.

Also, we're talking about a pretty vague idea here. So, when we come up with examples, we really, really need to explain things as specifically as possible. Just a general thought. :P

[Bowie20049]

The problem really is that there is no defined definition of evil :P Some say it exists, others say it doesn't. Those people who do say it exists have a hard time agreeing on what it exactly is. Does it require a conscious thought, does it not? People have their own definitions, and they really shouldn't because it'll cause communication problems :P It's why meta-ethics exist

[Dabs]

People have their own definitions, and they really shouldn't because it'll cause communication problems :P

I'm gonna have to hardcore disagree with this, but this thread isn't really the right place to get into the details of that. :P

[FayGee]

Evil is the lack of goodness.

[Bowie20049]

Evil is the lack of goodness.

What is goodness?

[FayGee]

What is goodness?

Well, that deserves another thread in itself. And I actually don't know the answer. :)

[lalodragon]

What is goodness?

Of course. I thought of asking this the other day and decided it needed its own thread, and arrive and it's been said.... Not making a thread, though, to be clear.

[Bowie20049]

The problem is that if everyone's definition of goodness is different, then obviously there'd be discrepancy of a lack of goodness, which would translate into different definitions of evil, which would go into everyone justifying anything they do because to them, they aren't lacking goodness, so they're not evil.

[FayGee]

Sorry, I made a mistake. When I said, "Evil is the lack of goodness," I meant to say "Darkness is the lack of light." They are the same, sort of, though.

[Carraka]

Is apathy evil, then?

I'm going to write an essay on evil for philosophy. You guys up to critiquing it? For one thing, it looks like I'm going to totally skimp on moral relativity, which is really the question that I don't know how to answer, except in terms of pragmatism. I answer everything in terms of pragmatism.

[FayGee]

Is apathy evil?

Good question. :)

[Bowie20049]

Sorry, I made a mistake. When I said, "Evil is the lack of goodness," I meant to say "Darkness is the lack of light." They are the same, sort of, though.

No because evil and goodness is something that isn't "physical." Light is known to be physical. Apples and oranges here, no wait, more like apples and kittens.

[FayGee]

No because evil and goodness is something that isn't "physical." Light is known to be physical. Apples and oranges here, no wait, more like apples and kittens.

Whatever. ;)

[Wolfie]

Sorry for the bump, but I had to throw two cents in.

Going way back to Hitler. It's hard to necessarily say he was evil when so many people agreed with what he did when he brought Germany out of its rut. For a while, he was seen as a beacon of hope to people, even if he was quite possibly the largest bigot the world has ever seen. The people who thought that way didn't see him as evil for a long time, and many never did. We can argue that he was evil, but by whose opinion? Someone could say that what he did was good because it brought down somewhat the population, and it had nothing to do with the person who says this. To clarify, I'm not giving him justification, just trying to view it from someone else's view.

Same sort of thing with the Black Plague. It was horrible to the ones experiencing it and dying because of it and the ones looking back on it as the massively horrible event that it was and empathizing for it. But at the same time, someone could look on it as a necessary means to control the population. Not to mention, I guarantee that if my guinea pig learned that millions of people died once upon a time in history, she wouldn't give a flying flip about it, much less call it evil(if she could speak and had the capacity to think past her next meal).

So yet again, it's all perspective. We can call something evil, but in the great scheme of things, you could say nothing is evil except to whose emotions it appeals to. In a so called "evil" person's head, he more than likely thinks he does the world a favor or at least has some twisted, positive purpose for himself. I think that we base much on the feelings of society though. In society, killing is evil, and yet we go to war with the purpose of killing. Many people call that evil, but we accept it because that's how society works, and it's for a "positive purpose".

In truth, I don't think that evil exists. I think that there are things that are extremely unacceptable for the good of the whole because in society they're horrible and threaten others' well being(I know that's a gross understatement for a lot of things), but I can't honestly tell myself that these things are evil.

[Gale_of_Hades]

As others have said it's a matter of perspective, everyone thinks that they are doing the best for either themselves, their family,or even the entire world. Many people see Hitler as an evil man,or even better, Bin Laudin, but do you really think they thought themselves evil? Each of them, and every tyrant in history, without a doubt, beleived that what they were doing, was right. Thats my opinion at least.

[Bowie20049]

As others have said it's a matter of perspective, everyone thinks that they are doing the best for either themselves, their family,or even the entire world. Many people see Hitler as an evil man,or even better, Bin Laudin, but do you really think they thought themselves evil? Each of them, and every tyrant in history, without a doubt, beleived that what they were doing, was right. Thats my opinion at least.

So as long as you think you're not evil, then you're not evil? Hmmmm :rolleyes:

[Gale_of_Hades]

Perhaps I worded that wrong, what I meant was, what's evil to one person, might not be evil to another, It's a matter of perspective and beliefs.

[Bowie20049]

Perhaps I worded that wrong, what I meant was, what's evil to one person, might not be evil to another, It's a matter of perspective and beliefs.

You might as well just say that the world is run on benefits and that there's no such thing as evil then.

[Gale_of_Hades]

Ya, let's go with that. I was half asleep when I put up that first post.

[Schweet-T]

Ethics class got me thinking what is evil exactly? So many things can be interpreted/misinterpreted as evil, but is it really?

Some people say natural disasters are evil in that they impede on the survival of human beings. Others say that evil has to be a conscious choice, but some people inflict pain on others without even thinking about it or intending it.

Again, ethics class.

I took an ethics class, and I'm fairly certain that my class thought that I had none.

Unfortunately "evil" is a largely cultural thing, I think. What might be evil to one culture, may not be evil to another and so forth and so on. That being said, however, there are some things that are considered "wrong" in every culture, although not necessarily "evil". Just because something might be against the law, doesn't mean it's evil.

To me, someone that is evil not only does harm intentionally, but enjoys it. I don't think that there are really all that many "evil" people, as I believe that most people are, despite their flaws, basically good.

It's the difference between a soldier killing someone because it's his job/defending home/bringing peace/etc etc, and someone who commits genocide for no other reason than they don't like that particular group. We do "bad" things every day as people, even though we might not realize it, but "evil" doesn't really mean the absence of "good".

Not many people will say that murder is OK, but most people will say that it's OK to kill in self defense, although some of those will add that you should try to run/call the cops/etc. It's not the killing that is wrong in and of itself, it's the motivation behind it.

I think that's why evil is intentional harm done to others, possibly for the sake of self gratification. Of course, I've been told that I'm wrong for that opinion many a time. XD

[Georgy]

Nietzsche says something similar. He believes that good and evil were constructs developed by the "priestly caste" in order to keep the "herd" under control.

But I personally think that evil does exist. Sure there are conflicting interests between people; that's nature in competitiveness, but there are truly wicked people like Hitler and Stalin and among other things.

Well, what would you say about the millions of people who enthusiastically applauded and chanted at rallies of Hitler and Stalin, and believed their leadership for the benefit.
With regard to the"massacre of educated" (or rather call it harassment, persecution and imprisonment in the Gulag), millions of people willingly participated in it. They betrayed the neighbors to get hold of housing, colleagues, to take his position, and so on and so forth
You're a naive optimist if you think that in real life the devil wears horn to indicate himself.
You are right telling "evil does exist", but you are wrong(in my opinion) in one point: Evil does not wear bright labels and decals, and comes not from the will of one man, it is rooted in a vicious and dark unconscious of the crowd. Stalin and Hitler were just horrible deadly poisonous mushrooms on this swamp of mass consciousness; these monsters were only a foam vomited from the depths of the collective idolatrous consciousness.
The Bible read "Sin is crouching at your door."