A recent email amongst family members on both coasts lead from an article by Michelle Malkin about Sally Field to the role of 'evil' in foreign policy. For me it's hard to justify any sane policy in terms of combating 'evil'. Realism seems the best course if you have to have a government and deal with the rest of the world. 
Here's a comment and question from the exchange. My response after the jump.
Favorite Aunt 1:
And, what is really, really weird is when you ask these people point blank what they would do about the evil in the world, they are silent or just give a blank stare.
Favorite Aunt 2:
Does anyone out there want to take the challenge and give an explanation for evil? How in the world did man get so greedy, corrupt, selfish, etc? Christians know the source of evil but I would love to hear a concrete explanation from someone who thinks there is no God.
I'll give it a shot.
There is no evil. There is hatred, prejudice, contempt, greed, deception and outright bad or stupid behavior. It usually amounts to someone violating
the 'Golden Rule'. Whether or not that rule derives from natural law, common benefit or a divine source, it's pretty straightforward. Don't expect to do what you want if it violates the person or property of another (ie. physical attack, property destruction/theft). The corollary is usually, yes I will defend my being or property if you harm or threaten me in a meaningful manner. Determining 'meaningful' may be the ultimate human shuffle as we are confronted with billions of perceptions of the world. The bottom line is I know when to run, punch or pull the trigger. I don't presume anyone else does.
Thus, when confronted with the prospect of evil in the world, the blank stare represents a lack of interest in attributing common, natural or brutal human behavior into something that is other-worldly or divine. After all, evil is presumably an external source which effects the behavior of humans in some unnatural (or perhaps natural) way. While perhaps not accepting this premise, in order to understand the reaction ( a blank stare) one must walk in another's shoes for only a small moment.
In my estimation, the gangster mentality of government comes as close as possible to what I understand as 'evil'. While I am not a Republican or Democrat (at anytime since I became politically aware - age 12 (?) - help me out on that Mom) , my only recourse to the often violent coercion of the state is to protest (either as a candidate, blogger etc. ) in their presumed legitimate arenas. Ultimately two gangs get to fight out how they steal my time, income and property under the presumable aegis of democracy. I'll spare you the reasons why I think Madison's effort to quell factions is destroying the Republic . . .
Love to all,
Eric
I don't think of "evil" as a personified thing, an external force, but as a course of action. This is why I call government evil. It is an organization that does, as its main course of action, things that are harmful to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those it seeks to control. Evil. I suppose it is just semantics.
If it's just an internal urge or self-created thing, we can explain it as biological, chemical or psychological if you will. Why attribute something so archaic and almost otherworldly to it like the word 'evil'. Evil conjures up a spectral or ethereal force in the Universe. Whereas simple hatred, contempt and other adjectives are more precise or revealing. But if you look at government as a mass psychology to dominate social and subsequently 'legal' behavior, that does in fact conjure an image of a mob acceptability which can infringe upon the freedom of otherwise happy and unobtrusive individuals.
I talked with a man this last Labor Day who felt that all drug dealers should be killed with a flame thrower. Is this evil or just misguided or uninformed thoughts ? I dunno, but it seems to violate some sensibility our concern for the individuals who take the legal risk in place of the presumed economic expectation. If there's money to made, people will keep growing weed.
You persist in defining evil on your own terms and assigning that definition to all discussion on the matter. I will not reiterate the meaning since it gets me nowhere. You seem to be saying that the best way to deal with people who threaten you is to ignore it unless it is within your power to fight it effectually when it affects you personally.
If you will (legally or otherwise) defend yourself when threatened, what is to stop the person who wronged you from retaliating against your perceived evil perpetrated against him by you when you “punched him’ or “pulled the trigger”? When real conflicts can’t be resolved, we turn to our courts; and we don’t always get justice there either.
History proves your “only recourse” as you state it, will not produce your desired result. Nothing much will change in our government; we will still be taxed to death by politicians giving away the store for votes from people who think their only hope in life is to be free from the burden of working out their problems themselves. (For what it’s worth, I think Ron Paul has a good handle on the financial ruin we are headed for.) The state’s “presumed legitimate arenas” will rule us until we die.
Should we hunker down, hope for the best, and trust ONLY our instincts that there is no God? Seems so impotent.
The recourse of protest has no desired result beyond the pursuit itself. It is simply what it is. Reconciling oneself to a life of oppressive taxation seems just as impotent. The issue is evil, not God.
I can't recall settling a dispute that required violence or the state. For the most part it's pretty rational and even keeled. I have no doubt that state will coerce and repress for many years to come. It always has.