Who is evil?

by

You shouldn’t discuss evil on a Saturday morning. Certainly not before breakfast, nor even during it. But at our kitchen table, things often turn out differently.
One morning, clever Siri asks a question that sounds rather naive: “Can nature be evil?”
“Well,” says Kb, “there’s something fascinating about evil.”
“Kindness is boring!” Selma interjects immediately, thinking of Pippi Longstocking, her heroine.
It’s obvious that evil has held an irresistible allure since time immemorial. A form of voyeurism with sadistic undertones is at work in all of us.
‘That’s why bookshops are full of crime novels.’
‘But in those, it’s the people who are the villains.’
‘Well, we’re part of nature too – aren’t we?’

Man sollte Samstagmorgens nicht über das Böse diskutieren. Schon gar nicht vorm Frühstück, auch nicht währenddessen. Aber bei uns am Küchentisch kommt es oft anders.
Die kluge Siri stellt eines Morgens die naiv klingende Frage: „Kann die Natur böse sein?“
„Tja“, sagt Kb, „das Böse hat ja was Faszinierendes.“
„Lieb ist langweilig!“, wirft Selma sofort ein und denkt an Pipi Langstrumpf, ihre Heldin.
Es ist offensichtlich, dass das Böse seit ewigen Zeiten mit unwiderstehlichem Zauber lockt. Ein Voyeurismus mit sadistischen Anteilen wirkt in jedem von uns.
“Deswegen sind die Buchhandlungen voller Krimis.”
“Aber da sind die Menschen die Bösen.”
“Na, wir sind doch auch ein Teil der Natur – oder?”


Kb, the level-headed one, says: ‘We want to see evil – but from a safe distance. That’s what makes crime fiction so fascinating. We can observe evil there without risk, whilst at the same time savouring our own moral innocence. We say: ‘How can a person do such a thing!’ Meanwhile, we’re wonderfully relieved that we’re on the right side.’
Selma: “How do we know that?”
Dina: “Perhaps evil is so fascinating precisely because it reminds us that there is no clear line between ‘the bad guys’ and ‘us’.”

Kb, der Vernünftige, meint: “Wir wollen das Böse sehen – aber aus sicherer Entfernung. Das macht die Faszination des Krimis aus. Wir können dort das Böse gefahrlos betrachten und gleichzeitig unsere eigene moralische Unschuld genießen. Wir sagen: ‘Wie kann ein Mensch nur so etwas tun!’ Währenddessen sind wir wunderbar erleichtert, dass wir auf der richtigen Seite stehen.”
Selma: “Woher wissen wir das?”
Dina: “Vielleicht ist das Böse gerade deshalb so faszinierend, weil es uns daran erinnert, dass zwischen „den Bösen“ und „uns“ keine klare Grenze verläuft.“


Dina, who’s boiling eggs, comes up with a startling idea that leaves us pondering in silence – and such silence is extremely rare for us. She says in passing: “Evil, like beauty, is maybe in the eye of the beholder.”
Oh dear, that means it’s not the fox who steals the goose in the nursery rhyme – and probably in real life too – who is evil, but the judgemental observer.
“But hang on, that means that when we see something evil, WE are the ones who are evil,” muses Siri.
“That’s complete nonsense!” exclaims Selma indignantly.
Clever Siri reflects: “Evil isn’t in the eye of the beholder, but what we recognise as evil depends on the eye of the beholder. That makes a huge difference. Otherwise, one would actually have to say: if I consider murder to be evil, I am evil because I see evil. That is – to use Selma’s favourite word – nonsense.”

Dina, die ein paar Eier kocht, kommt mit einer verblüffenden Idee, die uns schweigend nachdenken läßt – und dieses Schweigen ist äußerst selten bei uns. Sie sagt en passant: “Das Böse wie das Schöne liegt im Auge des Betrachters.”
Huch, das heißt, nicht der Fuchs, der die Gans im Kinderlied und wohl auch real stiehlt, ist böse, sondern der bewertende Betrachter.
“Aber hallo, das bedeutet doch, wenn wir etwas Böses sehen, sind WIR böse“, sinniert Siri.
“Das ist doch völliger Quatsch!” ruft Selma empört.
Die kluge Siri überlegt: “Das Böse liegt nicht im Auge des Betrachters, aber was wir als böse erkennen, hängt vom Auge des Betrachters ab. Das macht einen großen Unterschied. Denn sonst müsste man tatsächlich sagen: Wenn ich einen Mord für böse halte, bin ich böse, weil ich Böses sehe. Das ist – um Selmas Lieblingswort aufzugreifen – Quatsch. “

The first act of violence in the morning


After silently eating the breakfast egg – which could actually be regarded as an act of aggression, and therefore as evil – Kb picks up the thread of the conversation again: 
“Let’s look at evil from a different angle. Evil isn’t simply that which causes harm. Otherwise, the fox would be evil, as would the polar bear and the forest fire. That would make ‘evil’ merely a synonym for ‘unpleasant’ or ‘destructive’. Being evil presupposes a choice. One could be kind, but chooses evil instead.”
“While we’re on the subject of morality,” says Dina with a mischievous grin, “animals can’t be evil at all, as they have no choice. There’s a huge difference between biology and morality. Morality presupposes freedom, which biology does not possess. Morality begins where ‘I can’ becomes ‘I can also act differently’. Evil is not simply the capacity to cause harm, but the free decision to inflict harm on another being, even though one could act differently.”


Nachdem schweigend das Frühstücksei verspeist wurde, was eigentlich auch als Akt der Agression, also als böse betrachtet werden kann, nimmt Kb den Gesprächsfaden wieder auf:
“Lasst uns das Böse mal anders betrachten. Das Böse ist nicht einfach das, was Schaden anrichtet. Sonst wäre der Fuchs böse, der Eisbär und der Waldbrand ebenfalls. Damit wird ‘böse’ zu einem bloßen Synonym für ‘unangenehm’ oder ‘zerstörerisch’. Böse zu sein, setzt eine Wahl voraus. Man könnte lieb sein, wählt aber das Böse.“
“Wo wir jetzt schon beim Moralischen sind”, meint Dina verschmitzt grinsend, “können Tiere gar nicht böse sein, da sie keine Wahl haben. Da besteht ein riesiger Unterschied zwischen Biologie und Moral. Moral setzt Freiheit voraus, die die Biologie nicht hat. Moral beginnt vielleicht dort, wo aus ‘Ich kann’ ein ‘Ich kann auch anders’ wird. Das Böse ist nicht einfach die Fähigkeit zu schaden, sondern die freie Entscheidung, einem anderen Wesen Schaden zuzufügen, obwohl man anders handeln könnte.“

Being evil presupposes a choice.

We can all see that there’s a catch here: just how free are we, after all? When someone commits murder, we might say: ‘He could have acted differently.’ But then factors such as childhood, genes, social environment, mental illness, peer pressure, fear and a thousand other causes come into play. Perhaps that is precisely why human beings are so fascinating: because they are both creatures of nature and moral beings.

Wir sehen alle, dass die Sache einen Haken hat, nämlich wie frei sind wir denn? Wenn jemand mordet, können wir sagen: Er hätte anders handeln können. Aber dann kommen Kindheit, Gene, soziale Umgebung, psychische Erkrankungen, Gruppendruck, Angst und tausend andere Ursachen ins Spiel. Vielleicht ist der Mensch gerade deshalb so faszinierend, weil er zugleich Naturwesen und moralisches Wesen ist.


‘And what about those vicious fighting dogs?’
“Humans made them that way.”
“Now let’s not get carried away. Nature has to be aggressive, otherwise it would die out. If a polar bear doesn’t kill a seal, it dies; and falcons and marsh harriers have to prey on small birds and anything that crawls, otherwise they’ll starve. But humans don’t have to kill other living creatures to survive.”
“That’s just more of that completely idealised nonsense penned by unworldly vegetarians. The Inuit have to kill whales, seals or polar bears to survive”, says Selma, who’s really taken a shine to the word ‘nonsense’ this morning.

“Und wie ist es mit den bösen Kampfhunden?’
“Der Mensch hat sie dazu gemacht.”
“Nun lasst mal die Kirche im Dorf. Die Natur muss agressiv sein, sonst stirbt sie aus. Wenn der Eisbär keine Robbe tötet. stirbt er und Falke und die Rohrweihe müssen kleine Vögel reißen und was kreucht, sonst verhungern sie. Aber der Mensch muss keine anderen Lebewesen töten, um zu überleben.“
“Das ist doch wieder völlig idealisierender Quatsch aus der Feder weltfremder Vegetarier. Die Inuit müssen Wale, Robben oder Eisbären töten, um zu überleben“, meint Selma, die heute Morgen das Wort ‘Quatsch’ liebt.


“You lot with your moralising drivel – just look at the wise Goethe, who sees the Devil as part of that power which always wills
evil and always brings about good. So all this killing isn’t really that bad“, says Selma triumphantly, her mouth full. “When you’re evil, you’re actually doing good.” To emphasise this, she sticks her tongue out as far as it will go.
A few days ago, Siri read that, for example, ‘evil’ forest fires create biodiversity and ‘evil’ predators often only attack sick animals, thereby keeping the population healthy. When humans commit murder, of course, it’s a different matter, though we do consider euthanasia a blessing.

“Ihr mit eurem Moralgequatsche seht doch den weisen Goethe, der den Teufel als Teil von jener Macht sieht, die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft. Also ist das alles, das Töten, gar nicht so schlimm“, meint Selma triumphierend mit vollem Mund. “Wenn man böse ist, tut man eigentlich Gutes.” Um das zu unterstreichen, steckt sie noch weit ihre Zunge heraus.
Siri las vor ein paar Tagen, dass zum Beispiel die “bösen” Waldbrände Biodiversität schaffen und die “bösen” Raubtiere greifen oft
nur kranke Tiere an und halten so den Bestand gesund. Wenn Menschen morden, sieht das freilich anders aus, allerdings finden wir Sterbehilfe ein Segen.

Red-tailed buzzard

Kb draws his conclusion, like a schoolmaster: “Nature can be cruel, destructive, beautiful, generous and terrifying – but it only becomes ‘evil’ when we attribute a moral intent to it. Humans, on the other hand, are both nature and morality. That is precisely where the problem begins. For humans are the only beings capable of doing something evil and then discussing over breakfast whether it was evil.“

Kb zieht wie der Oberlehrer den Schlussstrich: “Die Natur kann grausam, zerstörerisch, wunderschön, großzügig und erschreckend sein – aber „böse“ wird sie erst, wenn wir ihr eine moralische Absicht zuschreiben. Der Mensch hingegen ist Natur und Moral. Genau da beginnt das Problem. Denn der Mensch ist das einzige Wesen, das etwas Böses tun und anschließend beim Frühstück darüber diskutieren kann, ob es böse war.“

We need to give this some more thought. So, see you next time. Meanwhile we’d love to hear your thoughts on evil.

Darüber müssen wir noch weiter denken. Also bis nächstes Mal. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn ihr uns eure Meinung zum Bösen mitteilen würdet.

The Fab Four of Cley
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

.

.

© text and illustrations, Hanne Siebers & Klausbernd Vollmar, Cley next the Sea 2026

72 thoughts

  1. I never think of anything in nature as evil. Animals kill to survive, not for pleasure. Some humans kill for pleasure, so perhaps those who find pleasure in killing or torturing animals (or other humans) are truly evil. An interesting discussion to have over your boiled eggs, accompanied by simply superb photographs!

    Love from Beetley, Pete. X

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Dear Pete

      Well, cats kill for pleasure as well as foxes. We quite often idealize nature. That’s the zeitgeist.

      It’s a complicated question if nature can be evil. Unfortunately we know not enough of animal behaviour to give a clear answer. But we hope that some of our visitors here know more.
      We like to write a post about something we are interested in but not necessarily know all about it. We hope that during the discussions here we learn to see clearer.

      Thanks, dear Pete. Have a happy week
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oh derar, John

      Now there is the question who or what is Satan. Is it a philosophical or theological principle or what?

      Thanks for liking Dina’s pictures and for commenting
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I think that evil is apparent in nature, and not just in human beings. There is a viciousness that exists in some animals. Cats, for example, often kill birds and other small creatures for pleasure, not food.

    It’s ultimately a tricky philosophical question, but good for discussion.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Thanks, dear Richard 🙏 🙏

      Indeed, it’s a tricky question. We don’t have an answer, but we find it interesting to think about it. Kb as a rationalist asked what’s the function of evil? Siri, our intellectual, questioned that characteristic we use for humans can be used for animals as well. Does morals apply to nature? On the other hand people are nature as well. Selma asks if it helps to know if nature can be evil or not and Dina tries to answer that question iconographic.

      All the best
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Ihr Lieben in Cley, zu eurem wunderschönen und stimulierenden Bericht bezüglich das Böse gefällt mir folgender Satz ganz speziell “der weise Goethe, der den Teufel als Teil von jener Macht sieht, die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.” Habt vielen Dank:)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  5. What a fascinating discussion to have around your breakfast table. I would define evil as intentional acts of cruelty, injustice, and malice committed by people who get enjoyment out of seeing others in distress. But then you need to consider whether an act is truly evil or just extremely unkind.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • Thank you very much, dear Jude.
      We suppose people are often evil for getting an advantage.
      And as you wrote, the problem is where starts and ends ‘intentional’. Intentionality presupposes freedom, and who is truly free from their socialisation?

      Thanks a lot
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Like

  8. What a fantastic discussion around the kitchen table!
    Dina’s quote about evil being in the eye of the beholder and the discussion about free will are absolutely fascinating.
    Thank you for sharing this brilliant philosophical insight.
    PS: the images are wonderful!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Maybe you are right. On the other hand, we still have all the inspirations from our dreams in the morning, and we are all sitting together then.
      We don’t see our discussions as heavy; they are yoga for our minds.

      Thanks
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed we are. But we have some close friends outside our family as well. Siri and Selma f.e. have especially Hildi and Hulda as close friends and Dina and Kb have some friends they exchange their ideas with all over the world.

      Like

  10. What an extraordinary amount of philosophy to encounter before the breakfast eggs have even gone cold! What stayed with me most was the distinction between destruction and evil. Nature can certainly be cruel and destructive, but does evil require intention. The knowledge that we could choose differently and nevertheless choose to cause harm. And then, of course, Klausbernd complicates that beautifully by asking how free our choices really are.

    As you know, I’m reading Faust so I was very pleased when Selma brought Goethe and Faust to the breakfast table. Mephistopheles describes himself as:

    “Ein Teil von jener Kraft,
    Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.”

    “Part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good.”

    And there Goethe leaves us with yet another complication. Even the relationship between good and evil may not unfold quite as we expect. Maybe some questions are not meant to be settled over breakfast or even in a lifetime. Wonderful food for thought from The brilliant Fab Four of Cley!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Dear Rebecca

      Kb thinks that free choice is an illusion. There are too many factors that determine our choices. It’s more, Kb thinks, a question of how much free and how much determined we are in our choices. It’s a question of proportion.

      There may be no definitive answers to questions like these. But it is nevertheless important to ask such questions and to engage with them – and it keeps our brain mobile.

      Thank you very much, dear Rebecca. With lots of love from the small village next to the big sea
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Like

    • Good morning, dear Mary

      Thank you very much for your comment.
      Yes, the attraction of evil could be an interesting topic for a new blog.

      All the best
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Like

  16. While I very much enjoyed catching a glimpse into your family’s intriguing philosophical discussions, what actually caught my attention were all the wonderful animal and bird photos included in the post – they are truly superb. My regards to the talented photographer. Thanks for sharing, and have a good day 🙂 Aiva xx

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Good morning, dear Aiva

      You made Hanne-Dina’s day. She is our photographer.
      In the beginning we had problems to find ideas how to illustrate this post. That’s always a problem with rather abstract topics. This time we started with the text what’s more of a challenge for illustrating than starting with the pictures.

      Thank you very much
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Like

  17. A fascinating morning read, in my case before my own breakfast! Looking at somewhat a quick pace into the first thoughts emanating from my own brain I think I most agree with Jude and her perception of ‘intentional acts of cruelty’ and the pleasure and satisfaction some people get from this. One thing for very certain . . . the world into which each morning is currently full of it . . . Wonderful, absolutely wonderful photos to soften each statement . . .

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Thank you very much, dear Eha.

      If the world is cruel or not, if aggression rules our world or not is a question of your standpoint – in every respect, how you see the world and where you live.

      Great that you like Dina’s photography
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Tanja

      These are the interesting questions that can’t be answered quick and easy. And maybe they can’t be answered but it’s important to ask them.

      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Like

  19. Goodness, that was quite the discussion before breakfast was eaten. I think it is important to recognise that evil does exist, that is cannot be apologised away, excused, by those who view life though rose-tinted glasses. Your discussion has brought to mind a chat with my son about a month ago. In his work as a pharmacist he regularly administers and supervises prescribed drugs for recovering addicts. Over the years he has come to know some of these people quite well and he made a very heartfelt comment that is was only the very slightest twists of fate, of circumstances in life, that had him in a safe and comfortable life and others not so well off. There is evil but it is sensible to seek the good.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Dear Paddy

      We are quite lucky that we ended up on the ‘right’ side. It’s actually quite easy to become evil. And it’s not only our doing. It depends on where we are born, country and family f.e. We all could easily be evil as we all have the possibility to become evil in ourselves. And well, a little bit evil makes one interesting. If you are like a saint without any evil side you are boring, aren’t you?
      And quite often evil is done with the intention of doing good.

      Thanks
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Dear friends,
    you have served food for thought for a long dinner. Love the photos you have chosen to illustrate the discussion, Hanne! – Nature is not actually malicious or cruel; it is completely indifferent. The brutality we see is just a byproduct of life needing energy to survive.

    I watched an interesting Nietzsche documentary recently focusing on a person’s ability to act beyond good and evil, iow when you stop using rigid, traditional moral labels to judge life (and nature), stop blaming outside rules, society, or fate for your life.

    By the way, I have started reading “Helm” by Sarah Hall, thank you for the recommendation, Fab Four. Loved the fact that you met her and could learn more about the background for Helm.

    Wishing you rain!
    Kram
    Annalena x

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Dear Annalena

      This breakfast-scenario was like in the olden times when we were students living in a group together and couldn’t stop discussing. These were the times. We’ve managed to preserve some of that, because those were times that had the greatest impact on Kb and Hanne-Dina. And Siri and Selma like this lifestyle as well.

      Unfortunately, we haven’t researched what Nietzsche wrote about evil yet. Maybe you know?

      We desperately need rain, but there is no sign of rain within the next time. And it’s too sunny and hot for us here. If it goes on like this, we’ll move back to Sweden becoming your neighbours.

      With lots of love
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Like

    • Dear Per Magnus

      ‘Food comes first, then morality‘ Bert Brecht (Three Penny Opera)
      ‘Evil’ is a brain-racking subject.

      We envy you up north. We hope you are well
      The Fab Four of Cley
      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  27. If this is your discussion over breakfast, I wonder what where the conversation goes by supper. You gave great insights into the many sides of evil, that I will continue to ponder today. But maybe I’ll skip the crime drama tonight. Maggie

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  28. Interesting discussion paired with beautiful pictures, love both. Evil is something which (probably) is part of most human beings if not all. What we call civilized society or good people or normal people are the ones able to keep evil under control and prevent him from acting.

    We had some terriffic murders and sometimes people are susprised and comment the killer was known as a very good man.

    I should think more about this stimulating question but where I live, Italy it is so hot and dry, with drought related problems that my old brain finds difficult to think too much! Perhaps next time I boil some eggs 🙂

    Again, beautiful photos 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  30. A most interesting breakfast discussion. I agree that evil is in the eye of the beholder from the perspective that if a persons moral compass is skewed due to nature or nurture, they will not see evil the same way as most people. I also think evil can be a choice that people justify. Propaganda and vilification are two tools used to justify evil in the minds of perpetrators.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.