Source: PostPravda.info 22.05.2025
An ordinary person perceives as evil anything that harms them or contradicts their ethical and religious beliefs. On this basis, researchers often conclude that evil is an evaluative concept and should therefore be excluded from the objective analysis of social processes. However, with the outbreak of the war, Ukrainians came to realise through their own experience that the question of evil is not abstract but existential: it is bound up with their right to life.
However, in conversations with their friends, relatives, and fellow believers in Russia, Ukrainians began to hear different responses: some said that no one can know the whole truth, and that calling the full-scale invasion of Ukraine evil is merely a subjective judgment; others claimed that both sides are to blame for the war and Russia cannot be blamed alone; still others openly described the aggression as good and the resistance of the Ukrainian people as evil.
Anyone who directly witnesses the evil of war cannot agree with such interpretations of evil:
– agnosticism – “We cannot know who is to blame for the war”;
– subjectivism – “You consider the war against you evil – but that is your subjective judgment; we think otherwise”;
– relativism – “It is impossible to clearly determine what constitutes evil, because in war everyone is to blame, both the aggressor and the victim of aggression.”
– antihumanism – “We attacked you because you are evil that must be destroyed”.
For Ukrainians, it is of existential importance to have a definition of evil that does not depend on subjective judgments or ideological biases.
Evil
Evil in the broadest sense is that whose existence is unacceptable in light of values; it is that which exists despite everything thought not to be allowed to exist. However, this definition requires clarification, as it admits of two opposing interpretations that must be regarded as mistaken because they undermine the moral compass.
Misinterpretations of Evil
1. The Absolutisation of Evil
The first mistake is to ascribe evil to the very essence of humanity, life, the world, or any part of it. Such an understanding makes evil absolute and leads to a hostile perception of reality and the justification of misanthropic ideologies. History offers examples: The Bolsheviks ascribed evil to the social nature of “class enemies,” while the Nazis attributed it to the racial or biological nature of their victims. Russia’s current aggression against Ukraine is likewise justified by the notion that evil is allegedly inherent in the nature of Western civilisation – a civilisation Russia claims to oppose.
From the standpoint of theistic religions, such a position is utterly unacceptable, for to claim that evil is inherent in the very essence of something is to accuse God of creating evil. Although historical doctrines have attributed evil to the essence of God or to the material world, they have always proved destructive to traditional cultures. In contrast, in ancient thought, evil was understood as the absence or deficiency of good, while Christianity saw it as the denial of the fullness of life resulting from a mistaken exercise of free will.
2. Moral Relativism
The second mistake lies in reducing evil solely to a subjective judgment. In this case, a person labels as evil anything that seems bad to them in a particular situation. Yet what is bad for one may be good for another. For example, one man was rejected by a girl, while another became the one she chose. This gives rise to the idea that evil is merely a construct or an illusion, and thus even Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is deemed ‘ambiguous,’ depending on subjective perception. Ultimately, this leads to moral relativism, which ignores the difference between the aggressor and their victim.
The Unacceptability of Subjective Judgments in the Objective Analysis of Social Phenomena
Both stances, the absolutisation of evil and moral relativism, are actively used to manipulate public opinion. When addressing one audience, Russian propaganda relies on the notion of the West as absolute evil, an enemy Russia is allegedly ‘forced’ to fight on Ukrainian territory. For the other audience, arguments are framed in terms of moral relativism: everyone is to blame for the conflict – Russia, Ukraine, and the West – and therefore it is unfair to blame Russia alone.
The scientific approach to the analysis of social phenomena rules out ethical, religious, and subjective judgments. In this context, evil as an evaluative category should be set outside the scope of scientific analysis. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the concept of evil from the subjective judgment of ‘what is bad,’ since such judgments depend on views and circumstances and can even be reversed. Instead, the concept of evil should reflect objective reality and be independent of personal opinions and beliefs.
Evil as the Denial of the Right to Exist
The common core of views about evil across different cultural traditions is this: evil is a form of the absence or negation of life, a deficient reality that brings suffering. Thus, disease is the absence of health, and death is the negation of life. In the social dimension, evil manifests itself as the denial of other people’s right to exist. This is manifested in actions or attitudes that directly or indirectly deny the value of human life. Such social phenomena are objective and do not depend on subjective judgments.
However, not every harm caused by an action testifies to evil. An act is evil only when it is motivated or justified by the denial of another’s right to exist, and this is precisely the objective criterion of evil, independent of subjective opinion. This approach allows us to formulate the concept of evil at the interpersonal and social levels.
Russia’s Military Aggression Is Objectively Evil
Evil is embodied in actions that cause harm and suffering and express an attitude toward others that, to some degree, denies their existence.
The objectivity of evil does not mean that it possesses an essence of its own. Evil is a characteristic of attitude, not of essence. Yes, the nature of a criminal is not, in itself, evil. On the contrary, evil manifests itself when a person denies their humanity. By attributing evil to the very essence of humanity, we thereby justify denying people their right to exist, and in doing so, we reproduce evil ourselves.
The decision to attack Ukraine fits the definition of evil given above. Vladimir Putin stated that the purpose of the invasion is “denazification”. This term masks a policy aimed at destroying Ukrainian identity, as can be seen in the occupied territories. Thus, the war was launched on the premise of denying Ukrainians the right to exist. This is an objective fact, independent of subjective judgments.
The denial of reality can manifest not only in direct violence but also in disregard, when the victim ceases to be perceived as a living individual. This is evident in how many Russians sincerely believe the propaganda about Ukraine’s ‘salvation’ from the Nazis, even though they could have learned the truth from their Ukrainian friends, relatives, or fellow believers. In other words, they perceive even their loved ones in Ukraine not as living human beings, but as abstractions. Such disregard is another form of denying existence, not aggressive in form, but leading to the same consequences: support for war, mass violence, and killings. However, even if a person firmly believes they wish Ukrainians well, sincerely convinced that Russia is ‘liberating’ Ukraine, they nonetheless become an accomplice to evil. The subjective perception of one’s own act as good does not change the fact that, objectively, it is an embodiment of evil.
One of the most dangerous consequences of war is becoming accustomed to evil – its normalization. The seizure of territories, torture, and the killing of civilians cease to be regarded as utterly unacceptable. However, this “normalisation” is subjective: it does not negate the objective basis of understanding evil as an attitude toward people which denies their very existence. It was this attitude that was put into practice in the war against an entire nation.
