Paulo Mangila
for the Philosophy Journal
Philosophy Club fall 2009
Selfish Evil
The concept of evil is simply a
coping mechanism to explain the
suffering perceived and experienced
in life. There is no evil (or good). They
are labels we attach to things in
reference to our own existence.
Our concept of evil is the
concept of the diminished or non-
existence we perceive or experience
in life. The diminished or anything
going towards the non-existence of
the self is perceived and labeled as
“evil”. It is the struggle for the survival
of the self in the midst of change. Evil
is conceptualized in the context of the
self; without the concept of the self
evil cannot be conceptualized. The
moment the concept of a self is
created, the concept of the non-self is
essentially created which could be
labeled as good, evil or something in
between.
The self is a concept; it is the
most basic concept, the only properly
basic belief. It is required for the
conception or belief of the non-self i.e.
everything or anything that is not the
self. Whether it is a microbe, a plant,
an animal or human, all of these
things (living things) have a concept of
a self at different levels. It is a
requirement for such beings to have
such a belief or concept to
differentiate things that are not the
self in order to continue their self-
existence. Without this most basic
concept and belief such beings are not
able to discern the non-selves that are
required for their survival and
sustenance.
Diminished existence is
perceived in infinite forms, in infinite
situations and in individual selves.
Take this for an example. If your leg
was amputated for whatever reason,
one can surmise that it is a diminished
existence because you will not be able
to perform the previous tasks (with
two legs) you once had. But in a
certain situation, if your leg had an
infection or cancer that if not
amputated will kill you, amputating it
may be perceived as an enhancement
of the self for its continued survival.
Not all suffering is evil. As
previously stated, suffering (or
anything for that matter) that is
perceived to diminish the existence of
the self is labeled as evil, but suffering
that is perceived (or anything) to
affirm the existence of the self is
labeled as “good”.
Take another example of a rock
and a house. We “see” no evil if a rock
falls into a flow of lava, but if we see a
house fall into a flow of lava, we may
perceive or we may label it as evil
because the house is an extension of a
self, that self may be you, a friend,
any human, or even that of a dog or
wasps since we still perceive dogs and
wasps as selves. The rock is perceived
as not a “self” or not an extension of a
self that is why we do not label it as
evil. Another example would be a
supernova happening in a distant
Paulo Mangila
for the Philosophy Journal
Philosophy Club fall 2009
galaxy. We perceive no evil in it, but if
we knew that a nearby planet
inhabited by sapient beings is
destroyed, we may label it as evil. This
is my contention of natural evil.
As for moral evil, it is the same
struggle or suffering as with natural
evil. In this case however, evil
happens when a self or extension of a
self is perceived to cause suffering in
the presence of (or brought about by)
another self or its extension. Examples
include killing in general, where a self
is perceived to cause another self to
be non-existent; stealing, rape, and
cruelty, where a self is perceived to
diminish the existence of another self
by damaging or destroying its
extension. Extensions may be
perceived to include commonalities for
example nationality, family, race,
specie, planet, universe, etc.; and
individualities like the body, parts of it,
your car parked in the garage, career,
ambitions, goals, etc. Extensions can
be anything we perceived attached to
the self or even to the “soul” that
some may have easier way of
understanding.
I refer to the self rather to the
soul because my argument implicitly
contends that our concept of the soul
is an inference of the concept of the
self, its extensions, and the selves that
we conceptualize throughout our
perceived existence.
The superficial difference
between natural and moral evil is the
degree of involvement of a self with
the suffering of another self. How do
we measure the degree of
involvement of a self with evil? It is
the degree of ignorance. The
difference is with the level of
ignorance attached to both. Without
this ignorance there will be no
distinction. Natural evil is suffering or
the struggle which we have no way of
knowing is going to happen. Moral evil
is suffering which we at least in some
degree have the ability to know, the
degree of our knowledge about the
self and the non-self.
Take this example to explain
this. Let’s say a tsunami killed Joe. If
you have information that there is an
incoming tsunami, and you did not
inform anyone, then it can be said as a
moral evil. If however you did not
know nor had no way of knowing it,
then it is a natural evil. This is of
course a convenient example. But in
“real life”, it is almost always in
between, connoting that whatever evil
it may be it may argued as natural or
moral evil depending on our
knowledge and ignorance.
Coming back to the thesis, evil
is a coping mechanism to our
ignorance. I refer to it as a coping
mechanism because it enables us to
make some sense of our changing
universe or rather our changing
existence, our changing self. It is for
convenience that we refer some things
as evil (or good) because it a way to
distinguish things as those that benefit
us and affirm our existence versus
those that diminish our existence.
There is no real “evil” but rather it is
merely a concept in relation to the
“self”. It is us that label things as good
or evil. Without these labels we will
Paulo Mangila
for the Philosophy Journal
Philosophy Club fall 2009
“see” things for what they are not how
the self perceive them to be.
In order to destroy evil, the self
must be destroyed.
Clatter and Brain Farts
--- I did not include these in the article
for the sake of conciseness,
consistency, and it is too much to be
included, and they are like brain farts.
If you think any should be added and
edited please do so.
How does the concept of the
soul relate to the concept of God or
Sacred Reality? The concept of God is
both an inference and a deduction of
the self.
It is an inference because our
concept of God is a “building up” of
the self, affirming the existence of the
self. An existence where non-
existence is impossible. A self without
a non-self. We imagine God from a
human (self) point of view, and we
imagine this human (self) and affirm
its existence. We give it 100%
affirming qualities: omnipotent,
omniscient, eternal and perfectly
morally good. This self is equated to
100% self. This is the perspective
theistic religions travel to. We strive to
God is a deduction because it is
a “reduction” of the self. Without a
concept of a self, there will be no
concept of a non-self. Without a self,
there is no non-self. Without
existence, there is no non-existence.
Imagine you (self) and everything else
in the universe is not-you (non-self). If
we remove you (self) from the
universe, everything left in the
universe is not-you (non-self).
If we remove the not-you (non-
self) from the universe, all we have
left is you (self). If we remove the not-
you (non-self), then you (self) become
the universe, and vice versa, the
universe becomes you (self). This is a
reduction of the self. This self is
equated to 0% self. This is the
perspective non-theistic religions lean
to.
It is a paradox. Both arrives at
the same destination but starts from
opposite directions. It is where one
equals zero and zero equals one. It is
either 0 or 100%, and both are the
same. The concept of God is almost
irrelevant, almost. It is merely a
Paulo Mangila
for the Philosophy Journal
Philosophy Club fall 2009
reference point from the self. Our
concept of God is a 100% or a 0% self.
Our concept of God is an
inference and deduction of the
concept of the self. It is both. It is a
self whose existence is solely it own,
an ultimate existence where non-
existence is not possible. Perfection,
omnipotence, omniscience, the
ultimate “good”, a self whose
existence does not in any possible way
interfere with the existence of any
selves, a self with no non-self. It is also
a deduction that is, without a concept
of a self or rather without a self, there
is also no non-self, no existence or
non-existence, there is perfection or
the ultimate reality. Both yields the
same result, arrives at the same
conclusion. Our existence, in the mean
time, is somewhere in the middle
leaning towards one way.
So is the soul the sum total of
the many selves we have gone
through life? This question is
irrelevant. It is a problem of language
in which words cannot describe a
concept using other words.
How is ignorance related to
natural and moral evil? The extent of
our moral responsibility is the same as
the extent of our involuntary
ignorance (knowledge that we have no
way of knowing). It is synonymous to
say that the extent of our moral
responsibility is the same as the
extent of our voluntary ignorance
(knowledge that we have a way of
knowing). Both statements are
conveying the same idea. Our
involuntary ignorance is our saving
grace from “evils” outside our realm of
knowing and understanding.
A concept of a self is only
attributed to living things, as their
agenda and purpose is to survive. Life
struggles against its diminished or
non-existence. Non-living things do
not struggle against their non-
existence because they have no
concept of a self. However, this can be
refuted. Since even non-living things
may be argued to have some
properties that resist their non-
existence, hence a concept of a self.
This however is not included in my
argument. My argument asserts that
only living things have a concept of a
self, any argument for a non-living
having a concept of a self will be
discussed by some other article, but
not in this one.
(changing self is synonymous to
self because the self have no other
choice but to change, the self changes
whether the self likes it or not),
[It is merely a problem of
language or rather the nature of
language that we are not able to
vocalize this.]
The soul is the self, the self is
the soul. It is because of this that such
concepts like change, forgiveness,
evil, good, etc. can be conceptualize
without “condemning” the soul.
Some may define the soul as
the unchanging part of the many self
we conceptualize throughout our
perceived existence, the common
thread that ties our many selves. If we
however define the soul this way, this
Paulo Mangila
for the Philosophy Journal
Philosophy Club fall 2009
definition is almost irrelevant since the
soul is neither good nor bad, it is the
self that cannot be labeled as this
way. Its implication is that the soul
cannot be condemned in a Christian
sense as a life of eternity in hell.
[It is this synonymous concept
where the last phase of exorcism is
based. At the end of all the prayers
and rituals, the person and those
around the person living with are
asked to forget the demon or “evil”
that afflicted them. It is the same
principle for forgiveness. To forgive is
to remove the perceived evil that
happened to the self.]
To take this assertion of the
concept of evil (and good) as labels to
a human level, let take the example of
racism. Labeling groups of people as
blacks, whites, asians, latino, etc. is
like labeling things and actions as
good or evil. Racism put labels on
individuals that prevent us from
seeing them for what individuals really
are. An individual may someone who
may have a dark complexion, with
dreadlock hair style, who likes a
particular fashion style, who may have
a particular gender, etc.; another
individual may have fair complexion,
with straight hair, who likes reading
philosophy books, etc. each individual
is an individual, to group individuals
and put stereotypical labels is a
mislabeling because such labels are
misleading. If there any labels to be
made, these labels are labels of the
individual not any group of individuals.
Racism is synonymous to “Evilism” (or
“goodism”) that is it prevents us from
seeing a thing or an action for what it
really is, an individual action. Some
things may have similarities to each
other things but it should be noted
similarities are coincidences,
coincidences of labels of individuals.