ABSTRACT
The problem of evil, like the related problem of suffering, is one of the core problems for any religious system of thought. But it is less difficult for the practitioner of a psychological approach to religious questions, which focuses on the individual, than it is for the traditional theologian or moral philosopher who tries to propose an absolute or universally applicable attitude to evil. In this chapter I wish to suggest a psychotherapeutic approach to evil which is distinguishable from the approach of the philosopher, the theologian or the social scientist. To this end I try to understand evil as much as possible from within the psyche of the individual, aside from definitions of morality in terms of generally accepted standards of behaviour which are approved or disapproved of by the community at large or by a certain theological system. The depth psychologist can afford to remain relativistic in this area, and acknowledge that since the human mind is not equipped to perceive or comprehend ultimate or transcendent reality, the problem of evil is not a simple empirical one that can in principle be solved to everyone’s satisfaction. I agree with Jung (CW 10, 860) that what we regard as evil is a subjective judgement, and the nature of the fundamental quality of evil is unknown to us. He suggests (CW 10, 866) that the psychotherapist must take an empirical attitude, hoping that we are correct in the individual case, realizing that we cannot always say what is good or bad for the individual. The depth psychologist is not a moral theologian who can suggest eternal standards based on his or her understanding of the will of God. Given that there are incontestable instances of evil, it also seems that what is labelled good or evil is often only the conditioned choice of a limited personality, motivated more by individual psychodynamic or cultural factors than by any other consideration. Attribution of good or evil to particular behaviour may be only a way of making oneself feel self-righteous, or a way of avoiding one’s own shadow. Again the ‘don’t know’ mind serves the psychotherapist best; the attempt to impose absolute standards of morality may have more to do with the therapist’s capacity for tolerance and understanding than with any other factor.
