The explanation that speaks to me most is the situational context as a cause of evil.
The situational context theory posits that evil actions can arise from the environment and circumstances in which individuals find themselves. This perspective is compelling because it is supported by a wealth of psychological and sociological research. For instance, the famous Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 demonstrated how ordinary people could commit heinous acts when placed in a particular social context. Participants assigned to the role of guards in a simulated prison environment began to exhibit abusive behaviors towards those assigned as prisoners, despite having no prior history of such behavior.
This theory aligns with the concept of "moral luck," where the morality of an individual's actions can be significantly influenced by factors beyond their control. It suggests that under certain conditions, anyone has the potential to commit evil acts, which underscores the importance of understanding and mitigating these situational factors to prevent such outcomes.
While neurological impairments and imbalances can certainly contribute to behaviors that society deems evil, this explanation tends to medicalize and individualize the problem. It can lead to a deterministic view that overlooks the broader social and environmental influences on behavior. For example, research has shown that while certain brain abnormalities are associated with violent behavior, not everyone with these abnormalities engages in such actions. This indicates that neurological factors alone are insufficient to explain the complexity of evil.
The spiritual explanation, which frames evil as a battle between good and evil forces, is more abstract and less empirically grounded. While it can provide a moral framework and resonate with many cultural and religious beliefs, it lacks the empirical support that situational context and neurological explanations offer. This perspective can also lead to a binary view of human nature, which may oversimplify the nuanced and multifaceted nature of human behavior.
In conclusion, the situational context explanation is the most compelling due to its strong empirical support and its ability to account for the variability in human behavior across different environments. It emphasizes the importance of creating and maintaining social structures that promote ethical behavior and reduce the likelihood of evil actions.