The current political climate is full of the “language of evil”. We are fighting the evil enemy that is Al-Qaeda and international terrorism; we are faced with radical states that form the “Axis of Evil”; we are fighting those who would seek to destroy us from within – mainly radical elements of the Muslim minority.

The language of evil has many uses for our political leaders today, who seek to employ it in their efforts to maintain their power base.

In seeking to understand how it affects us, let’s first look its mechanisms.

The Mechanisms of the Language of Evil

Social science traditionally has no place for the notions of good and evil. They are subjective, theological elements not suited for the rational sphere of science and measurement, so evil is confined to an opinion of what evil is.

However, this has an inherent danger: If you argue that evil actions are only committed by those with evil intentions, the reduction of evil to a matter of belief and conviction means that any crime can be justified as long as it is committed with sincerity and out of moral duty.

Projecting themselves as the protectors gives governments the moral high ground, in which the ultimate purpose is to destroy evil and therefore any action that contributes to that purpose must be legitimate.

You only have to look at Tony Blair’s departing speech in his last Labour Conference where, in reference to the violation of Iraq, he urges us to “believe one thing if nothing else: I did what I thought was right for our country”.

I’m sure Stalin and Mussolini thought the very same in their time.

If social science only has room for rational behaviour, then it implies that there are some actions that cannot be incorporated into the rational order because they possess blemishes that are irremovable.

It risks saying that irrational phenomenon such as suicide bombings, cannot be understood so banish it to some other realm that is beyond investigation or critique.

Evil is a language closed to criticism.

If you banish it to that realm, you close political deliberation on the subject and you fail to understand its causes.

In our country, as well as in others, there is a great sense of denial in relation to human suffering and atrocities. These denials form part of official policy. In Israel, for example, the official response to allegations of torture against Palestinian people takes various forms of denial:

1) It doesn’t happen;

2) Those who say it does happen have hidden motives, or have been manipulated by the enemy;

3) Something might be going on, but it is not torture. Or if it does happen, it is morally justified.

There is an unspoken collusion to ignore the whole subject, which is driven by roundabout arguments such as the atrocities may appear terrible, but the good that comes from it (i.e. “peace and security”) will justify them in the long run, or arguing that the acts committed are insignificant in comparison to other atrocities suffered by their own people so therefore, there is no cause for concern.

The use of, and subsequent manipulation of the language of evil betrays our morality as human beings.

The idea of evil allows our governments to banish atrocities we commit into the realm of insignificance by trying to employ some kind of rationality that all this is for the greater good.

It is not a language that can understand the causes of crimes and therefore, no government can hope to defeat the evil it claims to struggle against. We are given the image of the “Innocent versus The Unspeakable Beasts”.

The end result, however, is that we become the "beasts".