Tracing the conceptualisations of evil: A philosophical examination of serial killers as moral evil

Human beings have long struggled to name the worst things that happen in the world. We have words for bad actions, for mistakes, and for cruelty, but there is a specific label reserved for the most terrible acts: evil. This concept has haunted theologians and philosophers for centuries, often tied to questions about God and the nature of the universe. In the modern world, however, we have moved away from religious explanations and toward secular ones, trying to understand evil as a human problem rather than a supernatural one. When we think of evil today, our minds often jump to a specific type of criminal: the serial killer. These are individuals who murder multiple people over time, often with a chilling lack of emotion. Society has quickly labeled them as monsters, as the very embodiment of evil. But this label is so easy to use that it might actually stop us from understanding what is really happening. If we simply call someone "evil," do we stop asking why they did it? Do we stop seeing them as a flawed human being and start seeing them as something alien?

Two researchers from the Vellore Institute of Technology University, Suganya Saravanajothi and Rashmi Rekha Borah, decided to look closely at this connection between the idea of evil and the reality of serial killers. They did not set out to prove that serial killers are evil; everyone already agrees on that. Instead, they wanted to see if our philosophical definitions of evil actually fit these criminals, or if the label is just a convenient story we tell ourselves. They examined how philosophers have defined evil over time, from ancient ideas about free will to modern theories about how ordinary people can do terrible things. They then tested these definitions against the known behaviors and histories of famous serial killers. Their goal was to see if calling these killers "evil" helps us understand them better, or if it actually hides the truth about their humanity and their crimes.

The researchers began by looking at how we define an evil person. In philosophy, there are different ways to think about this. One view, dating back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant, suggests that evil comes from a person's free choice to put their own desires above the rights of others. Another famous idea, proposed by Hannah Arendt, is the "banality of evil." This suggests that evil is not always done by crazy monsters, but by ordinary people who stop thinking critically and just follow orders or routines. The authors of this paper found that serial killers actually fit into both of these categories, which makes the picture more complicated. On one hand, killers like Ted Bundy and Aileen Wuornos made clear, conscious choices to harm others, often prioritizing their own twisted desires over the lives of their victims. This aligns with the idea of radical evil, where a person actively chooses to violate the humanity of another. On the other hand, many of these killers appeared completely normal to the people around them. Bundy was charming and well-spoken; Wuornos was a working woman. They did not look like demons. This fits the idea of the banality of evil, showing that terrible acts can come from people who seem ordinary, hiding their violence behind a mask of normalcy.

The study also explored how we judge these killers based on their choices. The researchers looked at the work of philosopher Claudia Card, who argues that an act is truly evil when it causes unbearable harm and the person doing it has no good excuse for it. The killer must know the harm will happen and choose to do it anyway. Serial killers fit this description perfectly. They plan their crimes, they understand the suffering they will cause, and they proceed without any moral justification that a decent person could accept. The paper also noted that these killers often silence their own moral voices. While most people feel a hesitation or a sense of wrong when thinking about hurting someone, serial killers seem to have turned that internal voice off completely. They do not see their victims as people with rights; they see them as objects to be used or destroyed. This total lack of empathy and the deliberate choice to cause immense suffering is what philosophers point to when they say these acts are evil.

However, the paper makes a crucial point about how we talk about these killers in the real world. The authors argue that while serial killers are indeed evil, the way we represent them in movies, books, and news reports is often wrong. The media loves to call them "monsters" or "beasts." This language creates a dangerous divide. It makes the killer seem like a different species, something that is not human at all. When we think of a killer as a monster, we stop trying to understand them. We stop asking about their childhood, their trauma, or the society that failed them. The researchers found that this is a mistake. Serial killers are not supernatural creatures; they are deeply flawed human beings. They are the result of a mix of bad choices, broken environments, and a failure to connect with others. By calling them monsters, we let ourselves off the hook. We pretend that evil is something that only happens to "them," and not something that could happen within the human family.

The study also looked at how gender plays a role in this labeling. The researchers noted that male serial killers are often described as "charming" or "handsome," while female serial killers are often described as "monstrous" or "deviant." This difference in how we talk about them shows that our idea of evil is not consistent. We have a harder time accepting that a woman could be a killer because it goes against our ideas of how women should behave. This inconsistency proves that our label of "evil" is often more about our own fears and biases than about the actual facts of the crime. The paper suggests that we need to stop using the word "evil" as a way to shut down conversation. Instead of saying "he is evil" and leaving it at that, we should use the concept to understand the specific choices and failures that led to the crime.

In the end, the researchers conclude that serial killers are the perfect example of moral evil, but not because they are aliens or demons. They are evil because they are human beings who made a series of choices to inflict unbearable harm on others, and they did so with a complete lack of moral excuse. The paper suggests that the true value of studying evil is not to find a monster to blame, but to recognize the fragility of our own humanity. Evil is not a separate force that attacks us from the outside; it is a potential that exists within us all, waiting for the right conditions to emerge. By understanding serial killers as flawed humans rather than mythical beasts, we can better understand the conditions that allow evil to grow. The authors argue that we must look at these criminals with clear eyes, acknowledging their terrible actions without stripping them of their humanity. Only by seeing them as human can we truly grasp the weight of their crimes and the responsibility we all share to prevent them. The label of evil is not a shield that protects us from the truth; it is a mirror that reflects the darkest parts of the human condition.