Evil against evil

25/01/2025 Nilson Lattari

“There are some people who suffer from evil and consider responding with equal intensity to others. If they can’t escape from it, they may feel their freedom lost,” as Aristotle said.
I have been thinking about this quote and how this type of reaction is connected to recent events in the world. I can imagine these people retaliating for the harm they injured or fearing potential harm from others. In my opinion, they tend to create barriers against this possible evil. What’s more, their judgments may be influenced by religious or political biases. On the other hand, they may interpret the adversaries’ words as offensive or wicked, challenging them on the same level.
If differing opinions only generate disagreements in a healthy environment, we could consider them as typical discussions among people. After debates, everyone would return to their homes with their convictions and nothing else. However, we may identify a shadow in these debates, influenced by religious or political biases: this shadow means fear. This fear emerges in people insecure of their own arguments, yet unwilling to abandon them. Furthermore, this segment of society often doesn’t have sufficient intellectual training or substance to impose their convictions. In defence, or as a barrier of containment, they are likely to create conflict. In short, the common sense of these people is to consider their adversaries as messengers of evil.
In such situations, it becomes difficult to perceive or determine where the real “evil” lies, whether in ideas or intentions. Categorizing or labelling people is the most convenient way to delineate the evil in others. Is it fair to categorize political adversaries if their ideas do not align with ours? Could offensive behaviours be used as a tool to silence opponents who are perceived as evil?
These behaviours are beliefs, as Aristotle said, that those who have suffered injuries may feel that their freedom is lost. So, their strategy is to censor opponents to achieve their goals. In theory, freedom is for everyone, but this battle seems like an exorcism of one against the other.
When an ideological group articulates a speech to defend “their freedom,” they are not including their opponents within this concept. Instead, they are using “their freedom” as a method of domination, even if these methods violates our sense of humanity and the laws to impose their convictions.
Freedom is a general, flexible and fluid concept, shaped by biases. In my opinion, freedom is an abstraction created by humanity, regardless of spiritual or physical terms, and everyone can enjoy it boundaries of law and order. No one needs exclusive freedom to live, as opinions are autonomous regardless of social conditions, beliefs, or values.
It is difficult for some people to understand what freedom truly means and what it represents for everyone. When one side tries to impose concepts based on a particular moral code, through aggression and brutality, such actions may provoke a reaction from the other side.
We must recognise that everyone has beliefs and searches for an illusory or personal freedom according to their perspectives. From this point of view, we might consider freedom is really lost.
Finally, in a democracy, evil is countered by laws; otherwise, we would live in a theocracy or tyranny. Rights, duties, and mutual respect are essential to living freely.