Evil has a connection to the emotions of fear, pain, anger, rage. Evil will ignite those emotion potentials, within second and third parties. For example, a thief might experience joy when he steals, since his art may require skill and the score can be lucrative. These positive emotions are due to their belief system and are first party emotions. The second and third parties to that crime (victims and relationships) might become full of rage or fear due to the robbery. Evil does not have to be a wolf in and out, but can also be a wolf in sheeps clothing. It can seem like a positive emotional valence to the first party (sheep). But the evil of the wolf is evident as negative emotions spread to second and third parties.
A serial killer may express joy in their perverse craft, with their slicing and dicing giving them the creative satisfaction of an artist sculpturing stone. But the pain and fear of the victim, and the rage and fear created in those left behind, betrays the wolf under what some think is a sheep.
There is objective fear, pain and rage. There is also subjective fear, pain, rage. Evil can be in both, but not always the same place.
As an example of this contrast, if I poke you with a stick there is real objective pain in your side. You may get mad or begin to fear another poke in the side. This is consistent with the definition of evil; second party pain. If it was an accident and you forgive me, your fear or anger will depart. The physical pain will remain, but the net evil is being neutralized.
In terms of subjective fear, pain, anger, say I convince Sue to get a headache when Betty walks into the room. Sue is easy to fool and her headache pain is conditioned and subjective, with the apparent evil cause and effect of her percieved second party pain, only appearing after many hours of conditioning.
Regardless of the source, there is pain, so there is evil at work. The objective evil is not from Betty, even if Sue thinks Betty is the source of her pain. Rather the evil came from me, the conditioner of evil, who planted the suggestion, so my evil can spread to second and third parties; first Sue then to Betty. Betty is now hurt and angry, at the emotional level, due to a real cause and effect; Sue's negative attitude. I get a double on the score card of evil, with Sue getting the assist sort of like a deflection. I could go for the hat-trick, if I gossip to Claire.
If Betty uses her common sense to figure out Sue was manipulated by me, she may forgive Sue for her negative reaction. The evil is lowering. Sue sees Betty's acceptance and decides so what if my head hurts, Betty is still my friend. Evil decreases even further. Evil starts to melt, using the waters of love and reason.
The big question becomes, is it evil, to induce the emotions of evil, onto a source of evil? For example, if I was caught gossiping and spreading evil via fear, anger and pain, is it evil to do that to me, the original source of evil?
I think the answer works the same way it is done within math. Negative times postive or evil (negative) spreading among the good (positive) is evil (negative). But a double negative multiplies positive.
As an example, say someone broke into your house and was hurting your family. The objective emotions of evil are spreading to you and you family; via the pain, fear and rage. The terror is not subjective or conditioned but instinctive/objective to survival. The police arrive and shoot the source of the evil, thereby pulling out the root of the evil.
We have a double negative, since even a source of evil can feel pain, fear, anger. To see if the double negative math works out, we need to compare before and after, to see if the overall objective evil is still spreading or contracting after the double negative? It is contracting. The subjective pain may be expanding, within the demonstrators, whose react against evil against evil based on a conditioned abstraction. They might get an assist ito evil, they can help the orginal source of evil via the postive times negative aspect of the math.
