Innocence and evil…seems pretty clear right? But how clear is it really? There is a grey area between innocence and evil, one that many people struggle to navigate. Finding that line where right turns to wrong is almost impossible.

In this blog post I had to pick a concept, create a question around it and then use various examples to answer it. If you couldn’t tell the concept I am going to be talking about is innocence and evil. These two concepts are usually very clear, and it’s often quite obvious what category things fall under, but in some cases it can be hard to tell. This lead me to the question: how does one define the line between innocence and evil?

During war times it’s usually impossible to determine a good and a bad side, which side is right and which is wrong. Both sides are always fighting towards the same goal: to survive. All they want is to win for their country, for their families. The soldiers may feel like their side deserves to win, and they are on the good side, but both sides feel that way. Both sides have to kill their “enemy” and keep fighting to the end no matter what. Which side one believes should win strongly depends on nationalism. In general during war, people cheer for their own country. Considering everybody is fighting for a reason, there can never be a clear evil or innocent side during war that everybody agrees on. This has to be determined by each individual, and their experiences are what allow for them to make this decision.

Some people may think that all soldiers in war are much closer to evil than innocent, because their main job is killing people, but they are usually just volunteers fighting for their country or were conscripted. Most of them don’t want to be killing and are just fighting for their country. Is that really that evil?

One example of a soldier who maybe isn’t innocent is Elijah from “Three Day Road” by Joseph Boyden. This novel was about two Canadian First Nations going off to fight in a World War I. One character, Xavier, didn’t enjoy killing people, in fact, for the most part he hated it. He lost sleep over seeing the dead bodies and knowing he possibly killed people. He is one of the soldiers who, despite killing people, isn’t necessarily evil because he just does what needs to be done.

Xavier’s friend Elijah on the other hand…well he is another story. At the beginning of the book he seems to want to kill as many people on the other side as possible to gain popularity among the other soldiers, but by the end it is all about the kill. He becomes addicted to morphine and spirals out of control. Be begins killing civilians along with his fellow soldiers, and scalps his kills to prove how many there were.

Elijah is a pretty clear example of evil, but it’s much harder to say with Xavier. He didn’t want to kill people, but he still did kill them. Elijah is and example of black and white, where as, to some people, Xavier represents the grey area.

Another example of when point of view determines the line between innocence and evil is in television and movies. In general, people tend to cheer for the main character no matter what. The connections made to the main characters throughout the movies and TV shows blur the line between right and wrong for people, as they tend to cheer for who they know, no matter what the character stands for. If movies were remade with the bad guys as the main characters, seeing their perspective would likely change people’s desired outcome, because it is all in the point of view. Seeing the villain as the main character or learning their view would gain sympathy for them and for sure make people understand them better. People tend to cheer for who and what they know, even if it isn’t always what they believe in.

What side of an issue you’re on also affects the choice between innocence and evil. In the book “Fallout“, by Todd Strasser, a trap door turns this line from metaphorical to physical. When the bomb is dropped only one family in this town has a shelter. This family wants to be alone, to save themselves and not let anybody else in. They know that their best chance of survival is to kept the door closed at all costs. Those on the other side of the door feel as though this is wrong and that they deserve a chance as well. When a few more people break in they realize that they want to keep everybody else out so they can survive. The second they crossed the line they switched from opening the door to closing it. Once they made it into the shelter their opinion on right versus wrong flipped and they tried to keep the door closed, even though they were the ones to pry it open. When they were outside they felt it was unfair to be locked out and forced their way in, yet once in they helped lock everybody else out. This is an example of how a situation can determine one’s opinion, and how seeing the other side of the situation makes them understand people’s actions.

Honestly, in any situation different sides of an issue develop different opinions on what is right and what’s wrong. Even during World War II, no matter how evil some of Hilter’s actions may seem to us, he believed that what he was doing was right.

In the play Macbeth the concept of innocence and evil is played with quite a bit, although mainly evil. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth is actually innocent. He does what he believes is right and is very loyal. Once the witches but the idea of the possibility of him becoming king in his head though, it all spirals downhill. In the case of Macbeth defining the line between innocence and evil is fairly clear. Even Macbeth knows what he’s doing is wrong, he’s just too wrapped up in the idea of power to care.

This term in PLP we read the book “Lord of the Flies” and even in this book, no matter what the boys do, I don’t think they are evil, though many people may. The boys run around hunting pigs, chanting “Cut his throat! Kill the pig!” and they get way more into the hunt than they really should be. Along with that, one character Roger shows many signs of bloodlust and even kills another boy on the island. Many of their actions make them seem like they many be closer to evil than innocent…but what do you expect from 12 year old and younger boys. They’re still immature, they haven’t even gone through puberty. They’ve never gotten freedom from their parents, and they acted out. But this doesn’t mean they’re evil, they were just a bit too innocent to start. These boys don’t have enough life experience to be considered evil quite yet. My opinion would likely be much different if it were adults, but then again, if they were adults it likely wouldn’t have gotten that bad.

Many people likely have different opinions on evil in “Lord of the Flies.” Why? Because of how personal the line between right and wrong is. It depends on each person. And I for sure am not saying it’s okay to kill people when stranded on a deserted island, I know it’s wrong, but because it happened doesn’t automatically make the boys involved evil.

I decided to make a Venn diagram to show how much overlap there is between innocence and evil. Obviously the words in the middle are all very subjective and depend on every person individually, just like the line between innocence and evil. It depends on one’s upbringing, religion and personal morals. It’s almost impossible to state something that is considered good worldwide.

In some situations the line between innocence and evil is very clear and those who don’t seem to know it just aren’t making any effort to look. In these situations common sense and the knowledge of right and wrong draws the line. But in the grey areas it of course is much harder to find this line. This line varies for many people, and is often drawn by ones point of view and their experiences. There can never be a clear line between innocence and evil for the whole world to follow because nobody has the same experiences or point of view. The line between innocence and evil is very individualized, luckily, it isn’t all grey, and the black and white areas are what keep us in order.