> we shouldn't privilege the word "evil" by associating it with some kind of deep instrospection leading to immoral action -- lots, if not most, of the evil in the world stems from mundane small-mindedness.

(Arendt's book is on my list; haven't gotten there yet.)

I guess I use a definition of evil that is more utilitarian than I am. Evil, I think, is when someone does something that harms another person far out of proportion to the benefit the perpetrator receives. It's different from something that is merely wrong in that it diminishes utility for all parties involved rather than increasing utility for one party and decreasing it for the other.

I mean, a stupid/extreme example would be that a starving person stealing bread from a wealthy person isn't very evil, maybe isn't evil at all, while a well-fed person stealing bread from the starving would be very evil.

(Note here the diminishing marginal value of wealth; your first loaf of bread is worth rather more than your second million dollars.)

As part of this definition, I am mostly only acknowledging material benefit; I would see it as much more evil to kill someone for fun, say, than to kill the same person for access to food, shelter or other material necessities, even if you are receiving quite a lot of utility in terms of emotional pleasure or what have you from the former act, and even if I feel the second act is wrong. The second act is still a lot more understandable.

So, especially if you are already living with what I'd call desperate poverty, in a situation where both your access to food and shelter was insecure, giving up material wealth (including access to food) in exchange for a kind of social status that seems disgusting to me, seems to me like irrationally harming another person in a way that harms yourself, too- thus, stupid and evil. But maybe I undervalue social status? But more likely, I am missing part of the story