> Why is it imperative that philosophy is able to identify "evil", and to what extent? There are many branches of philosophy and it is perfectly fine for a phi

> Why is it imperative that philosophy is able to identify "evil", and to what extent? There are many branches of philosophy and it is perfectly fine for a philosopher to study other topics. Ethics, or moral philosophy is a branch which “involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior”. If you set out to practice this particular branch you will be asked what is your opinion on behaviours commonly refered as “evil”. That is “evil” don’t have to be a technical term in your moral philosophy, but it will be one of the edge cases it will be evaluated on. So it is not imperative that philosophy identify “evil” but if someone sets out to talk right and wrong and their system of thinking results in sillyness in practical cases then that system is not worth much. > Is identifying something as "evil" subjectively somehow not good enough for me to condemn it or act upon it? Maybe. It can make collective action hard. Lets say there is a group of people who spends their time finding people with freckles. They then torture them and murder them. It is kind of their hobby. And someone else says “this is terrible and we must stop them”. They alone are weak and powerless, can only stop the “hobbyist” if enough people agrees to do something (like for example setting up a police force and outlawing murder) If then and then a moral philosopher drifts by and says “my dude, you should chill out. You think murdering people with freckles is bad, they think it is not. You should work on accepting other people more.” That kind of talk, if taken seriously, will not result in collective action and in effect will let the murders continue. And then we can scratch our head and think if it was the right outcome.