I've been having this story idea in my head for a while. I don't know if I can do it any justice, but I figured the only way I could do it was by trying. What's my story idea?

Twilight Sparkle faces a moral test that all alicorns must go through a short time after she is ascended. The princesses also went through this trial, but Luna failed hers to become Nightmare Moon. The trial is conducted by an active universal force (we'll call it chaos, for lack of a better term) who manifests in a way unique to each alicorn. For Luna, it came via jealousy of her sister. For Twilight, it shall be very straightforward--it will be a nameless pony who will engage her in an intellectual discussion. The discourse carries heavy consequences when the stakes are revealed to be whether Twilight can understand the nature of evil, or unwittingly succumb to it. I wanted the story to end with her succumbing to it, but I am obviously faced with the problem of how this character (whom many perceive as pure good) could be corrupted in a single conversation.

If this reminds anyone of Goethe's Faust, it's because the original premise was inspired by it. I want to gravitate away from the theological concerns, and move more towards a practical arena. As an agnostic, I find it difficult to make any theological statements, and I feel Twilight Sparkle is a poor agent in carrying these ideas out. If you'd like to argue this, that's fine I suppose. Just know that my responses may lack much energy. It's just not my goal to discuss that right now.

Anyway: To understand what I wanted to achieve in this story, I knew I had to hear the philosophical arguments of what evil is. If you would like to present different views, then by all means share them. This is just what I've covered so far.

First thing I learned of was Hannah Arendt's idea of "banal evil".

In other words, the "Banality of Evil" is... the refusal to take responsibility, self-denial, and blind allegiance.

Then I got into Lars Svendsen's lecture of the nature of evil. This is where the majority of my current ideas are coming from. I summarize the gist of what I got from his lecture below:

Moral Evil vs. Natural Evil - Perhaps the nameless antagonist can attempt to make Twilight believe that there is no moral evil, only natural evil?

Natural evil is something we, as humans, cannot be blamed for. We can treat natural evil like a disease, but this clinical approach leaves us unable to blame the individual. Natural evil = neurological and social disorders, insanity, (perhaps) extreme innocence/ignorance etc.

The reduction of moral agency (via natural evil) is counter to our human experience of guilt and responsibility.

Free Will allows for evil. (around 15m in the video)

If there is no evil, there is no free will.

Lars Svendsen argues that there is no meaning in evil. (17m) -- I actually don't know if I can agree with this, personally, but maybe it's just because this idea is so scary.

There is a dilemma to be addressed in balancing abstract and concrete evil. (Concrete evil being acts or events, such as the Holocaust)

26m in he describes four types of evil:

1. Demonic evil - often something supernatural; the intent of doing evil simply because it is evil. [Not something I think Twilight would do.]

2. Instrumental evil - doing something evil to achieve a goal; do not take pleasure in the act of evil, but in the goal. [this is what I think she would succumb to]

3. Idealistic evil - when something evil is done with the belief that it is actually good; an example is the Salem witch trials, or the Crusades, Nazi Germany, or ISIS. [I do not think Twilight would succumb to this.] Is also known as "banal evil" (see video above.)

4. Stupid evil - Stupid evil is evil that occurs based on pony incompetence, despite the fact that nopony wished it. A plane crash due to an easily avoidable pilot error would be an example of stupid evil. [Twilight would obviously not fall to this.]

All of the above is covered in detail on this site: http://www.litkicks.com/FourTypesOfEvil

The concept of good vs. evil has actually propagated more evil. (I thought this was good.)

So how did I apply all of the above to my story idea? Like this:

Twilight Sparkle might find herself lost in abstract evil, thus losing sight of concrete evil and inadvertently agreeing to it.

Antagonist can lead Twilight Sparkle down a rabbit hole, wherein she becomes overly concerned with how evil entered the world, whether it has actual being, or if it can only be understood as an absence (of good). She needs to focus on how evil can be prevented to "survive" her trial. Instead she focuses on the nature of evil and how to separate it from good--in other words, she slips into binary and oppositional thinking.

The rest of the video goes on to discuss the Greek definition of 'devil' and the dangers of group thinking. I'm not interested in exploring ways for Twilight to succumb to evil in a group setting. I'm far more interested in seeing how she might, as an individual, find herself turned to evil purely through discourse with one other pony.

Any thoughts on what I have so far? Just as a last warning: I'm not a philosopher or brainiac. I'm an ape pawing at intellectual ideas. If I sound stupid to you, it's from ignorance, and I appreciate any effort to set me right.

5185866

I believe you have a good observation with how Twilight Sparkle would handle evil. Analytical minds such as Twilight will always try to distinguish the form of evil into a material concept so that they can understand how it would work and how to challenge it. The problem with her is that evil by nature can never be made into a pure material concept, just like how good cannot be made into a pure material concept. There will always be shades of good and evil mixed with each other.

One falls into evil when he/she begins to attempt to separate good and evil from each other. This point fits in with idealistic and instrumental evil because the person analyzing the concepts does not think of their own actions as being evil since they believe that they are walking towards the greater good. However, these minds condemn themselves towards acting in the will of evil because they deny the existence of the chaotic nature that good and evil possess; they like to intertwine with each other in ways that one cannot fathom on first glance.

Again, you said it best when you would have Twilight try to analyze the nature of good and evil as being polar opposites that are mutually exclusive from each other. She would believe that if she didn't walk the path of what she believes to be evil, she would be on the path of good. What she would be doing is walking into an even greater evil. Would she realize in time? That's up to you to decide.

5186027 Thanks for your response! Though I'm a bit perplexed by your idea that she would be "walking into an even greater evil." I mean, I know there is a spectrum of evil discussed in the above lecture, I'm just not sure how you mean it with regards to your post.

5186177

The greater evils are the ones hidden from plain sight and disguised as good. These are the type of evils that would sway the hearts of even the most morally upright minds into evil. When they realize that their actions have a semblance of evil to them, they often try to rationalize their actions in order to not feel guilt about their actions and would continue them because they would have no other choice but to continue committing them.

5186237 Ah, I understand now. Thank you for clarifying.