The purpose of this document, which I humbly present to the careful scrutiny of all interested parties, is to delineate the meta-mythical significance of the concept of evil in the Aurbis. The present treatise is intended neither to be a comprehensive nor final anolysis of the concept, but instead to supply an appropriate structure so that discussion of the concept can be pursued in a meaningful way. It is hoped that as a consequence the appellation of evil to certain entities, actions, and events can be understood as a substantial demarcation by which the nature of such entities, actions, and events within the Aurbis can be better understood.

We will begin by distinguishing two forms of the concept which must be treated as antipodal at this stage of the investigation, though subsequently a synthesis between them will be elucidated. These two forms will be termed, for the purposes of this essay, Relative Evil and Objective Evil. The meaning of these two terms will now be explained.

Relative Evil refers to what is said to be, thought to be, or otherwise understood to be evil by a particular entity or group of entities within the Aurbis. Something is a Relative Evil if it is understood as harmful, blasphemous, or otherwise unjustified from a certain perspective. The use of the term relative here ought not be confused with the use of the same term when applied to contraries, as in: tall and short. Although it may be the case that Relative Evils will often be seen as contrary to Relative Goods, and it may be that Objective Evil (to be defined presently) is a contrary to Objective Good, the use of the term relative in Relative Evil is not mean to denote this.

Objective Evil refers to that which is evil regardless of any particular perspective within the Aurbis. The term objective as so used has an equivalent meaning to categorical. It is meant to be contrasted with the term relative as it is used in Relative Evil, although this does not exhaust the meaning of the term (for were this the case, a synthesis of the two would be impossible). Objective is not necessarily to be contrasted with the subjective. Although in common parlance the term subjective overlaps with and on certain occasions is equivalent to the meaning of the term relative, that term will also be given a technical definition later in the essay and so it would be inappropriate at this juncture to contrast it with objective.

As made evident by the foregoing paragraphs, Relative Evil is a much more familiar concept than Objective Evil. It will henceforth be presumed that the meaning of Relative Evil is sufficiently understood by readers, who will be fully capable of supplying examples. For that reason the primary purpose of this essay will be the explication of the concept of Objective Evil.

Although Objective and Relative Evil have been identified in distinction from each other, because of the familiarity of Relative Evil that concept will be used as a basis from which to arrive at a clear cognition of the concept of Objective Evil. The success of this methodological movement will suffice to show the synthetic relation between the two. We will begin by examining a few instances where a certain demarcation between good and evil holds for a substantially large number of individuals, on the supposition that examples where extensive agreement is present may indicate a relation to underlying Objectivity even though the example itself will be a case of Relative Evil.

One immediately recognizable instance of a distinction between good and evil adhered to by a substantially large number of individuals is the distinction between Aedra and Daedra, where Aedra are "good" and Daedra "evil." That this example is specious will be readily attested by anyone familiar with the subject. There are many so-called Daedra worshippers, and for such a person his or her lord will likely not be conceived of as a Relative Evil; furthermore, a substantial portion of Daedra worshippers do little to nothing which challenges the order and norms established and enforced by imperial culture as a result of long history of the mannish empire (I refrain from making predictions about the future of that dynasty here, though it should be understood that this essay is forward-looking in precisely that way).

The inclusion of the http://www.imperial-library.info/pge/in the Pocket Guide to the Empire, First Addition suggests that it is tacitly recognized that the activity of the Daedra, while in some cases serving to undermine the order established by the Empire, is also necessary for that order to persist, and for the myriad of activities with which individuals occupy themselves (http://www.imperial-library.info/pge3/arena_supermundus.shtml).

The dichotomization of Aedra and Daedra as respectively good and evil fails to hold unanimously within imperial culture; just as well, it does not extend to all other major cultural traditions either. According to the doctrine of the Tribunal Temple (another institution about which I make no speculations regarding the future, but write with the intention of being appropriately prospicient), it is not the Aedra which are good, but a certain group of Daedra. These "good" Daedra (Boethiah, Mephala, and Azura) are so identified by their mythic relation to the three godheads of the Tribunal (Almalexia, Vivec, and Sotha Sil, respectively) which they http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/anticipations.shtmland are contrasted with (what might be called) the evil Daedra, or more appropriately the http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/house_of_troubles.shtml(Malacath, Mehrunes Dagon, Molag Bal, and Sheogorath).

The recent "Oblivion Invasion" (to borrow from popular parlance), though little understood by the majority, has led to the Mythic Dawn Cult being deemed evil by the populace in general. Similarly, http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/life_uriel_septim.shtmlis generally understood as an example of good, though the relevant events are understood perhaps even less than the activities of the Mythic Dawn Cult.

Although other examples could be brought to bear, the foregoing is sufficient for present purposes. There is a temptation to conclude from these considerations that the only evil is Relative Evil, because there does not seem to be any substantial and extensive agreement about the nature of that distinction by which one could infer Objective Evil. However, despite their dissonance, these examples serve to clarify the nature and importance of the distinction between good and evil within a certain group.

Vivec, writing on the Daedra, observes: http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/lessons.shtml#32 Once the insight of this passage as it holds for the distinction between the Anticipations and the House of Troubles is understood, it can be expanded to aid in our understanding the role of the distinction between good and evil in general, by which we can elucidate the meaning of Objective Evil.

Let us quote the passage from sermon 32 in full: "But then why, you ask, do the Daedra wish to meddle with the Aurbis? It is because they are the radical critique, essential as all martyrs. That some are more evil than others in not an illusion. Or rather, it is a necessary illusion."

Sermon 32 is entitled "The Scripture of the Mace." A comprehensive and penetrating anolysis of the sermon is not presently called for, but let it be noted that "The Scripture of the Mace" connotes the danger and significance of radical change which is cultural, cosmic, mythical, and normative in nature. The Daedra are the "radical critique" which stand in distinction from, and opposed to, the normal process of events. This critique can serve to define (through difference) the normal process of events, but can also serve to undermine that process: from whence it follows that some Daedra are more evil than others is "a necessary illusion." The Velothi Exodus, emergence of the Chimer, and their subsequent transformation into the Dunmer along with creation of the Tribunal Temple is itself a "critique." Thus the proverb: http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/lessons.shtml#6

From this we can identify the nature and importance of the distinction between good and evil for any group, whatever might be categorized by those respective terms. Something is good to the extent that it conforms to and upholds the established and accepted order of things, and something is evil to the extent that it is differentiated from and challenges that order. Because that order is always somewhat nebulous and involves a menagerie of different elements, it is often impossible to clearly and concretely establish a certain set of elements as good and another as evil, a fact indicated by the examples considered earlier.

Therefore, we can define Objective Evil as that which exists in opposition to the meta-mythical structure of the universe, and which acts to alter that structure. Objective evil, then, is a tendency within the universe to produce those forces which act to alter its own meta-mythical structure. Objective Evil is in a sense subjective (which is here being used in a technical sense, and is not to be confused with relative), because what constitutes Objective Evil is subject to the meta-mythical structure of the universe as it happens to be.

Considered from this perspective, what has been termed Objective Evil is better understood as a force within the universe (or an amalgamation of forces) rather than something normatively wrong. It is, as indicated above, necessary. However, particular acts of Relative Evil can be understood as imperfect instantiations of this force, mimicking it as the myriad images reflected in the shards of a shattered mirror. And so this Objective force subsists in a hypostatic relation with particular Relative Evils, from which is generated pain and suffering of all types (and thus justifying, in a certain sense, the appelation of the term "Evil" to the Objective force), but which also, as with any type of friction, is essential for mythical and mundane histories to continue to unfold.

Offhand, I'd say the Sixth House and Dagoth Ur are a relative evil, while necromancy is objectively evil. The latter is a twisted version of scientific inquiry that treats mortals and their souls with disrespect. The former can be seen as patriots in some ways, but employ a Lovecraftian transformation of their members that is almost as unnatural as necromancy. The lower-ranking Sixth House members have their heads literally hollowed out, which you saw if you played "Morrowind"; a later stage (the Nose Flute Ogres, I think they're called) are outright monsters with tentacled faces.

I knew I should've been faster on the punch with my attempt to slightly deflate the heavy-handed relativist interpretation of the world (even if I am pretty relativist myself).