🎤 Welcome to Gatwick Communicators - Toastmasters in Crawley! 🎤

Want to speak with confidence, lead with impact, and maybe even enjoy giving presentations? You’re in the right place.

We’re a diverse, down-to-earth group of professionals, creatives, and curious minds who meet twice a month to practise public speaking and grow our leadership skills - all in a fun, encouraging environment.

Whether you're terrified of public speaking or just want to polish your pitch, Gatwick Communicators will help you:
✅ Build confidence
✅ Improve communication skills
✅ Get comfortable in front of a crowd (yes, even you)
✅ Receive constructive feedback that actually helps
✅ Meet friendly, motivated people who cheer you on

No experience needed. No pressure to be perfect. Just come as you are - and get ready to grow.

🗓️ We meet every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month at 19:30
📍 St Barnabas Church Hall, Worth Road, Crawley, RH10 7DY
📬 Questions? Drop us a line: [gatwickcommunicators@gmail.com](mailto:gatwickcommunicators@gmail.com)
🔗 Find us on [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/gatwick-communicators-toastmaster-club/)
🌐 [Gatwick Communicators Club Website](https://gatwickcommunicators.org/)

Gatwick Communicators - Learn to Speak with Confidence

Gatwick Communicators

Rumcy Supram

💪 Inspire & Influence – Gatwick Communicators Meetup

📍 Location: St Barnabas Church Hall, Worth Road, Crawley, RH10 7DY

A short intro meeting to kick things off, get to know each other and see how we could work together across different charities.

Surrey Charity Trustees & Fundraising Leads

Gabi

Surrey Charity Trustees & Fundraising Leads | Intro meeting

Online event

This salon asks whether “evil” really exists as something in the world, or whether it is a way we label extreme harms, character failures, and social breakdowns. Philosophers distinguish between natural evils like earthquakes, moral evils like genocide or torture, and questions about whether evil is a property of actions, people, systems, or merely a way of speaking about suffering and wrongdoing.

One influential strand, going back to Augustine, treats evil not as a positive force but as a lack or corruption of the good; on this view, nothing is *evil in itself*, it is simply damaged goodness. Immanuel Kant, by contrast, famously argued that humans have a “natural propensity to evil” rooted in the will’s capacity to prioritise self-love over the moral law, a “radical evil” that is nevertheless freely adopted.

In the twentieth century, Hannah Arendt challenged the image of evil as monstrous by describing the “banality of evil” in the bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann: a man whose great crimes seemed to spring less from demonic hatred than from thoughtlessness, conformity, and careerism. Claudia Card and Marilyn McCord Adams shift the focus to victims, defining evil through “atrocities” and “horrendous evils” that threaten to make a life not worth living, such as genocide, war rape, or extreme abuse.

Friedrich Nietzsche is suspicious of the very category of “evil”, arguing in *Beyond Good and Evil* that traditional moral language often disguises resentment, power struggles, and culturally contingent values. More recently, Susan Neiman has suggested that the history of modern philosophy can be read as an ongoing attempt to make sense of events like the Lisbon earthquake and Auschwitz, with “evil” naming whatever resists our efforts to see the world as intelligible or just.

Together, these perspectives raise our central questions: is evil real, and if so, where does it live? In individuals, in systems, in accidents of nature, or in our concepts themselves?

***

**Reflect on the following scenarios**

1. **The obedient professional**
A mid‑level manager discovers that their company is knowingly dumping toxic waste in a way that will cause long‑term illness to nearby communities, but the practice is technically legal and highly profitable. Speaking up will likely cost them their job and visa status; staying silent helps their family but harms strangers they’ll never meet.

* Is continuing to work there “evil”, merely self‑interested”, or morally tragic but understandable?
* Where would you locate “evil” here? Individual choice, corporate structure, broader economic system?

2. **The algorithm and the crowd**
A social media platform deploys an engagement‑optimised algorithm which, over time, amplifies conspiracy theories and dehumanising rhetoric that contributes to real‑world harassment and occasional violence. No single engineer intends these outcomes; most employees see themselves as neutral technicians.

* Can a system or algorithm be evil, or only the people who design and use it?
* Does calling this “evil” clarify responsibility, or obscure the complexity?

3. **The radicalised neighbour**
A young man from a precarious background becomes involved in an extremist group online. Over several years he adopts an ideology that justifies violence against a minority, eventually participating in a planned attack. Earlier in life he was described as kind and shy; friends disagree about whether he “became evil” or was always somehow “that kind of person”.

* Is evil here a stable character trait, a tragic socialisation process, or the wrong word entirely?
* How should a society treat him: as a monster, as a criminal who can be rehabilitated, or as a symptom of deeper injustices?

4. **The bystander city**
For years, it is publicly known that migrants in a certain city are being exploited in dangerous, underpaid work. Restaurants, delivery services, and households benefit from their labour; many citizens feel uneasy but continue to enjoy the low prices and convenience. Local elections come and go with little change.

* Is there such a thing as *collective* evil here, or only many small individual failings?
* Does calling the situation “evil” help motivate action, or does it feel too exaggerated to be useful?

5. **After atrocity: justice or moving on?**
After a period of mass violence, a new government must decide between pursuing trials and strong punishments for perpetrators, or prioritising amnesty and reconciliation to avoid civil war. Some victims want harsh retribution; others want truth, recognition, and the chance to live peacefully, even if many perpetrators go unpunished.

* Is failing to punish atrocity itself evil, or can mercy and forgetting be morally preferable?
* How do our ideas about evil shape what we think justice should look like after such events?

***

**Academic publications that consider the topic in more detail. I propose picking at least two for pre-reading before the session.**

1. **“Kant’s Theory of Radical Evil and its Franciscan Forebears” – Anselm Spindler (2023, *Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie*)**
Argues that Kant’s notion of a natural propensity to good and evil has precedents in medieval Franciscan accounts of free will, and contrasts this with Augustine’s privation theory.
[Kant’s Theory of Radical Evil and its Franciscan Forebears - PMC](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10390042/)
2. **“The Problem of Evil” – Eleonore Stump (1985, *Faith and Philosophy*)**
Critically surveys well‑known theistic responses to evil (Plantinga, Swinburne, Hick) and develops an alternative Christian strategy centred on the Fall, natural evil, and the afterlife; the PDF is freely hosted by the journal’s repository.
[The Problem of Evil](https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=faithandphilosophy)
3. **“Beyond good and evil: The pursuit of philosophical and scientific understanding of human capacity for good and evil” – EMBO Reports (2025)**
Interdisciplinary article tracing contributions from ancient philosophy to modern neuroscience on how humans can commit both great good and great evil, explicitly invoking Nietzsche’s challenge to traditional morality.
[Beyond good and evil: The pursuit of philosophical and scientific truth in a time of moral ambiguity - PMC](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12116944/)
4. **“The problem of evil as a moral objection to theism” – S. Betenson (PhD thesis, University of Birmingham)**
A substantial doctoral thesis arguing that the problem of evil functions as a *moral* rather than merely logical objection to belief in God; the full text is openly available through the university’s repository.
[The problem of evil as a moral objection to theism](https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/5610/1/Betenson15PhD.pdf)
5. **Article on “concepts of evil and various strands of evil in the world today” – *Nnadiebube Journal of Philosophy* (open‑access PDF)**
This paper distinguishes evil caused by ignorance, human‑induced evils, natural disasters, and metaphysical or spiritually induced evils, and discusses the long‑standing metaphysical problem of evil and the existence of God.
[https://journals.ezenwaohaetorc.org/index.php/NAJP/article/download/12-1-2020-012/1687](https://journals.ezenwaohaetorc.org/index.php/NAJP/article/download/12-1-2020-012/1687)
6. **Claudia Card, *The Atrocity Paradigm: A Theory of Evil* (Oxford University Press, full PDF online)**
A landmark secular theory defining evils as reasonably foreseeable, intolerable harms produced by culpable wrongdoing, with atrocities (genocide, slavery, war rape) as paradigms.
https://origin.secure.website/wscfus/6582151/29775051/card-atrocity-para-evil.pdf
7. **“Kinds and Origins of Evil” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Claudia Card)**
Analyses different kinds of evil (moral, natural, individual, collective) and their origins, linking traditional metaphysical discussions to contemporary concerns about structural and collective harms.
[Kinds and Origins of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil-kinds-origins/)
8. **“The Concept of Evil” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Eve Garrard & others, refereed entry)**
A comprehensive survey of how philosophers define evil, debates over whether evil is distinct from ordinary wrongdoing, and objections to the usefulness of the concept.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#:\~:text=For%20instance%2C%20Garrard%20argues%20that,why%20the%20action%20was%20performed
9. **“The Problem of Evil” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (James R. Beebe & others)**
Systematic overview of logical and evidential arguments from evil against theism, including free‑will defences and theodicies; useful for framing the classical philosophical problem.
[The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/)

***

## Other resources (podcasts, essays, accessible overviews)

1. **Podcast: “The Philosophy of Evil — with David Bather Woods” (Common Room Philosophy)**
An hour‑long discussion of questions like whether freedom is required for evil, whether understanding evildoers risks excusing them, and what makes an act evil rather than just very bad.
[https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xpZAJcCo8WuiE7PtzQnp9?si=DPWzKGLsRSiAYMhU75qIUA](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xpZAJcCo8WuiE7PtzQnp9?si=DPWzKGLsRSiAYMhU75qIUA)
2. **Podcast: “Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil” (Philosophy Bites)**
A short, very accessible interview where Adams explains her notion of “horrendous evils” that threaten to destroy the meaning of a person’s life, and what this means for faith and forgiveness.
[Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil - Philosophy Bites](https://philosophybites.com/podcast/marilyn-mccord-adams-on-evil/)
3. **Podcast debate: “Is belief in an evil God more plausible than belief in a good God?” (Unbelievable?)**
Oxford philosopher Stephen Law presents his “evil God challenge”, asking why we take the evidence of good to rule out an evil God less seriously than the evidence of evil against a good God.
[Is belief in an evil God more … - Unbelievable? - Apple Podcasts](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/is-belief-in-an-evil-god-more-plausible-than-belief/id267142101?i=1000660576279)
4. **Round‑table podcast: four‑person discussion on the problem of evil (Catholic, Protestant, atheist, agnostic)**
A cross‑perspective conversation about the logical vs evidential problem of evil, theodicies, and whether the existence of evil really counts against God, hosted on a public platform.
[A Catholic, Protestant, Atheist and Agnostic Discuss the Problem of Evil](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUgziZ4vro)
5. **Reference article: “Logical Problem of Evil” – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy**
A clear, online introduction to the logical problem of evil and the “free will defence”, written at a level accessible to non‑specialists but drawing on contemporary analytic philosophy.
[Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/)
6. **Book overview: *Evil in Modern Thought* – Susan Neiman (Perpetrator Studies Network summary)**
An accessible summary of Neiman’s project of rereading the history of modern philosophy through the problem of evil, from the Lisbon earthquake to Auschwitz and contemporary terrorism.
[Perpetrator Studies Network | Neiman, Susan. Evil in Modern Thought](https://perpetratorstudies.sites.uu.nl/bibliography/neiman-susan-evil-in-modern-thought-20200501/)
7. **Blog/essay: “Hannah Arendt’s lessons for our times: the banality of evil, totalitarianism and statelessness” – British Academy**
Explains Arendt’s famous phrase “the banality of evil” and connects her analysis of violence, bureaucracy, and statelessness to current political challenges.
[Hannah Arendt's lessons for our times: the banality of evil, totalitarianism and statelessness | The British Academy](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/hannah-arendts-lessons-for-our-times-the-banality-of-evil-totalitarianism-and-statelessness/)
8. **Essay: “What did Hannah Arendt really mean by the banality of evil?” – Aeon**
Unpacks how Arendt’s account of Eichmann as shallow, conformist, and “a joiner” challenges the idea that evil must be rooted in monstrous hatred or sadism.
[What did Hannah Arendt really mean by the banality of evil? | Aeon Ideas](https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil)

Reimagined Intellectual Salon - Meetup Group

mcheetham08

Does evil exist? | From Nietzsche to Arendt, it's a debate for the ages.

Gabi Berkelmann

Gruppen

{PRO_NETWORK_NAME} ist mit mehr als {PRO_MEMBER_COUNT} Mitgliedern in {PRO_GROUP_COUNT} Meetups weltweit auf Meetup Pro vertreten. Meetup Pro ist das professionelle Tool zum Organisieren und Kommunizieren eines Netzwerks aus Anwender:innen, Partner:innen, Mitwirkenden und Mitgliedern.

Gabi Berkelmann

Wer wir sind

Bevorstehende Events

Wer wir sind

Gruppen