Evil like in the movies doesn't exist. In the real-world evil is simply a lack of perspective (some would call it empathy instead).

No one ever wakes up and decides they want to be a villain. They always have some sort of logic that rationalizes their actions as being reasonable if not outright good. The more they act on that lack of perspective the greater the evil they perpetrate.

Some select quotes (minor spoiler alert):

"There is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan."

"It's all the same machine, right? The Pentagon, multinational corporations, the police. If you do one little job, you build a widget in Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two miles under the desert, the essential component of a death machine."

Quentin: But why put people in it?

Worth: Because it's here. You have to use it, or you admit that it's pointless.

Quentin: But it is pointless.

Worth: Quentin... that's my point.

[1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-cube/

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cube_(film)

    DIN_FIV
    Escape To Reality
    Track #3 - "Conspiracy"

I worked with a sociopath in the past and have studied it in literature, and a sociopath by definition sees meeting their own needs as a priority. Regardless of the effect on those around them.

A sociopath is willing to inflict suffering on others for even minor gains of their own. Sociopaths seek out high-power positions and often thrive in them, and those working with them often suffer as a consequence.

Taking a step back, as far as I can see, a sociopath is someone who (either by choice or by nature) prioritises certain social drives over other social drives. The drives to be empathic and obey social expectations, norms and rules get ignored. However, the drives for status, money and power are prioritised above all others. These drives are still social in nature. They don't actually convey a fundamental biological advantage.

I personally choose to aim to be a warm and caring human being, and, as a consequence of that, I have a really great relationship with my girlfriend. When we have kids, our kids will grow up in a loving supportive environment and so will have a good chance of growing up strong and well balanced. Being a sociopath would probably get me more material possessions, but I would have had to settle for an emotionally weaker partner (who I could dominate) and I would end up with messed up kids with a lower chance of success and survival.

From my own personal experience, people who fit the sociopathic archetype aren't really like evil villains. They're more like computer game addicts, fixated on goals that don't bring them happiness, and that get in the way of forming genuine connections with other human beings. I can see why people who are the victims of their behaviour characterise it as selfish, because they see the world as a competition for money, status and power and they think they are losing out. However, that competition is just a game, and the grand prize is not happiness.

Although I find these points interesting, it does seem to me like this leads us into the age-old philosophy discussion on ethics. It seems like ethics can be argued to be based on intention, effect, something else, or all. I have read about sociopaths that are experienced by others as good people. However, a sociopath seem to have a stunted emotional life and I am sure this disability will always have numerous subtle negative effects on people that have an emotional relationship with them (e.g wife, kids, friends).

This is what I consider evil, and I think it's important to separate it from people who think what they are doing is ok. I.e. "Someone else would have done it anyways", a thief who steals from a bank because "they have insurance" or "they are rich assholes who don't deserve it", or a dictator who tries to do what he thinks is best for the country even though his policies are bad.

Tou keep saying that, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Evil in this case is an aggregation of actions by many parties, not individuals and is rarely committed by the tool makers. However, it's always justified by the perpetrators.

Yep. Of course if that engineer had perspective he would have to wonder if there was more to the story than just what he was being shown. It is easy to doubt the people we already think are wrong, the hard thing is to doubt the people we agree with.

I would add that I think much of the material Ed Snowden released, to the extent that it shows personal expressions, to me points more to these people viewing the Intelligence organization as the new "we", and /everybody/ outside, US citizen or not, as a bit less than fully human. That cheeky smiley on the sketches detailing how they broke Google's SSL? "TOR Stinks" and similar flippant expressions in the documents about attacking the integrity of TOR? And so on. To me that isn't the look of someone who thinks they're making difficult, serious choices to protect the greater good. It's the look of someone who thinks they're better than everyone else out there and they can do whatever they want, including having "a little fun" toying with those other inferior creatures, because they think no one can touch them. That, I think, is the general mindset we're dealing with. Allow for a fair deal of individual variation of course.

You don't need an ethical guidebook to consider the implications of the work you're doing. I don't think lack of explicit instructions is an excuse. I don't want to invoke Godwin just yet...but suffice to say, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of good. And there were people in the loop who had the ability to see what was going on.

And so they walk a famously paved road.