It is extremely problematic to determine evil with a single textual definition applicable to entities with a biological nature (such as humans, animals) and those that do not possess biological properties.

The Challenge of Defining Evil Across Biological and Non-Biological Re

It is extremely problematic to determine evil with a single textual definition applicable to entities with a biological nature (such as humans, animals) and those that do not possess biological properties. On one hand, many teachings describe evil as a phenomenon that arises secondarily in relation to good – as a result of the improper use of forces that are initially good. For example, it is asserted that:

"Secondly, evil is not primary: it arises on the basis of the good creaturely essence created by God as a result of the abuse of freedom, which itself is also good... therefore, evil is a secondary phenomenon, dependent on the forces of good and carried out through the improper use of forces that are in themselves good; evil is a parasite that feeds on the forces of good." (source: link txt)

This view implies that evil is defined in relation to the essence of good, which already entails the existence of a conscious subject capable of misusing its freedom.

Furthermore, philosophical teachings commonly divide evil into three types – metaphysical, moral, and physical. In this regard, it is noted that:

"In philosophy, there is a widespread teaching that there are three types of evil: metaphysical, moral, and physical evil. By metaphysical evil, one understands the limitations of created beings; moral evil is referred to as sin, i.e., the violation of moral norms; and physical evil relates to physical suffering and imperfections." (source: link txt)

This division primarily concerns living, conscious beings with a moral sphere and does not allow for a direct transfer of the concept of moral evil to the non-biological sphere.

It is also noted that evil does not possess its own ontological foundation, but is rather a deviation from the fundamental principles of being:

"Evil truly does not have an ontological foundation, because it is always a non-creative, but destructive force. In principle, we can call evil a deviation from the life principles of being." (source: link txt)

Such a description stresses that evil is defined as a deficit or deviation from an ideal state, which again largely depends on evaluating creation according to the norms of good and the organization of being – criteria that are applicable to beings possessing certain qualities, and not to everything that exists.

Thus, if one tries to formulate a single textual definition of evil, it will inevitably rely on notions accessible only to rational or creatively acting agents, and it will not be able to objectively encompass the non-biological sphere, where there is no moral-ethical choice or consciousness. For these reasons, formulating an exact, universal definition of evil applicable to both biological and non-biological beings is exceedingly difficult.