Cruelty has an impressive talent for acquiring respectable language. Someone is refused help, their options shrink, and the refusal is explained as the responsible decision. The organisation records a completed task. The person receiving the answer has to find a way through the next day. We can follow how the damage happens while the metaphysical question of what evil ultimately is remains unresolved. Our words depend on circumstances and relationships that no description fully contains. Wittgenstein’s injunction to silence marks a limit in what language can settle. Silence itself has consequences: an unanswered plea leaves someone waiting, and their difficulties continue. What remains unsaid still shapes the encounter. Running out of words gives us no escape from the world in which we speak.
Evil need not exist as a separate substance, an intrinsic property of a person, or some mysterious force operating beyond human affairs. Its existence is relational. Cruelty emerges through differences in power, dependencies, exclusions, neglected responsibilities and the consequences of actions that continue long after their authors have moved on. Absence matters as much as action: help withheld, possibilities extinguished, suffering left unanswered. These are not merely moral descriptions of events. They are conditions through which harm acquires organisation, duration and the capacity to reproduce itself. Evil persists not because it possesses an independent essence, but because the relations sustaining it persist.
The refusal keeps arriving in lives long after the original encounter has ended. A judgement entered in a file becomes a reason to refuse another application; the new refusal creates a difficulty someone carries for years. Time is the finite propagation of relation: the effects of that judgement reach later encounters through delays that shape what happens next. Meanwhile, the organisation learns from its own response. When a harmful shortcut saves time or money and is rewarded, repeating it becomes easier. A response requiring care becomes harder to sustain. The next person arrives in a situation already changed by what happened to the last. Small decisions, accidents, opportunities and permissions alter which responses become likely and which remain possible. Wickedness accumulates as the familiar response becomes the dependable one. The damage grows beyond what is visible from any single decision.
What looks reasonable at one desk becomes routine across an institution, an industry or a political system. Another person’s vulnerability becomes useful to keeping the arrangement alive. Capitalism organises exchange and dependence through ownership and markets; dictatorial government organises them through concentrated command and coercion. The recurring danger follows the rewards and dependencies through which these arrangements continue. Where suffering pays, wickedness accumulates through marginal gains in communicative optimisation: becoming steadily better at securing obedience, commanding attention and justifying the damage. Each success prepares the conditions for the next. The profits remain with those making the decisions; the costs fall on other lives and future generations. Wealth buys greater control over whose account becomes the accepted explanation. Western concentrations of wealth become oligarchy when private fortunes acquire enduring power over public decisions. Automating these processes extends the reach of human goals and choices. The balance sheet looks splendid from the side that gets to keep it.
The explanation then travels beyond the organisation. It enters public stories through which people recognise their troubles and decide whom to blame. Hatred directs frustration towards a scapegoat; exclusionary populism presents submission to a leader as taking back control. The responses this elicits help determine which story returns next. Research found that social rewards made expressions of outrage more likely to recur. Other studies found popular topics losing collective attention more quickly and, across roughly 300 million online comments, a general trend towards shorter texts and fewer different words per comment. Experiments reordering hostile political content in feeds changed feelings towards political opponents and immediate emotional responses. Language, attention and emotion interact within one communicative field, shaping what people notice and respond to next. Opposing political positions become mutually sustaining. Each side’s attacks supply the other with reasons to rally supporters. Responsibility still follows each party’s actions. There is money in keeping the problem lively.
As the same explanations circulate, familiarity acquires the appearance of authority. Universities, corporations and media reinforce one another’s selections: credentials guide invitations, invitations concentrate attention, and attention becomes evidence of standing. Familiar arguments fit standards institutions already know how to apply. Within this cycle, an argument questioning those standards is treated as a failure to meet them. Examining it properly requires examining the standards too. Exclusion develops through converging decisions, without anyone planning the combined result. Each decision looks defensible from the desk where it was made. Financial success supplies another convenient credential for understanding. Douglas Rushkoff recounts a brokerage chief asking how to keep control of his bunker’s guards after social collapse, when money would no longer secure their obedience. Apparently, the end of civilisation still requires a staffing policy. The bunker changes the terms of his dependence on other people. It cannot abolish that dependence.
We live within the relationships whose consequences we are trying to understand. This essay participates in them too: its words direct attention and influence how readers judge other people. They carry responsibilities of their own. Philosophy belongs in understanding the world and ourselves well enough to live differently. Our ways of living have limited lifespans, and the circumstances that bring them to an end are not all within our control. The metaphysical question remains open. The need to act does not wait for its resolution. Interrupting harmful arrangements requires changing what they reward and who bears their costs. It also requires keeping alternatives possible: time to think, room to disagree, access to help and the means to act without being punished for needing it. A plea for help has to remain an opportunity to respond, rather than another task to close. Understanding becomes consequential through that difference. A life needs room to become more than what has happened to it. Keeping that room open is work we have to do while there is still time.
References
Brady, W.J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T.N. and Crockett, M.J. (2021) ‘How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks’, Science Advances, 7(33), eabe5641. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe5641.
Di Marco, N., Loru, E., Bonetti, A., Serra, A.O.G., Cinelli, M. and Quattrociocchi, W. (2024) ‘Patterns of linguistic simplification on social media platforms over time’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), e2412105121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2412105121.
Fleck, L. (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Translated by F. Bradley and T.J. Trenn. Edited by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Mønsted, B.M., Hövel, P. and Lehmann, S. (2019) ‘Accelerating dynamics of collective attention’, Nature Communications, 10, 1759. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09311-w.
Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Translated by J. Bednarz Jr. with D. Baecker. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J., Tsai, J.L. and Bernstein, M.S. (2025) ‘Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization’, Science, 390(6776), eadu5584. doi: 10.1126/science.adu5584.
Rushkoff, D. (2018) ‘Survival of the Richest’, Medium, 5 July. Available at: https://archive.rushkoff.com/articles/1094-survival-of-the-richest.html (Accessed: 11 October 2026).
Wallace, G. (2026a) ‘Bad Moon Rising: The Statistical Field of Power’, Daedelus Kite, 26 April. Available at: https://daedeluskite.com/2026/04/26/bad-moon-rising-the-statistical-field-of-power/ (Accessed: 11 October 2026).
Wallace, G. (2026b) ‘The Dice Do Not Need Loading: How Technology Steers What We Believe’, Daedelus Kite, 20 September. Available at: https://daedeluskite.com/2026/09/20/how-technology-steers-meaning/ (Accessed: 11 October 2026).
Wittgenstein, L. (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by C.K. Ogden. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., propositions 6.522 and 7. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5740 (Accessed: 11 October 2026).
