What I took away from Dr. Baron's lecture and Rubin Sztajer talk is that evil is a very slippery term to define. You know it when you see it, such as the actions of Hitler or Stalin, but the overarching meaning of evil is hard to pin down. For example good things, with the context stripped away, can seem evil. I thought it interesting that Dr. Baron used the method of defining the opposite of evil to come up with a definition of evil. To be good is to care for people, To be evil is to harm people. To be good is to have concern for others, to be evil is apathetic towards others humanity. To be good is to make decisions that helps everyone, to be evil is to act only in self interest. When we take these traits we can see how Hitler fit in so easily. Mr. Sztajer's account of the Holocaust really drives home the point. Hitler reveled in destroying the Jews. His propaganda constantly made them out as less than human. And why did he do it? To further his own agenda of the Master Race and the band the Germans against a visible easy enemy, as anti-Semitism was already popular in Europe.
I also think it worth mentioning what Mr. Sztajer said about evil. It is like a cancer that spreads. I see that in how even the other prisoners treated each other. Which so much dehumanization coming from the outside, even they begin to see each other as less than human. You see this in when they would come across another prisoner who had died, they just take their clothes if they are better, and move on. The outside pressure of evil causes them to act in their best interests.